SAVE the CURRENT/JACKS FORK RIVER - Mgm't Plan Input Time

[GutIt]

I thought I’d toss this one in here on another thread and not ‘jack the Buffalo Management thread.

But the NPS is asking for comments for the Current/Jacks Fork management plan in a similar manner as the Buffalo’s. Comment acceptance will close July 31, 2009 so there is not much time.

They have decided on different preliminary management alternatives and have them listed for perusal. You can choose one and add comments on how it could be improved and/or what you might/might not like about it. You can find these management alternatives here:

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cf ... ntId=27597

Scroll to the bottom and tap "Preliminary Alternatives Newsletter #3, Spring/Summer 2009" to see these alternatives.

You can then go here to submit your comments or just follow the appropriate links on the website.

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm ... ntId=27597

Of course I realize that the ACC is primarily an Arkansas entity and these rivers are in Missouri. But we can believe that what is good for the goose is going to be good for the gander. These wonderful places all come under national auspices anyway and just happen to be in our “backyards”.

Personally, I am sending basically the same comments to the National Scenics as I am to the Buffalo management plan and it takes very little time to tailor accordingly and bang it off to the respective destinations.

I would urge all of us to do the same or we may find that our beloved resources are unavailable to us in the way we would want them.

[lbaker]

Submitted my comments.
Thanks for bringing this one to the forum. I have a trip planned soon to visit the Current.

[Cowper]

Of course I realize that the ACC is primarily an Arkansas entity and these rivers are in Missouri.

Au contraire, mon ami! I think stuff like this is exactly why we need for organizations like the ACC, the ACA, American Whitewater, and others to exist, so that we can work together in an organized fashion on things of importance to us.

Also, your post helped me to better understand their standardized format for the Buffalo Plan. I went to that and walked away thinking "where's the meat, there is nothing here I can comment on." Now I realize that is just the standard format for their development; the Buffalo Plan really is more of a "blank sheet of paper" at this stage and now is when our comments will have the most impact, before things begin to set...

The Current / Jacks Fork plans are morre advanced, stage 3 of the 5 stages. As Terry pointed out, very important to make comments NOW...

I found the charts on page 19 (?) to be very helpful in sorting out what the plans really mean. "Alternative A" is the one that would result in the most restrictions on motor boats, closing much of the river to them and limiting horsepower more when they are allowed. Since motorboats make the river more accessible to those with limited physical capabilities, make your own decision on whether that is good or bad, but, once you've decided make your comments on this and other topics (including TP) known!

[GutIt]

Au contraire, mon ami! I think stuff like this is exactly why we need for organizations like the ACC, the ACA, American Whitewater, and others to exist, so that we can work together in an organized fashion on things of importance to us.

Well, my Portuguese is a little rusty, but that is the exact response I had hoped for from the majority on here when I said that! Well said Cowper.

Should have known you would rise to the occasion if I kind of put it in “challenge form”!

But just so I am not taken completely out of context here I did also say:

These wonderful places all come under national auspices anyway and just happen to be in our “backyards”.

But I think you said it best when you said:

...once you've decided make your comments on this and other topics (including TP) known!

We have a voice. Let's use it!

[GutIt]

On 7/7/09 a meeting concerning the Current/Jacks Fork Rivers management plan was convened in Springfield, MO. From what I could tell, it was kind of an impromptu unscheduled meeting called by a local (Springfieldian) concerned citizen. Since I am at work, I was unable to attend, though I did find out about it in time. Some good friends of mine (yes, I know it’s hard to believe I have any, but just work with me on this one!) and consummate boaters/environmentalists made the scene and they let me know how it went. By permission of the originator, here are some excerpts of one of the emails I received.

“The meeting was very interesting if one were to watch the dynamics. It was called by a local citizen (I am terrible with names). A member of the park service and a very involved lay person showed up as our speakers. The lay person's name was Angel (don't remember her last name). They showed a very interesting movie which essentially discussed the history of the creation of the park and then what has happened since then. It talked about many violations of the law that created the park. Examples included extended easements, excessive access points, violations of building codes, etc.

After the movie, each speaker did a brief summary of why they were there. Alisa (NPS) stated that the NPS is looking for input on the management of the park for the next 10-15 years. They want input from those that use the park. She was new to this park and in place for 2 years. Angel said she just wanted to save the river.

Very quickly the questions came up on how the park got in such bad shape [by] violating the original law due to political pressure. Alisa…said she couldn't discuss that. Angel stated (and defended her [Alisa] on many occasions) “she is not allowed to say, but I can”....then she went on to discuss the [alleged problems in the] political structure in Shannon County [contributing to the Park’s disarray], and finally their congresswoman that is [allegedly] largely funded by the equestrian industry.

Alisa played the part very professionally, but it was obvious that her hands were tied at many turns in the conversation as to what she was and was not allowed to say. Angel was very compelling and was very well versed on the problems and the local politics. Angel did emphasize that one issue is that while talking to some locals (she is becoming a "local" herself after living there 20+ years) it is obvious that they want to do the right thing, however, other "locals" are spreading miss information regarding the process. Such as..."they want to fence off the park and only allow access to a few number of people"..etc.

As a whole, the group in Springfield seemed to support restriction of motorized vehicles [and watercraft] and horses in the waterways, but all agreed that they need some place to go....(not necessarily in that park). In the end, they encouraged us to submit comments. They did emphasize that you did not have to select plan A, B or C but could write in favorite parts of each, additional ideas, etc.

I think good comments were made, but in all honesty, I am not sure the local politics will not ultimately win. I hope not. I do wish more public announcements were made to ensure the public realizes what is at stake. Of note....comments were not taken at the meeting. Comments were made, but nothing recorded.”

Here is a link to the movie that was shown at that meeting and the page also has some good comments and reasons we should all get involved in this one.

http://www.moenviron.org/onsr2009.asp

One of the reasons I originally brought this issue to the ACC Message Board is because the ACC is the largest organized concentration of boaters in our entire region. This issue affects all of us as boaters and I feel that we, as boaters, need to make our wishes known. One thing is for sure, the other special interest groups are going to. Please try to take the time to review these plans and let your comments be known to the NPS.

Time is running out for our responses.

[GutIt]

The following is from an email I received asking me to pass this along so I am going to post it here for your perusal if I got this upload thing right! The attachments open on my machine when I am logged out. I hope everyone can see them! Someone let me know of they don't open for you and I'll try again or take them down.

They seem pretty much self-explanatory to me. Pretty interesting stuff!

Subject: Campaign to save the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers -- Again!


Dear Friend of the Riverways:

Friends of Ozark Riverways is writing to you because you have a special opportunity over the coming days to influence how the Current and Jacks Fork rivers will be managed for the next twenty years. The National Park Service is now engaged in a process that will produce a new general management plan for Ozark National Scenic Riverways. We are currently in the public comment period. This period runs through July 31st. We urge you to participate in this comment period. Please review our 2-page Synopsis attached.This piece stands on its own and provides all the information you may need to prepare comments. The 18-page document contains the comments that were submitted to the National Park Service earlier this month by Friends of Ozark Riverways. It contains extended discussion of the policies we recommended and additional background information on the process that the National Park Service is currently engaged in.

At five public information meetings held on June 22-26, the National Park Service presented three alternative plans (A, B, & C). On July 11th the park superintendent told a gatering in Kansas City that the Park Service was not committed to these particular alternatives. They were offered to help stimulate public discussion, questions, and comment. It is my impression that the Park Service is prepared to consider any serious alternative that is offered. Friends of Ozark Riverways has found alternatives A, B, and C to be complex, vague, and confusing. It is not necessary for you to comment on them.

Jerry Sugerman, Project Coordinator
for Friends of Ozark Riverways

2-page Synopsis of Actions Needed on Ozark National Scenic Riverways[1].pdf

(103.42 KiB) Downloaded 67 times

18-page Extended Discussion of ONSR Issues & Recommended Policies[1].pdf

(2.79 MiB) Downloaded 49 times