While National Park Service personnel are trying to craft a long-term management plan for Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Missouri's lieutenant government is making a pitch for the state to "reclaim this resource."
The planning efforts have unleashed a battle in Missouri, where some believe the Park Service's draft preferred alternative would greatly restrict access to the Jack Fork and Current rivers that are at the heart of the riverways.
As the Traveler reported last month, a freshman congressman from Missouri's 8th District maintains that the park's approach would convert "the vast majority of the park to a natural area where evidence of human use is minimal." From his perspective, U.S. Rep. Jason Smith maintains the preferred alternative would be devastating to area economies and continue what he sees as efforts by the Park Service to limit access to the forests and rivers within the National Riverways.
Now Missouri's lieutenant governor, Peter Kinder, has penned an op-ed calling for the Show-Me State to show it can better take care of the riverways than the federal government.
"Under the supposed benevolent care of the federal government, Ozark National Riverways is threatened. The solution should not be to give that same federal government more authority and power over the area’s management," he wrote. "Doing so not only will restrict Missourians and visitors from enjoying time on the Jacks Fork and Current, but will hurt many small businesses in southern Missouri that depend on tourism and recreation dollars. The last thing this region needs is more overbearing management by bureaucrats in Washington.
"The creation and management of parks is clearly a responsibility that Missouri handles well. There is no reason to believe it would be any different with a state-managed Ozark Scenic Riverways. It’s time for Missouri to begin efforts to reclaim this resource from the federal government."
Supporters of the park's planning efforts say the structure of the preferred alternative in the draft General Management Plan is long overdue and necessary to prevent further degradation of the 134 miles of the Jacks Fork and Current rivers that course through the rumpled, cave-studded, spring-gushing countryside of southern Missouri's Ozark Mountains.
Over the years park officials have grappled with their mandate to preserve and protect the rivers. Rowdy boaters, drunken behavior, camping illegally on gravel bars, and the preponderance of unauthorized trails woven into the parkscape -- 65 miles of unauthorized horse trails, for example -- have challenged the staff. Indeed, a root of the uproar over the draft management plan that is now open for public comment can be traced to how the Park Service has managed, or in some views mismanaged, the National Riverways that was authorized in 1964 and officially dedicated in 1972.
"Frankly, enforcement has been the biggest problem over the past 30 years," said Lynn McClure, who as director of the National Parks Conservation Association's Midwest Office is studying the draft GMP and preparing comments on it. “It’s not an easy park to patrol. No. 1, it’s got a lot of linear miles to it on two sides of a river. You multiply that park boundary one way by two. It’s not easy to patrol.
"What’s happened I think over the last 30 years, the norm has become something that really wasn’t allowed at the park, in terms of what size of a boat you’re supposed to run on the river, in terms of pulling vehicles, cars, trucks, whatever into the middle of the river, onto the gravel bars and just parking," Ms. McClure said last week while discussing the draft document. "There are gravel bars where vehicle use or truck use is allowed, but it’s just become more common to just pull the truck out into the river."
From his office, Lt. Gov. Kinder has acknowledged that "rowdy behavior along the rivers, illegal camping and unauthorized trails have threatened the pristine area." At the same time, he doesn't believe the Park Service has the proper solution to controlling that behavior.
"The federal government's solution, at the urging of environmentalists, is to restrict access to the water and the abutting lands," he maintained.
Details of the draft management plan can be found on this page. Comments are being taken through February 7, and you can leave them on that page, too.
Comments
Lee, I found the The George Wright Society post very informative. From my own limited knowledge, the issues surrounding the creation of many of our National Park areas entail much of the same resentment by some local citizens documented here. The fact is this continues today even for our oldest parks, including Yosemite. The Wild and Scenic River Management for Yosemite has been tied up in litigation for over 15 years, the good news is it appears to be resolved, of course there will be something in the "Record of Decision" forthcoming for everyone to like and dislike. It is a reality, locals who have been using the area the same way for 50 years or more, well the new restraints simply are not liked. Much of this resentment is due to a lack of knowledge as to why the restraints are needed. However it does work, it takes a generation and it takes a committed educational outreach effort by the agency. It will not satisfy all, but it will ensure the success of the area management plan to some extent.
One example was the the wilderness trailhead quota system for Yosemite and for the matter the Central Sierra. Having been part of that effort, we took 5 years to educate the visitors to the fact this was needed. The first two years were just educational, the 3rd, permits issued, no restrictions, the 4th year, permits required, but no citations. The fifth year, permits required or citation possible, there are always some extenuating circumstances. It is hard to believe, but in that 5th year we issued less than a dozen tickets for failure to have a permit. For some of thereal old time locals, we actually hand delivered the permits at the trailhead, maybe a half a dozen or so. Change is difficult, no matter the issue. The credit goes to the managers that were committed to the system and phased it in so that citizens could get educated to the need for it.
As the "George Wright" article points out, this area has not made that effort, or if it has, the local politics have made it extremely difficult. I have witnessed this myself in other NPS areas I have worked. The author has done an excellent job , the need for an approved plan and the funding to implement it is well documented. It is heartening to know that the ecolgical values of this area are recognized nation wide and something finally appears to be taking place. Thank you "Traveler" for bringing this to our attention and allowing for the discussion.
Kinder: "The creation and management of parks is clearly a responsibility that Missouri handles well. There is no reason to believe it would be any different with a state-managed Ozark Scenic Riverways."
Kansas City Star: "Park supporters estimate Missouri’s park repair needs at about $400 million."
“It has reached a point where Band-Aids and baling wire are just not quite enough,” said Steve Nagle, Missouri Parks Association president.
"The group pointed to federal data showing that the states had an $18.5 billion wish list for outdoor recreational facilities for which there is no money, including $523 million in Kansas and $2 billion in Missouri."
"But even in a state that receives sales tax money dedicated for parks, there’s worry that Missouri is falling behind on its maintenance.The state provided a list showing about $28 million in deferred building maintenance. Officials acknowledged it did not include other types of park infrastructure such as roads and sewers. The Missouri Parks Association said it has figures from the state showing the backlog at about $400 million. Nagle attributed the money shortage to the state pulling its general tax funding after the introduction of a sales tax for parks in the mid-1980s."
Missouri State Parks comprise about 200,000 acres. ONSR is about 80,000 acres. If Missouri's "well managed" parks increase by about 1/3 in size with no additional funding, I can't imagine the condition the parks will be in within two years.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/06/30/4322935/state-parks-fall-victim-to-...
Two excellent posts by Ron and Dahkota. Thank you both. I'll get cracking on reading that George Wright article in a while -- if the terminal sore throat I have doesn't get me first.
Dahkota,
Those "wish lists" are just that wishes. They don't bear any resemblence to real shortfalls in maintneance. As jim has already noted, the Missouri parks are considered to be "well managed".
So you missed the part about $400 million in maintenance needs?
The wishlist is $2 billion.
ec - since you quoted me, my actual comment was "My personal knowledge about Missouri's state parks and recreation areas is very limited, but from what I can infer from limited browsing on-line, they seem to be well-managed."
The context of my quote about state park management was in terms of dealing with concerns such as "rowdy behavior along the rivers, illegal camping and unauthorized trails [which] have threatened the pristine area." The challenges in handling such problems in a small state park are vastly different than dealing with similar issues in a much larger area such as Ozark Riverways.
As to "wish lists" for maintenance needs, that term doesn't mean items included aren't valid projects; some, such as repairs and upgrades to electrical and water systems, are clearly more essential than others. An alternative view to yours is that such lists are sometimes described as "wishes" because the reality is that funds for many such projects are unlikely to be provided anytime soon, if at all.
I haven't examined such lists in detail, so I can't say if items on the list for Missouri State Parks "don't bear any resemblance to real shortfalls in maintenance." Perhaps you'd like to offer some examples.
In my opinion, the solution relies with restrictions to enable preserving and protecting the rivers, while controlling the unwanted behavior of drunkenness, rowdy boaters, etc...the State threatens to take back the property only to make sure the restrictions by the NPS are not so severe to lower the tourism dollars and possibly to get them to do a better job of some enforcement. The State does not have the money to buy back the land and make it better. They are hoping the squeeky wheel gets what it needs without too severe restrictions. Just my opinion as I see it. I lived in Missouri in from 1980-1991 and at least back then they had very nice State parks but also had very nice (federal) Corps of Engineer campgrounds and parks.
From Missouriparks.org:
The steep downturn in sales tax revenues as a result of the recent economic crisis resulted in a decline of over $4 million, while expenses continued to grow. This necessitated extreme belt tightening – more than 120 staff positions (20 percent of the total) eliminated in 2009, days and hours of operation reduced, more expenses deferred – while striving to maintain an adequate level of public service. Funds for infrastructure repair and rehabilitation are obviously even more constrained, leading the backlog to grow more rapidly and the eventual cost of repairs to increase.
WHAT ARE THE NEEDS?
The $400 million capital improvements backlog consists of vitally needed infrastructure repair and rehabilitation.The park system has 56 park-
owned water systems and 96 sewer systems, each of which is the equivalent of that for a small city, but unlike most municipal systems our parks have not been deemed eligible for major federal matching funds. There are 40 dams, 300 miles of roads, 95 bridges, and over 1,000 miles of trails to maintain, not including the Katy Trail, which adds another 236 miles of trail, 472 bridges, nearly 900 culverts, and 58 structures. Recreational facilities include more than 3,700 campsites, as well as
marinas, boat launches, swimming pools and shelters. Educational exhibits throughout the system, both outdoor and indoor, are in need of repair or updating. The system also must maintain 2,043 structures, 700 of which are historic, including fourteen CCC-era group camps with sleeping facilities for more than 1,250 and 316 other cabin or motel lodging units. It is worth noting that the state park system contains 56 percent of the 3,657 buildings under the jurisdiction of the state Office
of Administration.
Not included in the $400 million backlog is any funding for acquisition of new parks or acreage. The pressing need at this time is to take care of the existing park system.