More info on draft management plan
I have tried, at considerable peril, to digest a bit more of the NPS draft management plan for the Ozark National Scenic Riverways.
The three alternative proposals of course involve much more than the river management plan changes that were summarized in the links I provided above.
I realize that few people are going to be inclined to wade through this 500+ page document so I have tried to summarize key differences between the three alternative proposals. Most of this info is taken from Table 13 of the draft management plan, pp. 145-150, which can be accessed through this site: http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=158&projectID=15793&documentID=56208
Alternative "A" key points:
The percentage of land in the ONSR that would be zoned as either "natural" or "primitive" would total 95.4%.
60/40 horsepower engines would be prohibited throughout the ONSR on the Current and Jack's Fork (note that 60/40 hp engines are currently being tolerated on some stretches of the ONSR but they are against the letter of the law. It is unclear to me if and when the NPS would enforce the law if the "No Action" alternative is adopted).
The 6 existing designated campgrounds would be preserved, but as far as I can tell, no new campgrounds would be developed.
Some river access points open for concession floating would be closed and reconditioned and new ones might be opened, but the total number of access points for concession floating would decrease.
As many as 25 miles of new horseback riding trails would be developed, but there would be no new stream crossings for horseback trails.
Illegally developed roads would be closed. Vehicular access to all gravel bars would be eliminated. Gravel bar access would be walk-in or by boat only. Roads to primitive campsites would be removed. There would be no horse camping.
Alternative "B" ("favored" by the NPS) key points:
Percentage of ONSR lands zoned "natural" or "primitive" would totl 88.4%.
60/40 horsepower outboard motors would be allowed on some stretches of river (they are currently tolerated on some stretches of river but technically speaking, they are against the law).
There would be up to 20 new concession access points for float trips (while some existing concession access points might be closed) but the total number of concession access points would remain the same, or decrease.
There would be up to 35 miles of new horseback riding trails including new stream crossings.
A 25 campsite horse campground may be established (it is not clear to me where this would be).
Two new designated campgrounds may be provided, at Akers on the upper Current, and at Blue Spring on the upper Jack's Fork.
A "learning center" may be constructed at Powder Mill.
Roads to primitive campsites would be removed. The number of gravel bars accessible to vehicles would be "designated" and reduced from the existing number.
Alternative "C" key points:
The percentage of ONSR lands zoned as "natural" or "primitive" would total 34.7% (that's right, thirty four point seven percent). 59,6% if lands would be zoned for "resource-based recreation" and the remaining 5.2% zoned "developed".
60/40 horsepower outboard motors would be allowed on some sections of the rivers.
Up to 45 miles of new horseback riding trails may be developed including new stream crossings.
A 25 campsite horse campground may be established on the Jack's Fork River.
Two new designated campgrounds may be established at Akers (Current River) and Blue Spring (Jack's Fork River).
Existing vehicular access to gravel bar sites and overnight camping would continue to be allowed. Roads to primitive campsites would be removed and replaced with hiking trails.
"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 boat ramps and
trails for hiking and horseback riding"
(the last paragraph is taken verbatim from the draft management plan document).
Sorry for the length of this post, but believe me, it is better than trying to read the parent document.