How big of an outboard engine is too big for Ozark National Scenic Riverways/NPS file

There are relatively few rivers and streams across the country designated as either "national," "wild and scenic," or "recreational," and so it seems to reason they should be held to a higher environmental standard than their peers. But when you look at those rivers, you'll see a range of regulations when it comes to how big of an engine can be placed on a boat plying its waters.

In some cases there are no limits, and in at least one no gas engines are permitted, although small (10 HP) motors are allowed on one small stretch.

What got me thinking about these regulations is the current proposal to refine limits on the horsepower boaters can use in Ozark National Scenic Riverways in Missouri, a park that dates to 1964 when it was established to protect not one river, but two, and their surrounding landscapes. 

One proposed change would allow the use of the 60/40 HP jet propulsion systems on the 134 miles of the Current and Jacks Fork rivers in the park. "Under existing regulations for motorized vessels within Ozark National Scenic Riverways, the 60/40 HP motors are not legal because they exceed 40 HP at the powerhead," a park release said. "The rule would allow the use of these motors and clarify HP limits at the powerhead for both motors with jet propulsion units and motors with propellers, which produce differing horsepower outputs."

Additionally, the Park Service is proposing "a 150 HP limit for motors equipped with jet propulsion and 105 HP limit for motors with a propeller on the Current River between Big Spring and the southern boundary of the park. These limits were proposed to address visitor concerns about safety, degradation of experience and increasing boat sizes resulting from no limits on boat motor size."

Those are no small engines for rivers the Park Service says were added to the National Park System "[F]or the purpose of conserving and interpreting unique scenic and other natural values and objects of historic interest, including preservation of portions of the Current River and Jacks Fork River in Missouri as free-flowing streams, preservation of springs and caves, management of wildlife, and provisions for the use and enjoyment of the outdoor recreation resources." 

Look at the park's "foundation document" and the purpose for its existence seems clear: 

The purpose of Ozark National Scenic Riverways is to:

• preserve and protect in an unimpaired condition the unique scenic and natural values, processes, and unspoiled setting derived from the clean, free-flowing Current and Jacks Fork Rivers, springs, caves, and their karst origins 
• provide for and promote opportunities for the scientific and public understanding of the natural and cultural resources 
• offer opportunities for understanding and appreciating the human experience associated with the Ozark Highlands landscape
• provide for uses and enjoyment of the outdoor recreation opportunities consistent with the preservation of the park unit’s resources

Certainly, boats with 150 HP (or even 105 HP) could pull inner tubes with riders or even water skiers, let alone simply roar up and down those national scenic riverways, which begs the question of whether they are "consistent with the preservation of the park unit's resources."

Not surprisingly, the proposals have generated quite an outpouring of comments at regulations.gov.

"I've enjoyed the scenic rivers in southern Missouri for years, and I believe a limit, if not an outright ban on motorized boats would be in the best interest of the pubic and the river's themselves," wrote Scott Lane in his comment. "I enjoy the quietness that I experience when kayaking, which is often interrupted by motorized boats. For years, the Current and Jack's Fork rivers have become 'party rivers,' and only enjoyable many times only during the week. Motorized boats seem to only contribute to the increasing lack of tranquility found on the rivers today, plus they would contribute to air and water pollution. Please kept these valuable rivers scenic as long as possible."

Justin Stringer wrote that, "[O]zark National Scenic Riverways should be protected from motorized vessels to not only enhance safety, but also to preserve the natural environment. These waterways should be protected just as the Wilderness areas and National Parks are protected, like our forefathers planned. As a supporter of both motorized and non-motorized vessels on the water, each have their place, and motorized vessels do not belong on the Ozark National Scenic Riverways."

"I am in favor of these regulations. I have paddled both the upper Current and the upper Jack's Fork many times and have encountered motorized water craft numerous times. It is a constant disruption to the peace and solitude of my experience," said Lisa Jacobsen. "As these rivers are a known habitat for the endangered Hellbender Salamander, I would prefer to see a complete ban on motorized watercraft all year round all the way to Two Rivers. Noise pollution and the damage caused by waves on the shore must be taken into account."

K. Miller, though, voiced strong opposition to the proposals.

"There are very few navigable rivers by boat in lower half of Missouri that aren't muddy and/or polluted. There are far more miles of Missouri streams and rivers that can be used by canoes/kayaks that cannot be used by boats," wrote Miller. "If a river can be navigated by a boat, then I and every other Missouri resident should be able to do so. The vast majority of river boaters are honest and ethical people. I do not see why there needs to be a HP limit on any river that is deep enough for a boat to use. I have a 200hp motor on my boat. As most boaters do, I stop at a tight turn until I've confirmed there is no boat/kayak/canoe/raft coming the opposite direction. As most boaters do, I slow to No Wake speed when passing other water craft."

There are dozens more comments. You can sift through them here.

To get another perspective on the proposals, I looked at other rivers in the National Park System that are designated either as "national," "wild and scenic," or "recreational." What I found is there is no uniformity when it comes to setting horsepower limits.

• At the Wolf National Scenic Riverway in Wisconsin, “[M]otorboats usually are prohibited in Scenic Rivers; however, they may be permitted within certain segments where their use already is well established or where their use may be considered necessary for enjoyment of scenic values." Across the state at St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, I was surprised to learn there are no limits on a boat's horsepower.
• New River National Park and Preserve in West Virginia is somewhat cryptic on horsepower regulations, saying on its website only that "[T]he Superintendent has not established any additional vessel restrictions outside of NPS, USCG, and WV State boating regulations."
• On the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River in Texas, "[M]otorized watercraft is limited to conventional boats with up to 60 horsepower inboard or outboard motors. Gas-powered motorized watercraft are prohibited in Santa Elena Canyon (from western park boundary to Santa Elena Canyon take-out), and Boquillas Canyon (from entrance of Boquillas Canyon to eastern park boundary). Except for October, Mariscal Canyon (from Talley to Solis), is off-limits to motorized watercraft. Jet skis are prohibited."
• In Tennessee, the Obed Wild and Scenic River generally bans motorboats, except for craft using electric motors on "the section of the Emory River which has been designated as 'recreational' and which extends downstream from the confluence of the Obed and Emory rivers to Nemo Bridge." The reason for the ban against other motorboats, the Park Service at Obed notes, is that "[G]asoline and other non-electric powered motors have the potential to leak gas, oil and other harmful substances into the park’s streams and are incompatible with the park’s mission to protect the park’s resources and to preserve water quality."
• In Arkansas at the Buffalo National River, motors up to 10 HP are allowed on vessels upriver to Erbie Boat Launch.
• On the Snake River Headwaters Wild and Scenic River in Wyoming, which encompasses some streams in Grand Teton National Park, "351 miles of the total 410 miles (86%) of designated wild and scenic rivers within the entire Snake River Headwaters" ban motorized watercraft.

Should there be uniformity in how these waters in the park system are managed and protected? Environmentally, an argument can be made to ban motors, gas or electric, in park system rivers in a bid to eliminate oil and gas spills and reduce if not eliminate the introduction of nonnative quagga and zebra mussels that have made such a mess of lakes Powell and Mead in the Southwest.

I'm also not sure Miller's argument above stands up. According to rivers.gov, there are nearly 52,000 miles of river in Missouri, although the U.S. Forest Service notes in its management plan for the Eleven Point River that there are 2,200 miles of "floatable" waters. Of those totals -- either the 52,000 figure or the 2,200 one -- just 44.4 miles are designated as wild and scenic, and all are found within the Eleven Point River. And even there motors are allowed, albeit with a 25 HP limit.

There also is no shortage of lakes in Missouri for powerboaters. Lake of the Ozarks cover 55,000 acres, Truman Lake is larger, at 55,406 acres, and  Table Rock Lake covers more than 43,000 acres, just to name three.

As the country's thirst for outdoor recreation grows, rivers and lakes are becoming unquestionably crowded in places. Against that landscape and reality, it would be good for the National Park Service to re-evaluate how it manages recreational, wild, scenic, and even national rivers and come up with uniform guidelines. Those enforced at Obed sound like a good model to work with.

At the same time, limits on how many canoes and kayaks can be on a particular stretch of river at one time shouldn't be ignored, either. 

In his comment on the Ozark proposal, Bruce Clayton pointed to a letter about the proposed regulations in the Joplin, Missouri, newspaper: "A place where a canoeist could float for several days, enjoying a wilderness experience — the Park Service should identify a long stretch of river where a multi-day wilderness float is possible, offering solitude and few interruptions for those willing to make the trip. That means closing accesses and banning motors in that section." 

Clayton then noted that: "Anyone who has ever been on the Current knows that 1,500 canoes on any given day loaded with drunks, people littering, using foul language & even not wearing clothes hardly can be defined as 'a float offering solitude & few interruptions."

While Clayton might be resorting a bit to hyperbole, maybe not. After all, it was back in 2009 when Park Service managers at the Niobrara National Scenic River in Nebraska had to remind their paddlers not to bring Mardi Gras beads, dry ice, Styrofoam, and containers, such as Pony kegs, that hold more than 1 gallon of your favorite alcoholic beverage, with them. You can read the superintendent's rationale in this story from the Traveler's archives.

More regulations are seldom relished, but when it comes to having a healthier environment and a more enjoyable experience, they shouldn't be dismissed without sound consideration.