Okay. I have some sobering news that should get you even more motivated to attend. Reports from the similar Wednesday night “hearing” on the east coast (the Savannas Preserve State Park) suggests a process that doesn’t allow group discussion. After a half-hour introductory period of milling about they get everyone to sit down and listen to a presentation and then those in attendance are directed to various stations where park employees or hired consultants (who may or may not know much about the plan) field comments or questions without making any notes or record of the proceedings. Instead of a real hearing where people get to hear others insights and concerns, the process is carefully controlled to make sure no one there gets to learn about others’ concerns. So it has been suggested that around six or 6:15 we simply form our own group to discuss our concerns about the plan. Then there is their official comment form, which conveniently fails to solicit public opinion on the known controversies. [We’ll supply our own “Citizen’s comment forms” that will enable participants to weigh in on some of the more problematic aspects of the plan.] There will be a court reporter there to take comments –so please feel free to delve into any areas of concern. Here are some other suggestions that might help get our points across: In addition to commenting on the Unit Management Plan, feel free to comment on the shortcomings of the public process – how you are pleased or disappointed with the proceedings. Obtain the cards of Tallahassee staff and the hired consultants running the meeting, to signal that their performance will be noted. (But don’t give Park employees a hard time – they are required to be there and it is not their plan.) Be respectful but assertive about your concerns. Request detailed answers to your specific questions to see if the representatives are actually familiar with the proposed plan. If interviewed by the press be sure to tell them if DEP made it difficult to communicate or participate. If Thursday’s meeting is like the one on the east coast, you might write on your comment forms: “What is DEP fearing? – this is not a hearing!”   Here again are the particulars, which will be followed by some possible talking points for your consideration. The basics - you are needed starting at 5:00 pm on Thursday March 2nd at the Suncoast Community Church, which is 2.5 miles east of the Interstate on Highway 72 at 8000 Hawkins Road. DEP presentation starts at 5:30. If you can’t get there at 5:00, show up any time before 7:00 pm. And forward this email to your friends. Please come up an introduce yourself –(I’ll be wearing a shirt with cabbage palms). I look forward to meeting all supporters of Myakka River State Park. Jono Miller (feel free to email me as well: jonocampaign@gmail.com) There will copies of the following Talking Points and Pointed Questions at the event. UMP Content (Page 1)The current designation of the Park states At Myakka River State Park, public outdoor recreation and conservation is the designated single use of the property. The new draft would change that to read: Myakka River State Park is designated single-use in accordance with 253.034(2)a F.S. to provide public outdoor recreation and other park-related uses. Why the change from recreation and conservation to recreation and other park-related uses? What are the implications? UMP Content (Page 7) ” For this park, it was determined  that timber harvesting, fuel and stump harvesting, and palm or palmetto frond harvesting could be accommodated in a manner that would be compatible and not interfere with the primary purpose of resource-based outdoor recreation and conservation.” Who determined this based on what data? Most of the stumps and pines are too scattered to attract bidders. And the remaining pines that might yield actually some money won’t do so for another decade. And there is no management goal addressed by harvesting palm fronds. All this “harvesting” language needs to go away. UMP Content (Page 30) Draft UMP proposes allowing 6% coverage of invasive species in globally imperiled dry prairie habitat. That could be as much as 847 acres! Current "coverage" is less than a combined 5 acres. Why backslide and how was this number reached? UMP Content (Page 121) Building a new interpretative center at the Upper Myakka Lake concession area which is frequently a parking nightmare. The proposed strategy to solve clogged parking at the Upper Lake is a massive new parking area near the entrance and a shuttle system to take visitors to the Upper Lake Concession Area. No tram system is shown in the Implementation Schedue spreadsheet. To make matters worse, in order to utilize this area it would need to be brought up to the same height of the drive/parking area. Water stands after each rainfall in summer months and when the river is out of its banks but not overtopping the drive. Fill would kill oaks in the area and there is certainly not enough room for more pavilions and a visitor center (structures that would necessitate removing more of the oak hammock). UMP Content (Pages 121) More visitors. UMP calls for increasing recreational carrying capacity by 660 users per day. Since the current daily average is around 1,000, this would be a major increase with no comparable increase in staffing. What is driving this and does it make any sense? UMP Content (Pages 125, 126) Proposing a new Eco-Lodge and Conference Center intruding into the Wilderness Area with no business plan (and shown as a $4 million dollar project).You have the same situation in the youth area/STOP Camp as in the Lake Picnic Area. This is a low-lying area of very small size that becomes inundated after summer rains and water stands off and on for as much as 3 months. This project iwould obviously impact the State Wilderness Area and there is no pro forma analysis to even begin to analyze whether this makes any sense. Would it make money? Crash and burn? UMP Content (Page 90) 30 miles of new or wider fire lines? A rototiller should be used in the roadways in lieu of a harrow along side the roadways to avoid loosening sands and, the burn zones mowed or chopped on their boundaries to permit rapid burns and reduction of hedge effect. The Park used to do burns in excess of 2000 acres with a crew of only 4-6 but now an army of staff is required by the FPS! UMP Content The only proposals for increasing park revenue are from sale of the public’s natural resources. DRP appears to have gone to some effort to comply with the multiple use requirement in Chapter 253. 034 when it comes to the potential revenue that may be gained from extractive, consumptive uses, but failed to undertake comparable analysis identifying the revenue increasing potential of new non-consumptive recreational activities. The various ways the Park can make money by losing natural resources probably should have been balanced by ways the park can make money through recreational opportunity based on protecting and interpreting natural resources. UMP Content (Pages 128-130) Optimum boundaries that include lands already otherwise protected through conservation easement, including the O-Bar-O Ranch and roughly half the land north of the park “Panhandle”. Why aren’t other contiguous areas of native habitat included? Public Process: No “scoping” with local stakeholders before undertaking UMP update. DEP staff takes at leastthree years to draft and gives the local public 15 days before the meeting to evaluate 249 pages. Proper planning should start withstakeholders, not end with the stakeholders. Public Process: Although advertised as a hearing, the Thursday evening event is really an “Open House” that prevents citizens from hearing everyone else’s ideas. Missing UMP Content: No transparency on how a park carrying capacity of 4,002 users per day was generated. Show your work. Who is driving the demand to increase visitation by over 50%? Missing UMP Content: No trend analysis of historic park data. How can we plan for the next ten years if we have no data on what has happened for the past ten years? This includes no analysis of needed park staffing levels. The park had the same employee FTE (Full Time Equivalents) in 2013 as it did in 2004, even though attendance doubled from 260,000 to 520,000. That's not sustainable (even fewer FTEs now). Table 7 (Page 1 of 5) shows $16,000 over ten years for administrative support, but there is no increase shown in park staff. Missing UMP Content: No guidelines regarding aesthetic experience for visitors on Park Drive or paddling on the Wild & Scenic River. More than 13 miles of the State-designated Wild and Scenic River flow through the Park, but there are no aspirational goals for the paddling user experience or acknowledgement of the river values listed in the adopted management plan. Instead a variety of new facilities visible from the River are being proposed: Upper Myakka Lake Viewing Platform, vessel launch area (for staff) in the Wilderness Area, & pedestrian boardwalks. And what about that hideous dumpster in plain view of the river at the Upper Lake? (see Photo) Let's have fun and make it clear not to mess with my akka.