Record of Decision, Missouri National Recreational River (59-Mile District)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

Record of Decision, Missouri National Recreational River (59-Mile

District)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Council on

Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1505.2) and implementing procedures of

the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)

for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 U.S.C. 1501 et

seq.), the NPS and COE have prepared this Record of Decision for the

general management plan and final environmental impact statement (GMP/

FEIS), Missouri National Recreational River (59-Mile District),

Nebraska and South Dakota. This Record of Decision describes the

recreational river management alternatives considered, mitigating

measures adopted to avoid or minimize environmental impacts, and the

reasoning behind the decisions reached.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Superintendent, Missouri National

Recreational River, P.O. Box 591, O'Neill, Nebraska 68763, 402-336-

3970; or Chief, Environmental and Economics Section, Planning Branch,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 215 North 17th Street, Omaha, Nebraska

68102, 402-221-4575.

Background Information:

Public Law 95-625 of November 10, 1978, amended section 3(a) of the

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 by designating a fifty-nine mile

reach of the Missouri River between the Gavins Point Dam, Nebraska-

South Dakota, and Ponca State Park, Nebraska, as a recreational river

in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The amending legislation

declared that this segment would be administered by the secretary of

the interior, acting through the National Park Service. Accordingly,

the segment is considered a unit of the national park system. The Act

also directed the secretary of the interior to enter into a written

cooperative agreement with the secretary of the army, acting through

the Corps of Engineers, for construction and maintenance of bank

stabilization work and appropriate recreational development. The NPS

and COE jointly produced the GMP/FEIS, updating previous management

plans and memoranda written respectively in 1980 by the Heritage

Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) and Corps of Engineers but

only partially implemented.

Decisions for Management and Boundary

The preferred alternative for the Missouri National Recreational

River (59-Mile District) is identified in the GMP/FEIS as Alternative

2. The preferred alternative provides for the maintenance and

restoration of biologic values within the reach and has the greatest

potential to protect and enhance the values for which the river was

designated, consistent with the general intent of the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act. It also provides for management activities that emphasize

the history and culture of the river and its surroundings. In this

preferred alternative, as well as in other alternatives, the NPS and

COE will manage the area through a cooperative agreement, with the NPS

generally administering land-related resources and the COE generally

managing water-related resources. The agencies will work together where

responsibilities overlap.

Among specific actions, the preferred alternative encourages the

maintenance of the rural scene while allowing development in ways

emphasizing the river's natural attributes. Land in fee or less-than-

fee title might be acquired to provide new river accesses or for

critical habitat preservation, but generally county zoning would be

encouraged as the principal landscape protection measure.

Although new visitor use facilities are not specifically included

in Alternative 2, the Resource and Education Center proposed by the

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission is consistent with the goals for the

recreational river. Scenic drives, overlooks, and river trails could be

also be developed or enhanced as opportunities allowed, and the safety

and appearance of extant access facilities would be enhanced.

Habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration would be

encouraged, with the NPS, COE, and other partners cooperating in

inventory and monitoring of river-related resources and enhancement of

biologic and cultural values. Floodplains and adjacent wetlands would

be protected to the greatest extent possible, and endangered and

threatened species would continue to be protected in all areas under

federal or state jurisdiction.

Additional riverbank stabilization authorized in the enabling

legislation will be undertaken as needed so long as all actions are in

full conformance with appropriate and required environmental compliance

laws, and a federal interest is established and funds are allocated for

such construction.

The boundary for the 59-Mile MNRR is described as commencing at the

downstream end of the Gavins Point Dam excavated discharge channel

(downstream boundary of the Lewis and Clark Project), 59 miles

downstream to, and inclusive of, Ponca State Park, and including the

river, its islands, and adjacent banks and hills reasonably

encompassing the natural and cultural resources of the unit. This

boundary is a revision from the 1978 determination by including areas

of active erosion and several large archaeological or cultural sites,

among them an archaeological site north of St. Helena, Nebraska, and

the Spirit Mound north of Vermillion, South Dakota, the latter

particularly added to facilitate the preservation of that nationally

significant Lewis and Clark landmark. The identified boundary excludes

portions of Clay County Park some distance from the river, and certain

distant croplands. The total acreage inside the revised boundary is

about 17,734.

Mitigating Measures

Alternative 2 proposes limited developments such as boat and canoe

accesses and trails consistent with the objectives of the unit. The

Alternative also would include additional bank stabilization consistent

with congressional authorization. Site-specific environmental

compliance would be done when and if such construction occurred. Some

increased use, some continued conversion of agricultural land to

residential and other private development, and land purchases by the

government may have adverse impacts on county government. Preservation

of the river environs in a more natural state may be viewed as a

beneficial effect of such impacts.

Other Management Alternatives Considered

Two other management alternatives were considered. The no-action

alternative (Alternative 1) would have continued actions prescribed in

HCRS's 1980 GMP and COE's 1980 General Design Memorandum and would have

generally perpetuated existing land use conditions with minimal

oversight and

[[Page 72360]]

condoned continued reactive rather than proactive federal involvement

in all matters of visitor use and development, resource management, and

interpretation. Alternative 1 served chiefly as a baseline for

comparing the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3. Alternative 3,

the so-called recreation emphasis alternative, would have shifted focus

to recreational enhancements and development at the potential

occasional expense of resource enhancement and management. Most

management actions prescribed therein were also present in alternative

2, but the recreational interests were more heavily weighted.

The boundary in Alternative 1 would have remained the same as

described in the 1978 legislation. The boundaries for Alternatives 2

and 3 were identical. Both boundaries include important examples of the

river's outstandingly remarkable values.

Public Review

More than 1,000 copies of the Draft GMP/EIS were mailed to federal,

state, tribal, and local officials, organizations, and individuals in

October 1998, commencing a 60-day public comment period that closed

December 16, 1998. Between November 12 and December 10 public meetings

were held in Hartington, Ponca, and Newcastle, Nebraska; and Vermillion

and Yankton, South Dakota. The Missouri River Bank Stabilization

Association was briefed on November 23, Nebraska Game and Parks

officials on November 24, the Cedar County Commission on December 8,

and Nebraska and South Dakota Congressional staff on December 9.

A total of 836 written comments were received during the public

review period, including 779 identical cards from the Sierra Club. A

majority of the comments came from Nebraska and South Dakota and

suggested attention be given to increased recreational opportunities

within the unit, increased protection of the Missouri River's natural

landscape, that additional river banks be stabilized, that the ``local

voice'' be heeded in management actions, and expressed concern over

perceived loss of landowner rights. Responses to these and other

questions were provided in the final EIS.

In October 1999 the Final GMP/EIS was printed and distributed to

more than 170 federal, state, tribal, and local officials, public

repositories in the project area, and to individuals providing written

comments. A thirty-day review period closed on November 15, 1999. In

the document the NPS and COE affirmed a preferred alternative and

boundary. During the closing review two responses were received,

including one from a correspondent whose letter received during the

sixty-day public review period was not printed in the final GMP/EIS as

it pertained wholly to issues on a separate Missouri River reach; and

from Representative Doug Bereuter of Nebraska's First Congressional

District, who particularly sought clarification on the matter of cost

sharing in project management. While cost sharing is a legislative

requirement in most COE projects, and while the NPS endorses the cost

share concept because it engenders broad support for projects, NPS does

not mandate cost sharing for its projects.

Selection of the Preferred Alternative

Alternatives two and three for management of the Missouri National

Recreational River were considered equally acceptable from an

environmental standpoint. The Preferred Alternative is selected because

it is considered the most effective alternative for protecting river

values and maintaining existing economic uses along the river

consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the 1978 amending

act. The selected alternative is not expected to have any significant

effects on natural or cultural values within the designated boundaries.

The selected Boundary is preferable environmentally, and is chosen for

that reason.

Dated: December 17, 1999.

William W. Schenk,

Regional Director , Midwest Region, National Park Service.

Dated: December 17, 1999.

Mark E. Tillotson,

Colonel, Corps of Engineers, District Engineer.

[FR Doc. 99-33447 Filed 12-23-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-70-P