[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72359-72360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33447]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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