[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