Table Of Content

M issourl - VY BEST COPY AVAILABLE BLANK PAGE errr... & r ‘ y a Dratt General Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement August 1998 MISSOURI National Recreational River ¢ Nebraska/South Dakota United States Department of the Army ¢ Corps of Engincers United States Department of the Interior ¢ National Park Service DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER Cedar and Dixon Counties. Nebraska Yankton. Clay, and Union Counties, South Dakota This Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement presents three alternatives for the future of the Missours National Recreational River: a continuation of existing conditions (no-action) alternative, a resource protection/recreation (preterred) alternative emphasizing protection and enhancement of biologic Values and the history and culture of the area. and a recreational emphasis alternative. In both action alternatives. the Corps of Engineers (COE) and the National Park Service (NPS) would manage the area through a revised cooperative agreement. The Corps of Engineers would function as the day-to-day manager of the water-related resources, While the National Park Service would administer the land-related resources. The agencies would work together where their responsibilities overlapped Phe environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives were analyzed. The no-action alternative (alternative 1) would continue the current Cooperative agreement and would provide a baseline for comparison of the other aliernatives. Alternate 2 (the preterred alternative) would provide tor maintenance and restoratier of biologic Values and would seek to minimize the effects of the mainstem dams. It also would provide for management acuvilies that would emphasize the history and culture of the river and its surroundings. Alternative > would provide increased recreational emphasis on the river. Partnerships with local entities would be sought to provide services in all alternatives Phe boundary in alternatives 2 and 3 as the same. Tt ditters slightly from the existing boundary in alternative | for the recreational river. Some areas were deleted because they were not river related. Some historic sites and some new lands were added where the river has eroded a wider channel. All boundaries include important examples of the nver s outstandingly remarkable resources This document ts bering made available for public review and comment. Following a 66-day public review period, the dratt plan wall be revised and a tinal plan will be published that incorporates substantive comments received Subsequent to publishing the final plan. there will be a 30-day no-action period, followed by a record of Por additional information of to comment en this plan. contact Superintendent Niobrara /M issourt National Scenic Riverways PO Box SY! ONeill NE OS 763-059] phone: 402-336-3970 OR Chief. Environmental Analysis Branch, Planning Division LoS. Army Corps of Engineers 215 North 17th St Omaha. NE 68102-4978 phone. 402-221-4598 ~_ - (// SUMMARY This Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement presents and analyzes three alternatives for management of the Missoun National Recreational River. The three aliemnatives are a continuation of existing conditions (no action), a preferred alternative that emphasizes protection, restoration, and enhancement of biologic values and the history and culture of the area, and a recreational emphasis alternative. ALTERNATIVE 1: CONTINUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (NO ACTION) Description Under the no-action alternative current management practices would continue. The National Park Service would continue to manage the recreational nver, the Corps of Engineers would continue tts current management presence, and the 1980 General Design Memorandum would remain in effect. The cooperative agreement would continue to be followed for bank stabilization, land acquisition, and recreational facility development. The National Park Service and the Corps would continue to be responsible for developing management plans and submitting budget requirements. Ranching and farming would continue under the management of individual property owners, and existing residentia! and other private development areas would remain. Any new development would be built within the boundary. Land acquisition along the nver by counties and both states for recreational sites and access might continue. Administrative staff for the recreational river would continue to be in the Omaha District Office. Maintenance would remain the same, law entorcement would continue to be provided by state and local authorities, and the staffing needs would be minimal. Resource management would be carned out by the Corps of Engineers and the National Park Service. Natural resources would mostly be managed and protected by private property owners and state wildlife agencies. Preservation/protection of cultural resources would be guided by the Corps’ General Design Memorandum. The visitor experience would be limited generally to current activities and interpretation available on the nver. Current visitor activities would not be expected to change and recreational use within the recreational nver would remain primanily local, with the possible exception of Ponca State Park. Existing roads and public river access would be maintained, and development of new public nver access would likely occur slowly. Users would continue to be primarily local people. Controls over private and commercial development would be limited to federal floodplain restrictions and state and county restrictions. The boundary would remain the same as that described in the 1978 legislation. impacts Geologic features, mineral resources, fish and wildlife species (including threatened and endangered species), and air/water quality would not be affected. Land use without controls could affect streambanks and floodplains, and soil erosion could continue. Impacts on prime and unique farmland would gradually continue from riverbank erosion and from: landowners. Natural vegetation surface area and species composition would continue to decline. Fish and wildlife habitat loss could occur, but lV SUMMARY future modification of water release levels and seasonal timing might improve conditions for some species. There would be adverse impacts on streambanks even with some mitigation efforts. Most historic resources would continue to be protected, but impacts on cultural resources cannot be accurately predicted. Visitors would have limited Knowledge of what the recreational nver offers, and management of visitor use would continue. Continued trends could result in a loss of agricultural land to erosion and a loss of natural resources if mitigating Measures were not effective. Increased use and continued conversion of agricultural land to residential and other private development might have a net adverse impact on the county government through the demand for county services. ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) Description Under the preferred alternative the Corps of Engineers and the National Park Service would develop a revised cooperative agreement, with each having specific responsibilities (the NPS role would be somewhat larger than now). The primary emphasis would be maintenance or enhancement of natural and cultural resources, streambank protection, maintenance of scenic qualities as seen from the river, flow levels of visitor use, and public understanding of the area through interest group involvement. The rural scene would be maintained, intrusive development would be restricted, and maintenance of the landscape through local government and private means would be encouraged. Easements, zoning, and tax incentives would be used. COE and NPS managers could combine existing facilities if deemed efficient to do so. Maintenance would increase slightly from present levels because there would be few new visitor facilities. Two new boat ramps would be provided on the South Dakota side, and a bike trail would be provided on the Nebraska side. Local, state, and federal governments would have existing law enforcement responsibilities, and cooperative relations would be sought. The Corps would have minimal support stall Essential streambank erosion control might be allowed on a case-by-case basis, and purchase of rapidly eroding banks from willing seller might be considered. Natural resource management would act to restore Wildlife, instream habitat, and the natural function of the river. Under joint leadership of the Corps of Engineers and National Park Service, other agencies, local entities, and private owners would work together tor the protection, restoration, and enhancement of biologic values. A paimary emphasis would be on protection of species of special concern. Management activities would emphasize the history and culture of the nver and its surroundings. The visttor experience would emphasize the continuation of high-quality wildlife observation, hunting, fishing, and boating experiences. The interpretive theme emphasis would be on the Missour: River's natural systems. Development of new visitor or staff support facilities, including nver access, would not be extensive. State and local government actions to maintain the landscape outside the boundaries or to provide tour routes and overlooks would be encouraged through partnerships, technical assistance, and financial assistance. The boundary would be similar to that in the 1980 Manax. ment Plan and the 1980 General Design Memorandum. The National Park Service might identify historic and archeological sites that are not vl Summary contiguous to the niver. State and local government actions outside the boundanes would be encouraged through partnerships, technical assistance, and financial assistance. Impacts Geologic features, mineral resources, soils, air, noise, and water quality would not be affected. Prime and unique farmland would be retained. Fish and wildlife species would benefit, and there would be long-term beneficial impacts on vegetation as well. Threatened and endangered species would not be adversely affected. Floodplains and wetlands would not be affected except the construction of proposed boat ramps might cause insignificant impacts. Proposed programs and efforts would help prevent adverse cumulative impacts on cultura! resources; however .if additional funding and personnel were unavatlable to carry out proposals, resources might be adversely affected. Prehistonce resources would be protected, and ethnographic resources would benefit. Types and levels of recreational use would not change significantly. A small localized increase tn land- based visitor use would occur in the vicinity of the proposed bike trail. Boat ramp development would have location and construction constraints that should preclude impacting the least tem and piping plover. Localized increases in land-based recreational use could occur within the recreational river. Socioeconomic resources would generally benetit from the proposals. ALTERNATIVE 3 (RECREATIONAL EMPHASIS) Description Actions proposed under alternative 3 would essentially be the same as alternative 2. except that enhanced recreational opportunities would be provided for visitors under alternative 3. A revised cooperative agreement would be implemented as descnbed under alternative 2. Visitors use would be encouraged without destroying the special qualities of the nver. There would be increased, but dispersed, access points. Private and public recreation development would remain and future oppertunities for expansion would be sought. In addition to construction proposed under alternative 2, this alternative would also provide for construction of two to four primitive campgrounds. Interpretation of cultural resources would be important for resource protection as well as for visitor education and enjoyment. Some compatible private development such as campgrounds to accommodate «expanded visitor opportunities would be encouraged without adversely affecting significant natural or cultural resources. Maintenance and other administrative activities would increase because of additional facilities and increased visitation. The boundary under alternative 3 would be the same as descrnbed for alternative 2. Assistance on adjacent land outside the boundary would be the same as alternative 2. except that local entities would be encouraged to foster the development of tour routes and scenic overlooks along the nver. The National Park Service would work cooperatively with local governments to provide more sites for visitors to learn about the history of the nver and the region and might assist with planning of scenic roads, outside the boundary. vil Vi SUMMARY Impacts There would be no expected impacts on geologic processes or features, physiography, paleontological resources, mineral extraction activity, or pnme and unique farmland. Trends of declining native vegetation would probably be stabilized but active improvement of native vegetation from restoration projects would be less likely than from alternative 2. Wildlife and habitats would be protected, threatened and endangered species would not be adversely afiected, and wetland and floodplain protection would generally be improved. Air and water quality would not be affected. Although no impact is expected on noise, the national trend for an increase in the number of people using personal watercraft could increase. Cultural resources would benefit from greater interpretation and preservation information if staffing gy funding were available. Visitor use would increase because more recreational activities and interpretive programming would be offered. The proposed campgrounds, boat ramps, and bike trails would create an increase in land-based visitor use in the vicinity of such construction. Socioeconomic resources would generally benefit from proposed actions vil Vil CONTENTS Introduction Purpose of and Need for the Plan = 3 Context forthe Plan 4 Overview of the River 4 Legislative Background 9 Purpose of the River 10 Significance of the Recreational River 11 Desired Future Conditions 12 History of the Planning Project 13 Relationship with Other Projects 14 The Alternatives Alternative |: Continuation of Existing Conditions (No Action) 23 General Concept and Philosophy 23 Management 24 Resource Management 27 Visitor Use and Interpretation 29 Boundary 30 Assistance on Ad) cent Land Cutside the Boundary 30 Actions Common to Alternatives 2 and * = 33 General Concept and Philosophy 33 Management 33 Resource Management 38 Visitor Use and Interpretation 41 Boundary 43 Assistance on Adjacent Land Outside the Boundary 44 Alternative 2: Resource Protection/Recreation (Preferred Alternative) 47 General Concept and Philosophy 47 Management 47 Resource Management 50 Visitor Use and Interpretation 53 Alternative 3: Recreational Emphasis 55 General Concept and Philosophy 55 Management 55 Resource Management 57 Visitor Use and Interpretation 58 Assistance on Adjacent Land Outside the Boundary 60 Summary of Alternatives 61 VIN