Table Of ContentFinal
General Management Plan
Environmental Impact Statement
7^^^^^^$^*^-^
:
&*S8r.
v;v
Missouri /Niobrara/
Verdigre Creek
National Recreational Rivers
Nebraska • South Dakota
Ciy Printed on recycled paper
General Management Plan
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Missouri / Niobrara/ Verdigre Creek
National Recreational Rivers
Gregory, Charles Mix, and Bon Homme Counties, South Dakota
Knox and Boyd Counties, Nebraska
TheMissouriNationalRecreationalRiver, Niobrara National Recreational River, and the Verdigre Creek
National Recreational River were added to the national wild and scenic rivers system by the Niobrara
Scenic RiverDesignationAct, whichwaspassedbyCongress onMay 24, 1991. As the riveradministrator,
the National ParkService (NPS) has prepared this General Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact
Statement (GMP/FEIS). Federal, state, or local agencies with special expertise orjurisdiction served as
cooperating agencies and planning team members. The legislation also authorized the establishment of
theMissouriNational RecreationalRiverAdvisoryGroup toadvise thesecretary forthisplan. This group
will continue in a consulting role with the National Park Service until the year 2001.
In 1991 the 39 miles of the Missouri River between Fort Randall Dam and Lewis and Clark Lake was
designated as a recreational river. The lower 20 miles of the Niobrara River and the lower 8 miles of
Verdigre Creekwere included. The59-mile segmentofthe Missouri Riverbelow Gavins Point Dam was
designated in 1978 and is the subject ofa separate plan.
The purpose ofthe GeneralManagement Plan/Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement is to set forth thebasic
management philosophy for the recreational rivers. Alternatives were developed to provide
comprehensive approaches to implementing this philosophy for resource management, visitor use, and
facility development. The intent is to implement the plan over thenext 10 to 15 years.
TheDraft GeneralManagementPlan/EnvironmentalImpactStatementpresented managementandboundary
alternatives (including a preferred alternative, now called the proposed action) and an analysis of the
environmental consequences ofeach. The land along the recreational rivers isnow managed by private
property owners, tribes, and local, state, and federal agencies, some with overlappingjurisdictions. The
plan isneeded to present a consistent and unified approach to management ofthe recreational rivers. It
hasbeenprepared tomeettherequirementsoftheenabling legislation, theNationalEnvironmental Policy
Act, and other regulations.
This final plan was created to achieve the purpose ofthe rivers' designation. The National ParkService
and its partners would implement the plan. The National Park Service role would be very active in the
initial stagesbutcould decrease over time to the extent that other agencies and governments effectively
assumed responsibilities. The Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement was
prepared forpublicreviewfromJuly toSeptember 1996. Thisplan willbecome final30days aftera record
ofdecisionis issued and signedby the field director, MidwestArea. Formore information, pleasecontact:
Superintendent
Niobrara/Missouri National Scenic Riverways
P. O. Box 591
O'Neill, Nebraska 68763-0591
orcall: 402-336-3970
United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service
The Missouri River is composed of six parts of sand and mud
andfour parts of water. But if the river is not fair to look upon,
there is some of the grandest country on either side of it the
sun ever shone upon. How sucfi a river came to run through
such a paradise is more than I can understand.
Robert /. Burdette, 1903 (Botkin 1955)
SUMMARY
In May 1991 Congress added the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers and Verdigre Creek to the
national wild and scenic river system. Thus, national attention was brought to the remarkable
qualities of these river segments. The National Park Service was given responsibility for
administering the rivers and developing comprehensive managementplans that would identify
a preferred management alternative and boundary for the rivers. The National Park Service
established an office in O'Neill, Nebraska, in October 1991. Its role was to establish local
relationships with the individuals, organizations, and governments of the 14-county, two-state
area involved in the studies mandated by the Niobrara Scenic River Designation Act.
Responsibilities were shared by the local O'Neill office, the Denver Service Center, and the field
office in Omaha.
The purpose ofthis GeneralManagement Plan /Final Environmental Impact Statement is to set forth
the basic management philosophy for the recreational rivers. The plan is needed to present a
consistentand unified approach to managementofthe recreational rivers incompliancewith the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Alternatives thatwere presented in the drafts of this plan provided
differentpotential scenarios formanagementand administration. Thealternativesalsopresented
different boundaries for management of the designated rivers.
The planning team included representatives from: U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, Santee Sioux Tribe, Yankton Sioux Tribe, Nebraska
Game and Parks Commission, South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Nebraska and South Dakota
Historic Preservation Offices, and county government representatives from Knox and Boyd
Counties in Nebraska and Gregory, Charles Mix, and Bon Homme Counties in South Dakota.
The National Park Servicewas charged with protection ofthe river and its values; it was equally
important not to dramatically affect the lives of the people who live and work along the
recreational rivers.
Local knowledge of the Missouri, Niobrara, and Verdigre Creek National Recreational Rivers
designation was limited. Most of the preauthorization debate had been focused 120 miles to the
west on the proposed middle Niobrara Scenic River designation. There had been congressional
meetings, but no hearings were held in the area with local people. There were few references to
these rivers in the preauthorization legislative history.
Public interest has been high and has provided a helpful perspective. The following issues were
identified as important in the planning process:
landscape conservation
establishment and maintenance of public facilities
recreational management
public information service
use of condemnation
removal of private land from the tax base would raise county taxes
possible restrictions on development and use of private land
current land use patterns and management by local landowners best
increased residential and recreational development changing area
recreation enhancement and environmental protection potentially at landowners expense
m
Summary
Local interests, including county governments, expressed an interest in participating in the
planning process and had zoning and other powers that the National Park Service did not have,
so representatives were invited tojoin the planning team. Their knowledge of and sensitivity to
local concerns were critical in the deliberations. They also provided a role for local land use
regulation in the general management plan.
This plan addresses the above concerns as follows:
• The National Park Service has agreed not to condemn any land; any acquisitions would be
from willing sellers only.
• Farming and ranching are appropriate activities in the recreational rivers boundaries.
• Managing partnerships would enter private land to monitor resources only with property
owner permission.
• Success of the plan depends largely on the cooperative efforts of property owners, local
communities, and the National Park Service.
• Property owner stewardship would be vital to resource preservation and protection on
private land within the boundary.
• Most of the land inside the boundary would not be federally owned.
• All alternatives are resource protection based and must meet the intent of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act, including the mandates, purposes, significance statements, desired future
conditions, and primary interpretive themes.
TheNational ParkServiceand itspartnerswould implementthe plan. The National ParkService
role would be very active in the initial stagesbutwould decrease with time as the other agencies
and governments assumed the responsibilities.
There are five management alternatives described in this document. Boundary alternatives are
also described. Alternative 1, no action, is required in order to provide a description of baseline
conditions from which the action alternatives canbe compared. The no-action alternative would
not implement the act as directed by Congress. Alternative 1 would use the legislative interim
boundary of0.25 mile above the 1991 ordinary high water mark. Alternative 2 emphasizes the
rural landscape, and would provide for the preservation of that landscape, its integrity and
character. Alternative 2 includes a 200-foot setback from the riverbank. Corps of Engineers
(COE) fee land is included up to 0.25 mile. Alternative 3 would emphasize the biological factors
of the river ecosystem and would provide strong management for natural values of the area.
Alternative 3 allows for a minimum setback of 200 feet from the riverbank. Significant
bottomland areas would be included as well. Alternative 4 would balance visitor use with
resource protection. Alternative 4 includes a minimum setback of 200 feet from the riverbank
plus significantbiological and public use areas. State land and COE fee land within 0.25 mile of
the high water mark would be included. In alternative 5 the boundary for the Missouri National
Recreational River would include a minimum setback of 200 feet from the ordinary high water
mark, plus significant biological bottomland areas and land that would be flooded by 60,000
cubic feet per second. Karl Mundt National Wildlife Refuge is included in this boundary. This
boundary also includes all federal and state fee land within 0.25 mile of the ordinary high water
IV
Summary
mark. The Niobrara River and Verdigre Creek boundaries would include a minimum setback
of200 feet from the riverbank plus biologically significant bottomland. Also included are COE
projections on areas that might be affected by a rise in the groundwater table.
All alternativeswere fully analyzed forenvironmental impacts. The positiveand negative, direct
and indirect, and cumulative impacts ofeach alternative were analyzed. Important components
considered in the environmental analysis included threatened and endangered species,
wetlands, historic resources, visitor use, property ownership, and county revenues.
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/finalgeneralmanaOOmisso
CONTENTS
Purpose of and Need for the Plan
Introduction 3
Legislative Background 3
Overview of the Plan 4
Issues Identified During Scoping 9
Purpose Statements 10
Significance Statements 10
Natural Resources 10
Cultural Resources 11
Recreational Resources 11
Desired Future Conditions 12
Landscape Preservation 12
Visitor Use 12
Natural Resources 13
Cultural Resources 14
Administration 14
Planning / Management Constraints 14
Relationship to Other Projects 15
National Park Service 15
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 16
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 16
Western Area Power Administration 17
South Dakota and Nebraska Departments ofTransportation 17
State of Nebraska 18
State ofSouth Dakota 18
Indian Tribes 18
County Plans 19
Private Land under Federal, State, and Private Conservation Programs 19
New Programs under the 1996 Farm Bill 21
Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action 25
General Concept and Philosophy 25
Management 25
Administration and Maintenance Facilities 25
Recreational Development Facilities 26
Maintenance 26
Law Enforcement 26
Staffing Needs 26
Costs 26
Boundaries 26
Resource Management 27
Natural Resources 27
Cultural Resources 28
Vll
CONTENTS
Visitor Use and Interpretation 28
Visitor Activities 28
Visitor Use Management 28
Interpretation and Visitor Services 28
Features Common to All Action Alternatives 33
General Concept and Philosophy 33
Management 33
Law Enforcement 34
Cooperating Agencies / Partnerships 34
Land Use Management 34
Boundaries 38
Planning and Technical Assistance for Adjacent Land 39
Resource Management 39
General 39
Streambank Protection 40
Natural Resources 41
Cultural Resources 42
Visitor Use and Interpretation 43
Visitor Activities 44
Visitor Use Management 44
Interpretation and Visitor Services 45
Primary Interpretive Themes 46
Alternative 2: Rural Landscape Integrity and Character 47
General Concept and Philosophy 47
Management 47
Land Use Management 47
Land Use Management Classes 48
General Administration 53
Boundaries 54
Resource Management 55
Streambank Protection 55
Natural Resources 56
Cultural Resources 56
Visitor Use and Interpretation 56
Visitor Activities 56
Interpretation and Visitor Services 56
Alternative 3: Riverine Biological Management 58
General Concept and Philosophy 58
Management 58
Land Use Management 58
Land Use Management Classes 68
General Administration 60
Boundaries 65
Resource Management 66
Streambank Protection 66
Natural Resources 66
Cultural Resources 67
via
