Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0;)29)9 <br /> <br />Chapter 1 <br />Inttoduction <br /> <br />Nineteen rivers, or about one fourth of the rivers analyzed under the <br />act's study process, are now in the national system. Sixteen were desig- <br />nated by the Congress and three were designated by the Secretary of the <br />Interior at the request of the respective governor under section 2 (a)(ii). <br />Figure 1.2 also demonstrates that no river that the President did not <br />recommend for inclusion in the national system has been added by con- <br />gressional designation. Moreover, 15 of the studies that were recom- <br />mended for incluSion in the system have not yet been designated by the <br />Congress. <br /> <br />For 21 of the 34 eligible rivers that the President recommended not be <br />included, he concluded that state protection was more appropriate. Of <br />these 21 rivers, 13 have had their studies completed more than 3 years <br />ago and hence are no longer protected by the act. <br /> <br />Objectives, Scope, and <br />Methodology <br /> <br />In a September 1985 letter, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on <br />National Parks and Recreation, House Committee on Interior and Insular <br />Affairs, expressed concern about the President's recommendations <br />against adding eligible rivers to the national wild and scenic rivers <br />system. In this context, the Chairman asked us to review those rivers <br />that had been studied under the act, found qualified to be components of <br />the national wild and scenic rivers system, but were not recommended <br />by the President for designation. On the basis of his request and subse- <br />quent discussions with his office, we agreed to (1) determine what <br />developments have occurred on the 13 rivers listed in table 1.1 whose 3- <br />year protection under the act has lapsed, (2) examine post-1978 study <br />reports of 27 eligible rivers that recommended against designation in the <br />national system to determine if these studies contained required cost <br />estimates for federal land acquisition and management, and (3) deter- <br />mine whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Corps <br />of Engineers (Corps), or Bureau of Reclanlation has initiated or plans to <br />initiate any hydropower or other water projects on 21 other rivers <br />(listed in table 2.7) whose studies were submitted to the Congress in <br />April 1985. The President recommended against designation of these <br />rivers. Four of them were not eligible according to the act's wild and <br />scenic criteria, nine were recommended for state protection, and one had <br />already been partially designated into the national system. The <br />remaining seven were not recommended for designation because of <br />excessive federal costs or lack of state and local support. <br /> <br />With respect to the first objective, table 1.1 shows the 13 rivers that we <br />reviewed and the date the study was sent to the Congress, In evaluating <br /> <br />Page 16 <br /> <br />GAO/RCED-87.39 Wild and Seenic Rivers <br />