Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OD2911 <br /> <br />Chapter 1 <br />Introdu{'tion <br /> <br />We also visited three rivers-the Florida segment of the Suwannee, the <br />Youghiogheny (both Maryland and Pennsylvania segments), and Pine <br />Creek-to observe conditions on the rivers, to validate the information <br />given to us during interviews, and to gain an appreciation for the out- <br />standingly remarkable values represented by these rivers. We selected <br />these three rivers because eadl had different scenic and natural condi- <br />tions at the time they were studied and had experienced varying devel- <br />opment changes since that time. <br /> <br />Finally, we reviewed federal agency data bases and other information <br />sources to identify water resource development projects constructed or <br />planned for these rivers. We used FERC'S data base on constructed, pro- <br />posed, or potential hydroelectric power facilities. This data ba~e <br />describes federal, state, municipal, and private projects across the <br />country. We contacted the Corps to obtain information on their flood <br />control, navigation. or multipurpose water projects (actual or potential) <br />and verified the current status of any Corps projects cited in the wild <br />and scenic river studies as potential threats to the rivers. We also <br />obtained similar information from the Department of Agriculture's Soil <br />Conservation Service (scs). <br /> <br />With respect to the second objective, we examined the 27 reports since <br />1978 that found the subject rivers eligible for inclusion in the national <br />system but nonetheless recommended against designation, to determine <br />if the report presented estimates of federal land acquisition costs. We <br />reviewed the act to determine the requirements for cost estimates in <br />studies. As agreed with the requester's office, we identified those <br />studies where potential federal costs were a factor in recommending <br />against federal designation but that provided no specific cost estimates. <br /> <br />With respect to the third objective, we reviewed FERC'S hydroelectric <br />facilities data base to identify proposed, planned, or permitted projects <br />on the 21 river studies sent to the Congress in April 1985. We also <br />checked with the Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation to discuss any <br />water projects they may be considering, constructing, or have completed <br />on these rivers. <br /> <br />We conducted our work between January and September 1986. We dis- <br />cussed the information we obtained with officials in the Department of <br />the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. However, in accordance <br />with the requester's wishes, we did not solicit official agency comments <br />on a draft of this report. With this exception we made our review in <br />accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. <br /> <br />Page 18 <br /> <br />GAO/RCED-87-39 Wild Bud Scenic Rivers <br />