RCED-87-39 Wild and Scenic Rivers Contents

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on I National Parks and Recreation, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs House of Representatives December 1986 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Certain Rivers Not in National System Generally Retain Original Values llllllllllllllll 131926 RESTRICTED-- Not to be released outside the @3nerti Accounting Office except on the basis of specific approval by t1-mOffice of Congressional %3latiOnS. RELEASED -t- 5375% WO/RCED-87-39 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-224697 December 16,1986 The Honorable Bruce F. Vento Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: This report is in response to your request that we examine the status of eligible rivers studied under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that were recommended for state rather than federal protection. The report also addresses your question on whether certain federal wild and scenic river studies included required estimates of federal land acquisition and river management costs. The report describes changes in the condition of 13 rivers, in terms of water projects, shoreline development, resource development, road and utility construction, water quality, and recreational use, since their federal wild and scenic river studies were completed. The report also discusses river studies that omitted estimates of potential federal land acquisition and river management costs, making one recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior on the matter. As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 16 days from the date of this letter. At that time we will send copies to the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. I This work was performed under the direction of Michael Gryszkowiec, Associate Director. Other major contributors are listed in appendix XIII. Sincerely, I/ ,J. Dexter Peach Assistant Comptroller General Executive Free-flowing rivers have often been the targets of federal water Purpose resource development projects. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act estab- lished a federal program to counter this trend and protect the free- flowing, natural conditions of certain rivers from activities such as hydroelectric power production and excessive shoreline development. Eligible rivers are not always included in the federal program, some- times instead being recommended for protection by state or local governments. As of September 1986, the federal program protected 7,224 miles of 66 rivers. In September 1986 the Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, expressed concern that the wild and scenic values of eligible rivers not included in the federal program may have been threatened by subse- quent development. As a result he asked GAO to obtain certain information including (1) various development activities on 13 rivers not recommended for federal protection and (2) whether river studies that recommended against federal protection contained required estimates of federal land acquisition and river management costs. (See pp. 10 to 16.) < Ha&ground scenic rivers system through a study process that includes a congressio- nally directed study by a federal agency. The act requires the federal agency studying the river to include estimates of the cost to acquire , land, if necessary, as well as the cost of administering the area if it is included in the system. The Departments of the Interior or Agriculture are directed to conduct the studies and report to the President on whether the river being nomi- nated has the necessary qualifying characteristics. The President in turn . recommends to the Congress whether the river should receive federal protection. Regardless of the President’s recommendation, the study river is protected from federally licensed or assisted water projects under the act up to 3 years after the study is submitted to the Congress. When the President has recommended against federal designation of an eligible river, he has usually done so for one of two reasons-the river would be more appropriately protected by a state or local program or federal land acquisition costs would be excessive. Since 1968,81 studies have been completed with the Congress placing 16 rivers under federal protection. (See pp. 12 to 16.) Page 2 GAO/RCED-37-39 Wild and Scenic Rivers Executive Summary To obtain information on overall development activities, GAO looked at 13 rivers that had been found eligible for inclusion in the national system but had been recommended for state or local protection and for which the S-year poststudy protection period had lapsed. To determine whether required cost estimates were being included, GAO reviewed 27 river studies that had been submitted to the Congress since 1978. (See pp. 16 to 18.) The rivers GAO reviewed have generally maintained the qualities that Results in Brief originally made them eligible for the national system. State and local governments associated with 11 of the 13 rivers have initiated varying levels of protection. Most importantly, the 13 rivers have not been affected by new water projects that materially changed their free- flowing condition. While some development has occurred along the rivers’ shorelines, on only three rivers have these developments greatly degraded wild and scenic values. One river now has much greater water pollution problems serious enough to threaten recreational and scenic values. (See pp. 20 to 43.) Of the 27 studies reviewed for cost estimates, GAO found that 9 did not contain detailed, specific land acquisition and management cost estimates, which would better enable the Congress to decide which rivers to include in the system. (See pp. 60 to 63.) qbincipal Findings 1 Vfater Development Projects No new dams or other water projects have been developed on any of the b 13 rivers since their federal studies. A major new hydropower dam on I the Penobscot River was actively pursued for development, but construction was precluded after a Maine regulatory agency denied it on the grounds of harming the river’s water quality and recreational values. Existing dams on the Housatonic, Illinois, Kettle, Shepaug, and Yough- iogheny (Pennsylvania segment) have been or may be modified for hydroelectric production; but these changes are generally not considered by state and local officials as detrimental to the rivers’ preexisting flow conditions. In addition, major water supply diversions from the Shepaug and Illinois are being considered by state or regional authorities. How- ever, state and local officials told GAO that the diversions’ potential Page 3 GAO/RCED437-39 Wild and Scenic Rivers Ekecutlve Summary effects of reducing flow and degrading scenic values on the rivers may well preclude development. (See pp. 23 to 26.) Other Developmental According to state and local officials, most of the rivers GAO reviewed Activities have not experienced industrial, residential, or utility developments that have dramatically affected their remarkable qualities. However, two rivers-the Suwannee (Florida segment) and the Youghiogheny (Mary- land segment)-have suffered from resource development activities: phosphate mining that threatens water quality on the Suwannee and logging on the Youghiogheny. In addition, the water quality of the Illi- nois has deteriorated significantly as a result of inadequate sewage treatment and other sources, and the Wisconsin has been adversely affected by residential development on its scenic bluffs. For the remaining rivers, minor developments have occurred but state and local officials and private interest groups generally do not consider them seriously detrimental. Water pollution of many rivers at the time of study has not worsened significantly (except on the Illinois) but neither has it been eliminated. Increased recreational use and its attendant, littering and trespass problems are now a concern on six rivers. (See pp. 27 to 43.) C&t Estimates Of the 27 river studies GAO reviewed, 18 contained the specific estimates of potential federal land acquisition and management costs. Each of the nine studies that did not provide such specific estimates was prepared by the Interior Department after 1981. Eleven of the 27 studies included excessive federal costs as part of the rationale for recommending against including the subject river in the national system even though b the Interior Department had no specific estimates to support its position in 8 of them. Interior Department officials said they omitted specific cost estimates because they believed that strong local opposition made it highly unlikely that the rivers being studied would ever be added to the national system regardless of federal costs. Consequently, officials believed the expenditure of funds to prepare specific estimates of the costs of adding the river to the national system would be imprudent. However, the Department is required by the act to provide various pieces of information about a river, including cost estimates. GAO believes that such estimates are needed to assist the Congress in inde- pendently judging the merits of the President’s recommendation. Since Page 4 GAO/lKXD-S7-39 Wild and Scenic Rivers Executive Summary the Congressultimately decideswhether a river will be includedin the federal program,

Load more