The document outlines the process for studying rivers in the United States to determine if they are eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It describes the study process which involves determining a river's eligibility, classifying it based on development levels, and evaluating its suitability for protection. If deemed suitable, recommendations are made to Congress, which may then vote to designate the river and afford it long-term protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The goal is to consistently apply this objective process to identify rivers worthy of preservation for future generations to enjoy.

1. The Wild and
Scenic River Study
Process
RMS Symposium Training
Denver, CO
April 2014
Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers
Coordinating Council

2. Desired Outcome
Increased Understanding and Consistency…
 Understand how rivers are authorized for study
 Apply process steps consistently
 Understand how rivers are recommended for
designation
 Understand river protection during study period
2

3. Desired Outcome
Increased Knowledge…
 Eligibility
 Classification
 Suitability
 Conducting a Study
 Making a Recommendation
3

4. Course Content
 Intent of WSRA
 Authorities
 Process elements
 Recommendation
 Protective management
 References
 Key Points
Westfield River (MA)
4

5. WSRA Section 1(b)
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected
rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess
outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife,
historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing
condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected
for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.
The Congress declares that the established national policy of dam and other
construction . . . needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve
other selected rivers . . . in their free-flowing condition to protect the water
quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes.
5

6. WSRA Intent
 Complement national
policy of dam and other
construction
 Protect and enhance:
 Free-flowing condition
 Water quality
 ORVs
 Establish process to
add rivers to National
System
6
Virgin River (UT)

7. Study Authorities
 Section 5(a) – Congressionally-authorized studies
 Section 5(d)(1) – Studies concurrent with other
federal planning
 BLM Resource Management Plans
 FWS Comprehensive Conservation Plans
 NPS General Management Plans
 USFS Forest Plans
7

8. Section 5(a)
 Act of Congress
 Initiation
 Local or Congressional
interest
 Direction
 Timing
 Process
 Findings and report
 Sections 4(a) and 5(c)
8
Farmington River (CT)

9. WSRA Section 5(d)(1)
In all planning for the use and development of water and related land
resources, consideration shall be given by all federal agencies involved
to potential national wild, scenic and recreational river areas . . .
The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall
make specific studies and investigations to determine which
additional wild, scenic and recreational river areas within the
United States shall be evaluated in planning reports by all federal
agencies as potential alternative uses of the water and related land
resources involved.
Missisquoi River (VT)
9

10. Section 5(d)(1)
 Identification through
federal planning
 Initiation
 Land use plan
 Site-specific project
proposal
 No direction
 Timing
 Manner of evaluation Arctic NWR Study River (AK)
10

11. Nationwide Rivers Inventory
 NRI – NPS maintains and updates the NRI list
 From 1976-1980, 1524 segments were evaluated
and published in 1982
 Additional segments added pursuant to special
resource studies, and NPS Special Directive 90-4
Missouri River
11

12. Process Elements
 Eligibility
 Objective resource
inventory
 Classification
 Objective land-use
condition inventory
 Suitability
 Analysis of subjective
factors
 Decision
12

13. Eligibility (Objective Resource Inventory)
 Free-flowing (Section 16(b))
 Possessing one or more ORVs
 Directly river-related
 Unique, rare or exemplary at regional or national scale
 Based on professional judgment
Lamprey River, NH
Photo: Dick Lord
13

14. “Free-Flowing”
 A river need not be “boatable or floatable” as long as
the volume of flow is sufficient to maintain ORVs and
water quality
 Rivers with intermittent flows should be considered
Rogue River (OR)
Photo: Natl. Geographic
Allagash River (ME)
Photo: Natl. Geographic 14

15. 15

16. Outstandingly Remarkable Values
 Professional judgment by an interdisciplinary team,
based on objective, scientific analysis
 Input from agencies, organizations and individuals
familiar with resources should be sought and
documented
Lochsa River (ID)N. Fork Koyukuk River (AK)
16

17. ORVs Assessed
 River-related values must be unique, rare or exemplary
at a regional or national scale
 River-related means the values:
 Contribute substantially to the river ecosystem; or
 Owe their location or existence to the presence of the river
Merced River (CA)
Photo: Natl. Geographic
Loxahatchee River (FL)
Photo: Natl. Geographic 17

18. Classification(Objective Existing Condition Inventory)
 Three classes
 Wild, Scenic and Recreational
 Existing development
 Water resources development
 Shoreline development
 Access (transportation
facilities)
 Water quality
 Standards for in-corridor land uses
18

19. Boundaries
 Default ¼ mile lateral
boundary
 Congress may waive
boundary requirement
(Partnership WSRs)
 Scope not limited to ¼
mile (Section 4(d))
 Should encompass
ORVs where possible
 Document location
Snake River (WY)
19

20. Suitability (Analysis of subjective factors)
 Basis for
recommendation
 Answers 3 questions:
 Should WSR values be
protected?
 Is WSR designation
best method to protect?
 Commitment by
nonfederal entities?
 Decision
Chattooga (NC)
20

21. Recommendation
 Congressionally authorized
 Generally 3-year study period
 90-day review
 Report from President to Congress
 Congress may/may not act
 Agency identified
 Federal agency and public review (NEPA)
 Study period varies
 Report transmitted from Secretary to Congress
 Agency flexibility submitting recommendations
 Congress may/may not act
21

22. Protective Management
 Congressionally authorized study
 Protection for 3 years following transmittal to Congress
 Sections 7(b), 8(b), 9(b) and 12(a)
 Agency identified study
 Protection generally for life of land use plan
 Protection under general authorities
 No protection under WSR Act
Upper Delaware River (NY/PA) 22

23. References
 DOI and USDA Interagency Guidelines
 Federal Register, Volume 47, Number 173; September
7, 1982
 Agency direction
 BLM Manual 8351
 Forest Service Manual 2354
 NPS Management Policies 2.3.1.8 & 4.3.4, and DO 46
(draft)
 IWSRCC guidance
 www.rivers.gov/publications/study-process.pdf
23

24. Study: Key Points
 Two authorities
 Congress
 Federal land managing
agencies
 Three-step process
 Eligibility
 Classification
 Suitability
24
Tlikakila River (AK)
Photo: Natl. Geographic

25. Interagency
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Coordinating Council
www.rivers.gov