| Prev | Next |
Congress has directed the Federal Government to consider potential additions to the national wild and scenic rivers (WSR) system during land use planning as described below.
Section 1(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), 16 U.S.C. §1271 et seq. (2001) states:
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.
Section 5(d)(1) of the WSRA requires that:
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, and all river basin and project plan reports submitted to the Congress shall consider and discuss any such potential. 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.
Recommending the suitability of rivers for addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system requires agreement on the meaning of several terms. The BLM has made every effort to consistently apply terms with the following definitions.
Eligibility is mentioned only once in the WSRA (Sec. 5(d)(1)) and it is not defined. Nevertheless, the term has come to refer to the initial screening of a potential river during the wild and scenic river study process (Diedrich and Thomas, 1999). To be eligible for designation as a component of the national WSR system, a river must be free flowing and possess one or more outstandingly remarkable values (see paragraph (3) below). Should a river meet the eligibility requirements, it then requires further scrutiny to determine its suitability as a worthy addition to the national system. Eligibility is, in legal terms, a determination from the facts and not a planning decision. (See the definition of suitability in paragraph (4) below.)
Section 16(b) of the WSRA defines "free flowing" as:
...existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway.
The existence however, of low dams, diversion works, and other minor structures at the time a river is proposed for inclusion in the national WSR system would not automatically bar inclusion provided that the existence of such impediments to free flow:
... shall not be construed to authorize, intend, or encourage future construction of such structures within components of the national WRS system.
At this writing, all rivers in the Planning Area are free flowing.
An outstandingly remarkable value must be a unique, rare, or exemplary feature that is significant on a regionally or nationally comparative scale. An outstandingly remarkable value is an attribute conspicuous among a number of uncommon or extraordinary values. Only one outstandingly remarkable value is needed for eligibility. The BLM used a regional scale (the NPR-A) along with the national scale to determine outstandingly remarkable values for the Northwest NPR-A Planning Area.
While the spectrum of attributes that may be considered is broad, outstandingly remarkable values are directly river-related. These features should:
be located in the river or on its immediate shore lands (generally within 1/4 mi on either side of the river),
contribute substantially to the functioning of the river ecosystem, and/or
owe their location or existence to the presence of the river.
Based on this IAP/EIS, determinations will be made on the suitability/non-suitability of the rivers within the Planning Area as additions to the national WSR system. Congress may then choose to recommend the suitable rivers for designation. In contrast to eligibility, which is based on a factual description of the existing situation, suitability is based on the weighing of various elements through the planning process. The process used to make suitability determinations is described below.
A suitability determination is made in response to the following four questions:
Should the river's free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable value(s) be protected, or are one or more other uses important enough to warrant not protecting them?
Would the river's free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable value(s) be protected through designation?
Would designation be the best method for protecting the river corridor? The benefits and impacts of WSR designation must be evaluated, and alternative protection methods considered.
Is there a demonstrated commitment to protect the river by any non-federal entities that may be partially responsible for implementing protective management?
The WSRA lists a number of factors that must be addressed in reports on suitability/ non-suitability:
Status of land ownership and use in the area (discussed in Sec. III.C.6 Land Use and Ownership)
Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the national WSR system (discussed in Sec. IV. Environmental Consequences)
Federal, state, local, tribal, public, or other interests in designation or non-designation (discussed below in this sub-subsection, in Sec. IV. Environmental Consequences, and in Sec. VI. Consultation and Coordination)
The federal agency that would manage the river, if it were designated (assumed to be the BLM for any designated rivers resulting from planning for the Northwest NPR-A)
The extent to which the costs of river management would be shared by state and local agencies, if any were to be designated (assumed the federal government would bear the costs of managing any designated rivers within the Planning Area)
The ability of the BLM to manage and/or protect the river as a WSR area (discussed in Sec. IV. Environmental Consequences)
Historical or existing rights that could be adversely affected by designation (discussed in Sec. II. Alternatives, Sec. III. Description of the Affected Environment, and Sec. IV. Environmental Consequences)
The estimated cost to the US, if a river were to be designated (discussed in Sec. II. Alternatives and Sec. IV. Environmental Consequences)
A review of previous study efforts reveals that the Planning Area has twice been broadly examined for potential additions to the national WSR system (BOR, 1972; NPRA 105(c) Study). Report 2 of the NPRA 105(c) Study, examined the Colville, the Awuna, the Kuk-Ketik, the Ikpikpuk, and the Meade rivers in detail. The Awuna is outside the Planning Area and is not considered here, however the remaining rivers are considered in this plan.
The 105(c) study found the Colville River (which is outside but adjoining the Planning Area) suitable for addition to the WSR system. The remaining rivers were classified as non-suitable "due to insufficient flow of water and the lack of outstanding attributes."
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) amended the WSRA § 5(a) to place the Colville in protective status while giving Congress time to consider the 105(c) recommendations. The Colville River suitability finding was sent to Congress as ANILCA § 604 instructs, but Congress did not add the Colville to the national WSR. Because Congress chose not to act, the protective status for the Colville River as a WSRA § 5(a) study river expired 3 years after submission of the 105(c) study to Congress.
In addition to these studies, the Colville and Ikpikpuk rivers were reviewed for eligibility and suitability by the BLM in the Northeast NPR-A Final IAS/EIS. The plan reported that the Ikpikpuk River lacked outstandingly remarkable values (USDOI, BLM 1998:III-C-52), rendering it ineligible for inclusion in the national WRS system. That plan also reported the Colville River, adjacent to the Planning Area, "eligible but non-suitable," because of lack of support from local interests and state government, noting:
Without the support and assistance of local interests and other land owners/managers, the Colville River is unmanageable and, therefore, unsuitable as a component of the WSR system (USDOI, BLM and MMS, 1998:IIIc-54).
The Ikpikpuk River was thoroughly evaluated as a potential addition to the national WSR system in the Northeast NPR-A IAP/EIS and that analysis is incorporated by reference here. The Ikpikpuk River was found unsuitable for WSR designation. Because the Northeast NPR-A IAP/EIS did not determine suitability on the portion of the Colville adjoining the Northwest NPR-A Planning Area, the Northwest NPR-A IAP/EIS will consider for suitability that portion of the Colville River that adjoins the Planning Area.
Since all the rivers in the Planning Area are free flowing, identifying eligible rivers according to the WSRA rests on the existence of outstandingly remarkable values. Throughout the scoping process, in public meetings, and planning team workshops, the planning team identified the presence of outstandingly remarkable values. Prior planning and inventory efforts were reviewed. In the Northwest NPR-A planning Area, 22 eligible rivers were identified. These rivers are listed in Table III-38 along with their associated outstandingly remarkable values. The BLM has identified the appropriate classification as "scenic" because of the level of development (mainly subsistence cabins and camps), although this does not mean that scenery is an ORV. In fact, none of the eligible rivers in the Planning Area has scenery as an ORV.
During the scoping process, the State of Alaska and local and tribal governments opposed the designation of wild and scenic rivers in the Planning Area. Tribal governments and village residents strongly believe that WSR designation could eventually restrict subsistence use and access by area residents- a possibility that is not acceptable to these governments, groups, and individuals.
There was specific support for designation of the Colville River from some individuals at scoping meetings in Fairbanks. There were also individuals at the Fairbanks meetings who expressed blanket opposition to WSR designations in the Planning Area. There was no indication of either support or opposition to designation at scoping meetings held in Anchorage. No federal agencies involved in the scoping process have expressed interest in designation or non-designation.
| Prev | Next |