Should the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act be amended to be limited only to those actions which could "significantly impact" rivers already designated as part of the system and eliminate special procedures required for study rivers, since the latter can be treated adequately under the NEPA process? An estimated $600,000 can be saved annually by the Federal Construction agencies amounting to $2.0 million over three years. Background The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC 1271-1287) provides for protection, under state or Federal management, of free-flowing rivers or streams which are designated as wild, scenic, or recreational waters. Section 7(a) provides that no Federal Agency shall assist by loan, grant, license, or otherwise any water resource project that would have a direct adverse effect on the values of a river in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as determined by the Federal Agency with jurisdiction over the river. Federal Agencies are also precluded, under Section 7 (b), from assigning or permitting any water resources project which would have a direct and adverse effect on the values of any river which might be designated as a wild, scenic, or recreational river. Methodology Directives, reports, and documents were reviewed. terviews with agency officials were conducted. In Findings Sixty-one rivers or river segments totaling 6,936 miles have been designated as part of the National System. of these, 5,428 miles are under Federal jurisdiction and 1,508 miles under state jurisdiction. This system is composed of 4,123 miles of wild rivers. Thirty-three other rivers totaling 3,233 miles are under study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These study rivers are protected under the same regulations and to the same extent as if they were already included in the system. Twenty-four of these rivers, totaling 2,346 miles, are under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and nine, totaling 887 miles, are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (USDA). The process for designating study rivers is lengthy. DOI or USDA (if the area is in a national forest or otherwise under its control) conducts a study of the river, issues a report, and transmits it to the President who, in turn, forwards it with his recommendations to Congress for possible action. Since 1968 only 55 of the 88 studies for the designated rivers have been completed. The language of Section 7(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is very broad in that it precludes the Federal Government's assigning or permitting "any water resource project which could affect any river which might be designated" as wild, scenic, or recreational. The term "water resource project" has been interpreted to mean any action, activity, or project affecting the rivers. Although 33 rivers have been classified as study rivers, almost any river might be designated as wild, scenic, or recreational. The long list of study and potential rivers, and the broad interpretation of water resource projects, in conjunction with the lengthy process to designate or not designate a river protected, combine to inhibit or prevent any construction project which could impact the value or affect the status of the river. The issue of concern is not the regulations implementing the Act for designated rivers but rather the breadth of definition which incorporates study rivers. Thus, regulatory changes have not been suggested, but rather amendments to the scope of the Act. The National Environmental Protection Act of 1970 (NEPA) recognized the "critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality ..." and established the Federal Government's responsibility to: Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; and Enhance the quality of renewable resources and The language and intent of NEPA clearly provides protection for the Nation's water resources. In addition, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirement ensures adequate review of the environmental impacts of all projects upon the river system. Conclusions Study rivers are currently protected under NEPA. Therefore, they should be exempted from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act until formally designated as part of the National System. Later designation of a river would be addressed through the current procedure of reevaluating an approved final EIS at key stages of design. If during these reevaluations, a wild and scenic river were designated where the project would have a significant impact, then appropriate environmental studies would be required. Recommendation CONST 16: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act should be amended to include only action which would significantly impact rivers which have already been designated as part of 으 the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In addition, it is recommended that implementation be limited to "water resources projects" as specified in the Act. Savings and Impact Analysis Annual savings of $600,000 can be realized Governmentwide in construction programs, if the subject recommendation is implemented. The above savings would be distributed as follows: Federal Highway Administration $160,000 Other Federal construction agencies 340,000 $600,000 Construction agency sources estimated 12 person-years of extra effort are required for administrative compliance and response to study river issues. Each person-year costs approximately $50,000 for salary, additional personnel benefits, and direct support staff. In addition, the continuous monitoring of study rivers while in the designation/nondesignation status contributes additional administrative costs which cannot be specifically quantified. The total person-effort and costs over the years required to achieve designation of a study river as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System have never been independently accounted for but must be substantial. These costs could be avoided by protecting these potential rivers under the already established provisions of NEPA. Cost savings would be $0.6 million, $0.7 million, and $0.7 million for Years 1, 2, and 3. Implementation Congressional action would be required to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. II. ISSUE AND RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES (CONT'D) B. DESIGN AND PROCUREMENT CONST 17: REVISE AND ENFORCE OMB CIRCULAR A-76 Issue and Savings Can the Federal Government reduce the cost of construction through the reduction of in-house design and construction personnel? Annual savings of $43.2 million can be realized from implementing this recommendation. Three-year savings are projected at $143.0 million. Background Since 1952, several Federal policy statements have been issued expressing the desire for greater reliance on the private sector to provide goods and services to the Government. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, issued on March 3, 1966, repeated the Government's general policy of relying on the private enterprise system. It also included, however, additional considerations to ensure that Government programs were performed with maximum efficiency, effectiveness, and economy. It listed five circumstances under which the Government could provide a commercial or industrial product or service for its own use: Procurement from a commercial source would disrupt or materially delay an agency's program. National security. Satisfactory commercial source not available. Product from commercial source could result in Product or service available from another Federal agency. |