|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. 2
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
Page 11 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 11
Sustaining our Water Resources
2
Landscapes, Commodities, and Ecosystems: The Relationship Between Policy and Science for American Rivers
William L. Graf
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
INTRODUCTION
With the exception of the land from which they flow, America's rivers are the nation's most valuable natural resource. During the mid-twentieth century, the social values that America ascribed to its rivers dramatically changed from an exclusive emphasis on economic development to include preservation. The resulting conflict between development and preservation is mirrored in the scientific investigations of rivers that have supported policy objectives. Previous research founded in reductionist analytic approaches has given way to more holistic investigations rooted in general system theory. The purposes of this paper are to explore the nature of scientific research for rivers against the changing background of cultural values and to examine the interface between science and policy, especially as exemplified by the actions of the Water Science and Technology Board of the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences.
RIVERS AS LANDSCAPES
The first intellectual views of American rivers adopted a holistic, interconnected systems perspective. In the early 1800s, when engineers were tinkering with individual river components, geomorphologists were barely beginning to see the interconnections among parts of stream networks, ecologists were enmeshed in species classification, and American artists were
OCR for page 12
Sustaining our Water Resources
depicting rivers as complex landscape systems with physical, biological, and human dimensions (Nygren, 1986). Beginning in the 1820s, painters of the Hudson River School, deriving guidance from the works of Thomas Cole and Frederic Edwin Church, became the first identifiable group of American artists (Driscoll, 1981). They included in their works detailed expressions of the fluvial geomorphology and riparian ecology along New England rivers. For much of the remaining nineteenth century, artists continued this systematic viewpoint rather than singling out particular components for emphasis (Wilmerding and Mahe, 1984). These early painters also provided the first representations of environmental damage from river mismanagement, showing water pollution and forest destruction resulting from reservoir inundation.
The Hudson River School's success continued during the 1830s when Carl Wimer and George Catlin depicted western rivers as complex, interactive mosaics of physical landscapes and biological communities with human significance. Perhaps most remarkable is the record of hundreds of watercolor paintings by Karl Bodmer during his two-year excursion on western American rivers beginning in 1832 (Goetzmann, 1864), with geomorphic features, plant and animal species, and human populations accurately represented as dynamic, interactive systems.
RIVERS AS COMMODITIES
As the nineteenth century progressed, however, the engineering, scientific, and legal professions did not continue this systematic tradition. General American culture has always viewed rivers as simply water, a commodity that could ameliorate an uncertain but potentially productive environment. Anglo-Americans developed a complex set of laws to govern water withdrawals from streams (Trelease, 1979), all founded on the basic precept of river as a water commodity. Major federal initiatives grew out of this commodity-based perspective and became refined into the missions of navigation and flood control by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, irrigation development by the Reclamation Service (later the Bureau of Reclamation), and surveying and data collection by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Congress created the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after the War of 1812 with the expressed purpose of widening the Ohio River channel for barge traffic; the involvement of the Corps in navigation improvement on rivers has continued to the present day (Clarke and McCool, 1985). The Corps' mission was to ensure that rivers would be cheap and efficient conduits for commodity transport, thus justifying a national investment in regional development and economic prosperity. In 1912 the Congress authorized the Corps to undertake
OCR for page 13
Sustaining our Water Resources
flood control projects as site-specific responses to endangered enterprises near rivers (Holmes, 1979). The Corps' activities, emphasizing eastern states because they were the locations of the great flood losses (Figure 2.1). led to the construction and maintenance of thousands of projects that altered river environments throughout the nation.
As the American frontier moved into increasingly arid western areas, it became apparent that agriculture in the new areas would be possible only with federal investment in irrigation projects (Powell, 1878). As the culmination of a broadly based political and economic movement for irrigation development, Congress established the Reclamation Service as a major agency in 1902 (Hays, 1959). Renamed the Bureau of Reclamation in 1923, the agency's mission was to develop large dams and delivery systems to provide water to agricultural producers, a function that limited the bureau's geographical range to western states (Figure 2.2). The Bureau constructed most of the nation's largest dams, and its works impacted every major river in the central and western United States (Figure 2.3).
The manipulation and marketing of rivers as commodities by the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation required information about the resource, giving rise to monitoring and investigative activities of the U.S. Geological Survey. The Geological Survey established an internal irrigation survey in 1888 to coordinate the evaluation of potential dam sites and their withdrawal from the public domain, but this politically risky business led to the demise of the irrigation survey and congressional restrictions on the Geological Survey (Stegner, 1953). In the area of water research, the Geological Survey consequently pursued a lower-profile course of stream gaging, mapping, and water quality analysis (Rabbitt, 1980). The Water Resources Division generated significant scientific developments, but as with investigations in all federal water agencies the primary political force behind the research was the management and use of rivers as resource commodities (Graf, 1992).
The combined efforts of the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation together with other agencies and private companies built more than 2 million dams on the nation's rivers; 87 dams impound reservoirs of a million acre feet or more of storage (Table 2.1). The reservoirs are a significant component of the nation's hydrologic cycle because they have the capacity to store an amount of water equal to three years' annual runoff from the nation (Table 2.2). By about 1960 the ethic of river control for beneficial economic development and the associated frenzy of dam construction reached a zenith, and thereafter the number of starts for new structures declined (Figure 2.4). Federal funding for water projects became more difficult to
OCR for page 14
Sustaining our Water Resources
Figure 2.1 Regional distribution of flood damages in the continental United States, 1902–1937, during a period of emphasis for the flood control efforts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, showing the importance of the eastern states in losses.
Source: Data from U.S. Department of Agriculture, reprinted by permission from Hunt (1974). Copyright ©1974 by W. H. Freeman Company.
OCR for page 15
Sustaining our Water Resources
Figure 2.2 Regional distribution of irrigated lands in the continental United States, showing the emphasis for reclamation efforts in the western states.
Source: Data from U.S. Department of Agriculture, reprinted by permission from Hunt (1974). Copyright ©1974 by W. H. Freeman Company.
OCR for page 16
Sustaining our Water Resources
Figure 2.3 Distribution of large dams (those with reservoir capacity of 1 million acre feet or more) in the continental United States.
Source: Data from U.S. Department of the Interior (1986), U.S. Department of the Army (1986), van der Leeden et al. (1990).
OCR for page 17
Sustaining our Water Resources
TABLE 2.1 Census of Dams in the Continental United States
Reservoir Capacity (acre feet)
Number
Total Capacity (acre feet)
>10,000,000
5
121,670,100
1,000,000 – 10,000,000
82
186,480,100
100,000 – 1,000,000
482
136,371,900
50,000 – 100,000
295
20,557,000
25,000 – 50,000
374
13,092,000
5,000 – 25,000
1,411
15,632,000
50 – 5,000a
50,000b
5,000,000
<50c
2,000,000b
10,000,000
Total
508,803,100
a Mean reservoir size estimated to be 100 acre feet.
b U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' estimates.
c Mean reservoir size estimated to be 5 acre feet.
SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' data.
obtain, all of the best sites had been developed, and the new competing ethic of preservation had grown to formidable proportions.
RIVERS AS OBJECTS OF PRESERVATION
Preservation of wilderness attributes of landscapes slowly emerged in American culture (Nash, 1973; Oelschlaeger, 1991), almost always in conflict with the prevailing development ethic (Graf, 1990). Beginning in the 1920s, an increasingly organized effort involving resource managers and public user groups pressed for the establishment of formal wilderness areas on federal lands to preserve natural environments. Even after passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, preservation of river environments was problematical. In the Southwest, for example, proponents of dam and irrigation projects opposed wilderness designations because potential reservoirs might extend into the
OCR for page 18
Sustaining our Water Resources
TABLE 2.2 Distribution of Water in the Continental United States
Compartment
Volume (km3)
Ground water
126,000
Freshwater lakes
19,000
Soil moisture
630
Reservoirs
627a
Water vapor, atmosphere
190
Ice and glaciers
67
Salt lakes
58
Active rivers
50
Total
146,632
a Calculated from Table 2.1.
SOURCE: Federal Council for Science and Technology (1962).
preserved areas, an arrangement prohibited by the new law (Baker, 1985). Recognizing the special problems in preserving river environments and fresh from political victories that prevented the construction of dams in Dinosaur National Monument and Grand Canyon National Park, the preservation movement secured approval of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 (Tarlock and Tippy, 1970; Goodell, 1978).
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act did not give natural objects legal standing in the traditional sense (Stone, 1974), but it lent statutory legitimacy to an alternative to development. The act established a national system that included rivers in varying levels of preservation, and it prohibited dam construction in all river segments included in the system (Coyle, 1988). The dramatic increase in river preservation occurred coincidentally with the dramatic decrease in dam construction (Figure 2.5), partly reflecting the shift in American cultural values placed on rivers. By the time the act appeared, only about 2 percent of the nation's streams remained in undisturbed natural conditions (Echeverria et al., 1989). Engineering structures had coopted many potential wild and scenic rivers, but since 1968 the system has grown
OCR for page 19
Sustaining our Water Resources
Figure 2.4 Dates of closure for large dams (those with reservoir capacity of 1 million acre feet or more) in the continental United States. Compare with the trends in Figure 2.5.
Source: Data from U.S. Department of the Interior (1986), U.S. Department of the Army (1986), van der Leeden et al. (1990).
sporadically to include 125 reaches totaling almost 10,000 miles of river (Huntington and Echeverria, 1991). The mileage preserved in the system is still a small fraction of the length of river inundated by reservoirs and includes less than one-third of 1 percent of the nation's total natural river courses (Table 2.3). Like the nation's largest dams, the distribution of preserved river segments is heavily weighted toward the West (Figure 2.6).
OCR for page 20
Sustaining our Water Resources
Figure 2.5 Dates of establishment for segments of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Compare with the trends in Figure 2.4. Source: Data from American Rivers, Inc. (1990).
The stage for continued conflict between development and preservation is now established on the map of American rivers. Preserved segments and potential candidate segments for preservation are juxtaposed with clams and reservoirs whose operations strongly affect downstream reaches. Unwittingly, the political and economic processes have produced a situation wherein the management objectives of closely associated structures and preserved segments are opposed to each other, but because of strong interconnections in the river systems they cannot be managed in isolation from each other. The constituen-
OCR for page 21
Sustaining our Water Resources
TABLE 2.3 River Mileage in the United States
Status
Miles
Data Source
Total rivers and streams
3,200,000
Echeverria et al. (1989)
Rivers and streams now under reservoir waters
600,000
Echeverria et al. (1989)
Rivers and streams suited for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System
64,000
U.S. Department of the Interior (1982)
Rivers and streams included in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System
9,452
American Rivers, Inc. (1990)
cies of all the river resource management agencies have therefore expanded dramatically, and agencies that once competed now must deal with each other with at least a semblance of harmony. These new holistic problems make significant new demands on science for their resolution.
SCIENCE FOR RIVER MANAGEMENT
Scientific investigations of American rivers have always been the handmaidens of public policy for riverine resources. Geomorphology developed as a distinct science within geology and geography at the close of the nineteenth century (Chorley et al., 1964), and the first hydrology textbook appeared in 1904 (Chow, 1964). The emergence of these sciences coincided with the burgeoning interest in water resource development early in the twentieth century, when scientific investigations of river processes were usually related to assisting in the solution of engineering problems. Gaging and analysis of western river discharges, for example, were largely in support of the search for suitable rivers and sites for the construction of large federal clams (see, e.g., LaRue, 1925). Investigations into the hydrologic and geomorphic impacts of various land use practices resulted from efforts to understand and control erosion and sedimentation that threatened water resource development (see, e.g., Thornthwaite et al., 1942). When these early scientists and associated engineers (such as Frederick H. Newell, an early director of the Reclamation Service) became part of the administering bureaucracy, they brought their engineering and science with them. They were administrators
OCR for page 32
Sustaining our Water Resources
Gilbert, G. K. 1877. Report on the Geology of the Henry Mountains. U.S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Glacken, C.J. 1967. Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Goetzmann, W. H. 1984. Karl Bodmer's America. Joslyn Art Museum and University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Goodell, S. K. 1978. Waterway preservation: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 7:43–82.
Graf, W. L. 1988. Fluvial Processes in Dryland Rivers. Springer-Verlag, New York and Berlin.
Graf, W L. 1990. Wilderness Preservation and the Sagebrush Rebellions. Rowman & Littlefield, Totowa, N.J.
Graf, W. L. 1992. Science, public policy, and western American rivers. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17:1–24.
Grove, R. H. 1992. Origins of western environmentalism. Scientific American 267(1):42–47.
Hays, S. P. 1959. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Holmes, B. H. 1979. A History of Federal Water Resources Programs and Policies, 1961–1970. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Hunt, C. B. 1974. Natural Regions of the United States and Canada. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.
Huntington, M. H., and J. D. Echeverria. 1991. The American Rivers Outstanding Rivers List. American Rivers, Inc., Washington, D.C.
LaRue, E. C. 1925. Water Power and Flood Control of the Colorado River Below Green River, Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 556. USGS, Washington, D.C.
OCR for page 33
Sustaining our Water Resources
Layton, E., Jr. 1971. The Revolt of the Engineers: Social Responsibility and the American Engineering Profession. Press of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Leopold, L. B. 1990. Ethos, Equity, and the Water Resource. Transcript of 1990 Wolman Lecture, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.
Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
Nash, R. 1973. Wilderness and the American Mind. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.
National Research Council (NRC). 1983. Safety of Existing Dams: Evaluation and Improvement. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1984. Water for the Future of the Nation's Capital Area . National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1985. Safety of Dams: Flood and Earthquake Criteria. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1987. River and Dam Management: A Review of the Bureau of Reclamation's Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1989. Irrigation-Induced Water Quality Problems: What Can Be Learned from the San Joaquin Valley Experience. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1990. A Review of the U.S.G.S. National Water Quality Assessment Pilot Program. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1991a. Colorado River Ecology and Dam Management. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1991b. Opportunities in the Hydrologic Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
OCR for page 34
Sustaining our Water Resources
National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Nygren, E.J. 1986. Views and Visions: American Landscape Before 1830. Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Oelschlaeger, M. 1991. The Idea of Wilderness. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.
Powell, J. W. 1878. Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States, with a More Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah. U.S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, Washington, D.C.
Public Land Law Review Commission. 1970. One Third of the Nation's Land: A Report to the President and to Congress by the Public Land Law Review Commission. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Rabbitt, M. C. 1980. Minerals, Lands, and Geology for the Common Defense and General Welfare: Volume 2:1879–1904. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Schumm, S. A. 1977. The Fluvial System. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Stegner, W. 1953. Beyond the Hundredth Meridian: John Wesley Powell and the Second Opening of the West. Houghton Mufflin Company, Boston.
Stone, C. D. 1974. Should Trees Have Legal Standing?: Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. W. Kaufmann, Los Altos, California.
Tansley, A. G. 1946. Introduction to Plant Ecology. Allen & Unwin, London.
Tarlock, A.D., and R. Tippy. 1970. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Cornell Law Review 55:707–739.
Thorn, C.E. 1988. Introduction to Theoretical Geomorphology. Unwin Hyman, London.
Thornthwaite, C. W., C. F. S. Sharpe, and E. F. Dosch. 1942. Climate and Accelerated Erosion in the Arid and Semi-Arid Southwest, With Special
OCR for page 35
Sustaining our Water Resources
Reference to the Polacca Wash Drainage Basins, Arizona. U.S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 808. USDA, Washington, D.C.
Tinkler, K. J. 1985. A Short History of Geomorphology. Barnes and Noble, Totowa, N.J.
Trelease, F. J. 1979. Water Law: Cases and Materials. 3rd Edition. West Publishing Company, Minneapolis, Minn.
U.S. Department of the Army. 1986. Annual Report FY86 of the Secretary of the Army on Civil Works Activities. U.S. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1982. The National Rivers Inventory. USDI, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1986. Statistical Compilation of Engineering Features on Bureau of Reclamation Projects. USDI, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Forest Service. 1991. U.S. Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Map. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
van der Leeden, F., F. L. Troise, and D. K. Todd. 1990. The Water Encyclopedia. 2nd Edition. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Mich.
von Bertalanffy, L. 1950. An outline of general system theory. British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 1:134–165.
von Bertalanffy, L. 1962. General system theory—a critical review. General Systems 7:1–20.
Wilmerding, J., and J. A. Mahe. 1984. The Waters of America: 19th-Century American Paintings of Rivers, Streams, Lakes, and Waterfalls. New Orleans Museum of Art, New Orleans.
OCR for page 36
Sustaining our Water Resources
APPENDIX 2A LARGE DAMS OF THE UNITED STATES
The following table identifies dams in the continental United States with reservoir capacity of 1 million acre feet or more. Dates for Tennessee Valley Authority dams are initial year of hydropower production; others are dates of closure. Sources of data: U.S. Department of the Interior (1986), U.S. Department of the Army (1986), van der Leeden et al. (1990).
DAM
RESERVOIR
RIVER
STATE
CAPACITY
DATE
1
Hoover
Mead
Colorado
AZ/NV
28,500,000
1936
2
Glen Canyon
Powell
Colorado
AZ
27,000,000
1964
3
Garrison
Sakakawea
Missouri
ND
23,923,500
1956
4
Oahe
Oahe
Missouri
SD
23,337,600
1962
5
Fort Peck
Fort Peck
Missouri
MT
18,909,000
1940
6
Grand Coulee
F.D. Roosevelt
Columbia
WA
9,390,000
1942
7
Kentucky
Kentucky
Tennessee
KY
6,129,000
1944
8
Libby
Libby
Kootenai
MT
5,809,000
1972
9
Fort Randall
Francis Case
Missouri
SD
5,603,000
1953
10
Bull Shoals
Bull Shoals
White
AK
5,408,000
1952
11
Denison
Texoma
Red
TX
5,312,300
1944
12
H.S. Truman
H.S. Truman
Osage
MO
5,202,000
1982
13
Shasta
Shasta
Sacramento
CA
4,550,000
1945
14
Sam Rayburn
Sam Rayburn
Angelina
TX
3,997,600
1965
15
Eufaula
Eufaula
Canadian
OK
3,825,400
1964
16
Flaming Gorge
Flaming Gorge
Green
UT
3,788,700
1964
17
Hungry Horse
Hungry Horse
S.F., Flathead
MT
3,470,000
1953
18
Table Rock
Table Rock
White
MO
3,462,000
1959
19
Dworshak
Dworshak
N.F. Clearwater
ID
3,453,000
1972
20
Clarks Hill
Clarks Hill
Savannah
SC
2,900,000
1952
21
Grears Ferry
Grears Ferry
Little Red
AR
2,844,000
1962
22
Hartwell
Hartwell
Savannah
GA
2,842,700
1961
23
Blackley Mt.
Ouachita
Ouachita
AK
2,768,500
1955
24
John H. Kerr
Kerr
Roanoke
VA
2,750,300
1952
25
Red Lake
Red Lake
Red Lake
MN
2,680,000
1951
26
Wright Patman
Marion
Sulphur
TX
2,654,300
1957
27
Cooper
Cooper
Santee
SC
2,560,000
1985
28
Buford
Sidney Lanier
Chattahoochee
GA
2,554,000
1956
29
Norris
Norris
Clinch
TN
2,552,000
1936
30
John Day
Umatilla
Columbia
OR/WA
2,500,000
1968
31
Painted Rock
Painted Rock
Gila
AZ
2,491,700
1959
32
Trinity
Clair Engle
Trinity
CA
2,450,000
1962
33
New Melones
New Melones
Stanislaus
CA
2,400,000
1979
34
Tuttle Creek
Tuttle Creek
Big Blue
KS
2,346,000
1962
35
Elephant Butte
Elephant Butte
Rio Grande
NM
2,110,000
1916
36
Center Hill
Center Hill
Caney Fork
TN
2,092,000
1948
37
Barkley
Barkley
Cumberland
KY
2,082,000
1964
OCR for page 37
Sustaining our Water Resources
DAM
RESERVOIR
RIVER
STATE
CAPACITY
DATE
38
Canyon Ferry
Canyon Ferry
Missouri
MT
2,050,519
1954
39
San Luis
San Luis
San Luis
CA
2,040,000
1967
40
Whitney
Whitney
Brazos
TX
1,999,500
1953
41
Norfolk
Norfolk
North Fork
AR
1,983,000
1943
42
Marshall Ford
Travis
Colorado River
TX
1,953,936
1942
43
Beaver
Beaver
White
AR
1,952,000
1963
44
Big Bend
Sharpe
Missouri
SD
1,884,000
1964
45
Millwood
Millwood
Little
AK
1,854,930
1966
46
Red Rock
Red Rock
Des Moines
IA
1,830,000
1969
47
Keystone
Keystone
Arkansas
OK
1,737,600
1964
48
Navajo
Navajo
San Juan
NM
1,708,600
1963
49
Dale Hollow
Dale Hollow
Obey
TN
1,706,000
1943
50
Stockton
Stockton
Sac
MO
1,674,000
1969
51
American Falls
American Falls
Snake
ID
1,670,000
1978
52
Monticello
Berryessa
Putah
CA
1,600,000
1957
53
Sardis
Sardis
L. Tallahatchie
MS
1,570,000
1940
54
McNary
McNary
Columbia
OR/WA
1,550,000
1953
55
Cherokee
Cherokee
Holston
TN
1,541,000
1942
56
Oologah
Oologah
Verdigris
OK
1,519,000
1963
57
Douglas
Douglas
French Broad
TN
1,461,000
1943
58
Fontana
Fontana
L. Tennessee
NC
1,443,000
1945
59
Clarence Cannon
Mark Twain
Salt
MO
1,428,000
1983
60
Palisades
Palisades
S.F., Snake
ID
1,401,000
1957
61
Stanford
Meredith
Canadian
TX
1,382,478
1965
62
Broken Bow
Broken Bow
Mountain Fork
OK
1,368,230
1968
63
Tiber
Elwell
Marias
MT
1,368,157
1956
64
Kaw
Kaw
Arkansas
OK
1,348,000
1976
65
Roosevelt
Roosevelt
Salt
AZ
1,336,700
1936
66
Yellowtail
Bighorn
Bighorn
WY
1,328,360
1966
67
Fort Gibson
Fort Gibson
Grand
OK
1,284,400
1953
68
North/Dry Falls
Banks
Columbia
WA
1,280,000
1951
69
Island Park
Island Park
Henry's Fork
ID
1,280,000
1938
70
Tenkiller
Tenkiller
Illinois
OK
1,230,000
1952
71
Coolidge
San Carlos
Gila
AZ
1,222,000
1928
72
Abiquiu
Abiquiu
Rio Chama
NM
1,212,000
1963
73
Kinzua
Kinzua
Allegheny
PA
1,180,000
1965
74
Watts Bar
Watts Bar
Tennessee
TN
1,175,000
1942
75
Milford
Milford
Republican
KS
1,160,000
1965
76
Albeni Falls
Albeni Falls
Pend Oreille
ID
1,153,000
1952
77
Owyhee
Owyhee
Owyhee
OR
1,120,000
1932
78
Strawberry
Strawberry
Strawberry
UT
1,106,500
1974
79
Pickwick Landing
Pickwick Landing
Tennessee
TN
1,105,000
1938
80
Belton
Belton
Leon
TX
1,097,600
1954
81
Wheeler
Wheeler
Tennessee
AL
1,069,000
1936
OCR for page 38
Sustaining our Water Resources
DAM
RESERVOIR
RIVER
STATE
CAPACITY
DATE
82
Guntersville
Guntersville
Tennessee
AL
1,049,000
1939
83
Alamo
Alamo
Bill Williams
AZ
1,046,310
1968
84
Seminoe
Seminoe
North Platte
WY
1,017,273
1939
85
Pathfinder
Pathfinder
North Platte
WY
1,016,507
1909
86
Folsom
Folsom
American
CA
1,010,000
1956
87
Pine Flat
Pine Flat
Kings
CA
1,000,000
1954
OCR for page 39
Sustaining our Water Resources
APPENDIX 2B RIVERS IN THE U.S. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM
The following table identifies rivers formally included in the U.S. Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Data source: American Rivers, Inc. (1990), updated to include all additions as of July 1, 1992.
RIVER
STATE
MILES
YEAR
1
Middle Fork, Clearwater
ID
185
1968
2
Eleven Point
MO
44.4
1968
3
Feather
CA
77.6
1968
4
Rio Grande
NM
52.75
1968
5
Rio Grande
TX
191.2
1978
6
Rogue
OR
84.5
1968
7
St. Croix
MN, WI
200
1968
8
Lower St. Croix
MN, WI
27
1972
9
2nd Lower St. Croix
MN, WI
25
1976
10
Middle Fork, Salmon
ID
104
1968
11
Salmon
ID
125
1980
12
Wolf
WI
25
1968
13
Allagash
ME
95
1970
14
Little Miami
OH
66
1973
15
2nd Little Miami
OH
28
1980
16
Chattooga
NC, SC, GA
56.9
1974
17
Little Beaver
OH
33
1975
18
Snake
ID, OR
66.9
1975
19
Rapid
ID
26.8
1975
20
New
NC
26.5
1976
21
Missouri
MT
149
1976
22
Missouri
NE, SD
59
1978
23
Flathead
MT
219
1976
24
Obed
TN
45.2
1976
25
Pere Marquette
MI
66.4
1978
26
Skagit
WA
157.5
1978
27
Upper Delaware
NY, PA
75.4
1978
28
Middle Delaware
NY, PA, NJ
35
1978
29
North Fork, American
CA
38.3
1978
OCR for page 40
Sustaining our Water Resources
RIVER
STATE
MILES
YEAR
30
Lower American
CA
23
1981
31
Saint Joe
ID
66.3
1978
32
Alagnak
AK
67
1980
33
Alatna
AK
83
1980
34
Aniakchak
AK
63
1980
35
Charley
AK
208
1980
36
Chilikadrotna
AK
11
1980
37
John
AK
52
1980
38
Kobuk
AK
110
1980
39
Mulchatna
AK
24
1980
40
North Fork, Koyukuk
AK
102
1980
41
Noatak
AK
330
1980
42
Salmon
AK
70
1980
43
Tinayguk
AK
44
1980
44
Tlikakila
AK
51
1980
45
Andreafsky
AK
262
1980
46
Ivishak
AK
80
1980
47
Nowitna
AK
225
1980
48
Selawik
AK
160
1980
49
Sheenjek
AK
160
1980
50
Wind
AK
140
1980
51
Beaver Creek
AK
111
1980
52
Birch Creek
AK
126
1980
53
Delta
AK
62
1980
54
Fortymile
AK
392
1980
55
Gulkana
AK
181
1980
56
Unalakleet
AK
80
1980
57
Klamath
CA
286
1981
58
Trinity
CA
203
1981
59
Eel
CA
394
1981
60
Smith
CA
325.4
1981
61
Verde
AZ
40.5
1984
62
Tuolumne
CA
83
1984
63
Au Sable
MI
23
1984
64
Owyhee
OR
112
1984
65
Illinois
OR
50.4
1984
66
Loxahatchee
FL
7.5
1985
67
Horsepasture
NC
4.2
1986
OCR for page 41
Sustaining our Water Resources
RIVER
STATE
MILES
YEAR
68
Cache la Poudre
CO
76
1986
69
Black Creek
MS
21
1986
70
Saline Bayou
LA
19
1986
71
Klickitat
WA
10
1986
72
White Salmon
WA
9
1986
73
Merced
CA
113.5
1987
74
Kings
CA
81
1987
75
Kern
CA
151
1987
76
Wildcat Creek
NH
14.5
1988
77
Sipsey Fork, West Fork
AL
61.4
1988
78
Big Marsh Creek
OR
15
1988
79
Chetco
OR
44.5
1988
80
Clakamas
OR
47
1988
81
Crescent Creek
OR
10
1988
82
Crooked
OR
15
1988
83
Deschutes
OR
173.4
1988
84
Donner und Blitzen
OR
72.7
1988
85
Eagle Creek
OR
27
1988
86
Elk
OR
19
1988
87
Grande Ronde
OR
43.8
1988
88
Imnaha
OR
77
1988
89
John Day
OR
147.5
1988
90
Joseph Creek
OR
8.6
1988
91
Little Deschutes
OR
12
1988
92
Lostine
OR
16
1988
93
Halheur
OR
13.7
1988
94
McKenzie
OR
12.7
1988
95
Metollus
OR
28.6
1988
96
Minam
OR
39
1988
97
North Fork, Crooked
OR
32.3
1988
98
North Fork, John Day
OR
53.8
1988
99
North Fork, Malheur
OR
25.5
1988
100
N. Fk., M. Fk., Willamette
OR
42.3
1988
101
North Fork, Owyhee
OR
9.6
1988
102
North Fork, Smith
OR
13
1988
103
North Fork, Sprague
OR
15
1988
104
North Powder
OR
6
1988
105
North Umpqua
OR
33.8
1988
OCR for page 42
Sustaining our Water Resources
RIVER
STATE
MILES
YEAR
106
Powder
OR
11.7
1988
107
Quartzville Creek
OR
12
1988
108
Roaring
OR
13.7
1988
109
Salmon
OR
33.5
1988
110
Sandy
OR
24.9
1988
111
South Fork, John Day
OR
47
1988
112
Squaw Creek
OR
15.4
1988
113
Sycan
OR
59
1988
114
Upper Rogue
OR
40.3
1988
115
Wenaha
OR
21.6
1988
116
West Little Owyhee
OR
57.6
1988
117
White
OR
46.5
1988
118
Bluestone
WV
17
1988
119
Rio Chama
NM
24.6
1988
120
Middle Fork, Vermillion
IL
17.1
1989
121
East Fork, Jemez
NM
11
1990
122
Pecos
NM
20.7
1990
123
Clarks Fk., Yellowstone
WY
20.5
1990
124
Niobrara
NE
95
1991
125
Missouri
NE
39
1991
Representative terms from entire chapter:
scenic rivers