Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Tier 1 ERR Checklist
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20410 www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov Page 1 of 5 Broad Tiered Environmental Review for Activity/Project that is Categorically Excluded Subject to Section 58.5 Pursuant to 24 CFR Part 58.35(a) Project Information Project Name: Iowa City Housing Authority Sales Proceeds Acquisition ERR File # ICHA Sales Proceeds IDIS # Responsible Entity/Grant Recipient: City of Iowa City Preparer: Kirk Lehmann, Community Development Planner Certifying Officer: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Direct Comments to: Kirk Lehmann, Community Development Planner Project Location: TBD - Iowa City, Iowa Project Description [24 CFR 50.12 & 58.32; 40 CFR 1508.25]: This project consists of ICHA acquiring five dwelling units to be part of its public housing stock and be occupied by low income renters. The program is administered by the Iowa City Housing Authority. No work will be completed as part of this acquisition. Approximate size of the project area: TBD Length of time covered by this review: through 6/30/2021 Maximum number of dwelling units or lots addressed by this tiered review: 5 Units Level of Environmental Review Determination: Categorically Excluded SUBJECT TO §58.5 per 24 CFR 58.35(a): (5) Funding Information Grant Number HUD Program Program Name Funding Amount IA022 Public Housing Sale Proceeds $1,000,000 Estimated Total HUD Funded Amount: $1,000,000 Estimated Total Project Cost (HUD and non-HUD funds) [24 CFR 58.32(d)]: $1,000,000 Page 2 of 5 Compliance with 24 CFR 50.4, 58.5, and 58.6 Laws and Authorities and Written Strategies Compliance Factors: Statutes, Executive Orders, and Regulations listed at 24 CFR 58.5 and 58.6 Was compliance achieved at the broad level of review? If Yes: Describe compliance determinations made at the broad level. If No: Describe the policy, standard, or process to be followed in the site-specific review. STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS - 24 CFR 50.4 & 58.6 Airport Hazards 24 CFR Part 51D Yes No The project will not be in Hazard/Clear Zones. If in an Accident Potential Zone, it will have to meet Department of Defense guidelines and land use policies. Coastal Barrier Resources Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as amended by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 [16 USC 3501] Yes No No Coastal Barrier Resource Areas in Iowa. http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/welc ome.html Flood Insurance Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 [42 USC 4001-4128 and 42 USC 5154a] Yes No The proposed use of the site(s) will be reviewed in relation to designated floodplains. If it is in a floodplain, flood insurance will be required and appropriately documented. STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS - 24 CFR §58.5 Clean Air Clean Air Act, as amended, sections 176(c) & (d); 40 CFR 6, 51, 93 Yes No There are presently no non-attainment areas in Johnson County, IA - Region 7 EPA. See documentation in ERR Binder. Coastal Zone Management Coastal Zone Management Act, sections 307(c) & (d) Yes No No coastal zone management programs exist in Iowa, as established by Nat’l Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Manag’t. (http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/wel come.html) Contamination and Toxic Substances 24 CFR 50.3(i) & 58.5(i)(2) Yes No The project site(s) will be reviewed to determine if there are any on-site or toxic, hazardous, or radioactive substances nearby that would conflict with the intended use of the site(s) through a field inspection, land use search, and review of environmental compliance sources such as IDNR Facility Explorer, EPA ECHO Facility Search, and IDNR Storage Tank Search. If there are hazards present, mitigation measures to prevent the hazard from affecting the project occupants will be used, or the hazard will be remediated with the assistance of the appropriate agency. Page 3 of 5 Endangered Species Endangered Species Act of 1973, section 7; 50 CFR 402 Yes No Acquisition of existing structure(s) without natural habitat. Project will have no effect on a Federally listed endangered or threatened species or its habitat. See documentation in ERR Binder. Explosive and Flammable Hazards 24 CFR 51C Yes No Project does not include development, construction, or rehabilitation that will increase residential densities or conversion. Farmlands Protection Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, sections 1504(b) and 1541; 7 CFR 658 Yes No Project locations already have existing structures which will be acquired as part of the funded activity. Therefore, it is not an applicable activity and prime farmland, unique farmland, or land of statewide or local importance was not investigated because it will not be affected. Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988, particularly section 2(a); 24 CFR 55 Yes No Project site(s) will be reviewed in relation to designated floodplains. An 8-step process will be completed if found that there are no practicable alternatives to floodplain development that provide the same level of benefit. Historic Preservation National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, sections 106 and 110; 36 CFR 800 Yes No Project is acquisition only without the potential to affect cultural resources. The project includes no ground disturbance and no rehabilitation. No consultation is required. Noise Abatement and Control Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Quiet Communities Act of 1978; 24 CFR 51B Yes No Project site(s) will be reviewed for potential noise generators within the vicinity of the project (1,000 ft for major/busy road and 3,000 for railways). Iowa City Municipal Airport is a General Aviation airport and does not present a community noise concern. As required, noise assessments will be performed in accordance with the Noise Assessment Guidelines and any mitigation identified. The HUD DNL noise calculation must be less than 65 dB. Sole Source Aquifers Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, section 1424(e); 40 CFR 149 Yes No Project will not be located within area of an EPA- designated sole source aquifers in Iowa. See documentation in ERR Binder. Wetlands Protection Executive Order 11990, sections 2 and 5 Yes No Project site(s) will be reviewed in relation to designated wetlands. An 8-step process will be completed if determined that there are no practicable alternatives to wetlands development that provide the same level of benefit. Wild and Scenic Rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, section 7(b) and (c) Yes No Project will not be within 1 mile of a designated Wild & Scenic River, or river being studied as a potential component of the Wild & Scenic River system. See documentation in ERR Binder. Page 4 of 5 Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 Yes No Project will be reviewed for its environmental impacts by using the EPA’s Environmental Justice Mapper Report to compare demographic data and identify adverse health or environmental effects disproportionately impacting minority and low-income populations. If any adverse impacts, mitigation measures must be proposed and accepted including documentation of providing information to the community and participation in the planning process to address the effect. Attach supporting documentation as necessary, including a site-specific checklist. Determination: Extraordinary circumstances exist and this project may result in significant environmental impact. This project requires preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA); OR There are no extraordinary circumstances which would require completion of an EA, and this project may remain CEST. Preparer Signature: __________________________________________Date:________ Name/Title/Organization: Kirk Lehmann / Community Development Planner / City of Iowa City Responsible Entity Agency Official Signature: _________________________________________________________Date:__4-23-20______ Name/Title: Erika Kubly / Neighborhood Services Coordinator__________________________ This original, signed document and related supporting material must be retained on file by the Responsible Entity in an Environmental Review Record (ERR) for the activity/project (ref: 24 CFR Part 58.38) and in accordance with recordkeeping requirements for the HUD program(s). This document represents the Tier 1 or Broad-Level review only. As individual sites are selected, this review must be supplemented by individual Tier 2 or Site-Specific reviews for each site. All laws and authorities requiring site-specific analysis will be addressed in these individual reviews. 4/24/2020 Page 5 of 5 APPENDIX: Site-Specific or Tier 2 Reviews Update this document as site-specific reviews are completed. Complete each site-specific review according to the written strategies outlined in the broad-level review and attach it in the environmental review record. Site-specific project name Address or location Date Complete 02/29/2020 Counties Designated "Nonattainment" or "Maintenance" Legend **County Designated N onattainment or Ma inten ance for 9 NAAQS PollutantsCounty Designated N onattainment or Ma inten ance for 8 NAAQS PollutantsCounty Designated N onattainment or Ma inten ance for 7 NAAQS PollutantsCounty Designated N onattainment or Ma inten ance for 6 NAAQS PollutantsCounty Designated N onattainment or Ma inten ance for 5 NAAQS PollutantsCounty Designated N onattainment or Ma inten ance for 4 NAAQS PollutantsCounty Designated N onattainment or Ma inten ance for 3 NAAQS PollutantsCounty Designated N onattainment or Ma inten ance for 2 NAAQS PollutantsCounty Designated N onattainment or Ma inten ance for 1 NAAQS Pollutants for Clean Air Act's National Ambien t Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) * * The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are health standards for Carbon Monoxide, Lead (19 78 an d 200 8), Nitrogen Dioxide, 8-hour Ozone (2008), Particulate Matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5 (1997, 20 06 and 2012), and Sulfur Dioxide.(1971 and 2010) ** Included in the counts are counties designated for NAAQS and revised NAAQS pollutants. Revo ked 1-hour (1979) and 8-hour Ozone (1997) are excluded. Partial counties, those with part of the county design ated nonattainment and part attainment, are shown as full counties on the map. AK HI GU PR 3/31/2020 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: No Effect Determinations for HUD Projects - Step 6 https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/no_effect/hud6.html 1/2 USFWS Midwest Midwest Ecological Services Contact Us S7 Consultation Technical Assistance Decision Process for "No Effect" Determinations HUD Projects - Step 6 Step 6. "No Effect" Determination and Documentation Your project is located entirely within an urban area (incorporated village or city) and does not involve any new construction activities. Additionally, your project entails one of the following characteristics: the rehabilitation of existing buildings, if the rehabilitation does not significantly alter present capacity or use, or the reconstruction or resurfacing of existing infrastructure (e.g.,streets, sewers, sidewalks, etc.) without disturbance to previously undisturbed ground, or the removal of urban blight, through the demolition of unwanted and unsightly structures, provided that the locations for disposal and stockpiling of demolition debris are clearly described in project plans and do not contain plant or animal habitats. Based on these characteristics, a "No Effect" determination is appropriate because the project will not occur within suitable habitat for any listed species and/or no habitat disturbance is anticipated. Hence, no listed species or designated critical habitat is anticipated to be directly or indirectly affected by this action. To document your section 7 review and "no effect" determination, we recommend that you print this page (go to File<Print Preview), fill- in the project name and date, attach your species list, and file in your administrative record. HUD Project: Date: Back Home - "No Effect" Determination Process In the Midwest USFWS Midwest Home Midwest Ecological Services Home Contact Us Section 7 Consultation Section 7 Home Section 7: A Brief Explanation Conserving the nature of America Chauncey - Acquisition only 4/15/2020 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 3/31/2020 Iowa https://www.r iver s.g ov/iowa.php 1/2 + Vie w la rge r map Iowa has approximately 70,247 miles of river, but no des ignated wild & scenic rivers. Legend + – Iowa does not have any designated rivers. Choose A State Go Choose A River Go NATIONW IDE RIVERS INVENTORY CONTACT US PRIVACY NOTICE Q & A SEARCH ENGINE SITE MAP IOWA Nourished b y the fertile soils of the region, rivers of the Midwest explode with life, from great avian m igrations to ancient fishes. NATIONAL SYSTEM MANAGEMENT RESOURCES PUBLICATIONS CONTACT US 50 YEARS SITE INDEX 3/31/2020 Iowa https://www.r iver s.g ov/iowa.php 2/2 De signa te d Rive rs About W SR Act State Listings Profile Pages Na tiona l System W SR Table Study Rivers Stewards hip W SR Legislation Rive r Ma nage me nt Council Agencies Management Plans River Mgt. Society GIS Mapping Re source s Q & A Search Bibliography Publications GIS Mapping Logo & Sign Standards 3/20/2020 Nationwide Rivers Inventory https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=8adbe798-0d7e-40fb-bd48-225513d64977 1/2 Na onal Park Service U.S. Department of the InteriorNa onwide Rivers Inventory This is a lis ng of more than 3,200 free-flowing river segments in the U.S.… Home (h ps://www.nps.gov)Frequently Asked Ques ons (h ps://www.nps.gov/faqs.htm) Park Tiles Imagery Find a loca on 5 micoding by Esri | © Mapbox (h ps://www.mapbox.com/about/maps/) © OpenStreetMap (h ps://www.openstreetmap.org/copy… 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 1/15 Rivers Currently Under Study Section 2(a)(ii) Studies Available for Download Wild & Scenic River Studies There are two study provisions in the Act — Section 5(a), through which Congress directs the study of select rivers, and Section 5(d)(1), which directs federal agencies to identify potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National System) through federal agency plans. A brief explanation is provided in the following respective sections. Current Active Studies Currently, there are three rivers or river systems under "authorized" study—two under Section 5(a) of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act and one under Section 2(a)(ii). This does not include those that might be under assessment as part of normal agency land-planning processes. Cave, Lake, No Name and Panther Creeks, Oregon (Public Law 113- 291, December 19, 2014) – Under study by the National Park Service. Housatonic River, Connecticut (Governor Malloy Request for Section 2(a) (ii) Designation, November 16, 2016) – Under study by the National Park Service. York River, Maine. (Public Law 113-291, December 19, 2014) – Under study by the National Park Service. Section 2(a)(ii) Studies Under Section 2(a)(ii) of the Act, a governor (or governors for a river in multiple states) of a state can request that a river be designated, provided certain conditions are met (refer to the Council White Paper on Section 2(a)(ii) for specifics). The NPS then conducts a study to determine of certain conditions are met. Here are some of the studis conducted under Section 2(a)(ii). Again, if you don't see a study listed, we do not have a copy. Allagash River Study Report, Maine Choose A State Go Choose A River Go WILD & SCENIC RIVER STUDIES While progress should never come to a halt, there are many places it should never come to at all. — Paul Newman NATIONAL SYSTEM MANAGEMENT RESOURCES PUBLICATIONS CONTACT US 50 YEARS SITE INDEX 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 2/15 Section 5(d)(1) Studies Available for Download American River Eligibility Report, California American River Environmental Impact Statement, California Big & Little Darby Creeks Study Report & Environmental Assessment, Ohio Eel River Eligibility Report, California Eel River Environmental Impact Statement, California Klamath River Eligibility Report, California Klamath River Environmental Impact Statement, California Klamath River Study Report, Oregon Lumber River Study Report, North Carolina Smith River Eligibility Report, California Smith River Environmental Impact Statement, California Trinity River Eligibility Report, California Trinity River Environmental Impact Statement, California Wallowa River Study Report, Oregon Westfield River Study Report & Environmental Assessment (Initial Study 1993), Massachusetts Westfield River Draft Study Report (Expansion 2002), Massachusetts Section 5(d)(1), Agency-Identified Studies In recent years, hundreds of rivers have been identified for study through Section 5(d)(1) of the Act. This provision directs federal agencies to identify potential addition to the National System through their respective resource and management plans. Its application has resulted in numerous individual river designations, statewide legislation (e.g., Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, P.L. 100-557; Michigan Scenic Rivers Act, P.L. 102-249) and multi-state legislation (e.g., Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, P.L. 111-11). Here are examples of agency- identified studies and transmittal documents (if available). Arizona Bureau of Land Management Statewide Study LEIS (8.6 MB PDF) Arizona Bureau of Land Management Statewide Study River Assessments (10.5 MB PDF) Blue River & KP Creek (Arizona) (11.9 MB PDF) Flathead River Draft Proposed Addition & Environmental Impact Statement, Montana Utah Statewide Suitability Study: Record of Decision (19.9 MB PDF) EIS Cover (697 KB PDF) Summary & Table of Contents (138 KB PDF) Chapter 1 - Purpose & Need (734 KB PDF) Chapter 2 - Alternatives (2.8 MB PDF) Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences (1.4 MB PDF) Chapter 4 - Consultation & Coordination (109 KB PDF) Chapter 5 - Referances (183 KB PDF) Chapter 6 - Comments & Responses (22.4 MB PDF) Appendix A - Table of Contents (799 KB PDF) Appendix A - Ashley NF Suitability Evaluation Report (36.7 MB PDF) 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 3/15 Congressionally Authorized Study Reports Available for Download Appendix A - Dixie & Fishlake NFs Suitability Evaluation Report (13.7 MB PDF) Appendix A - Manti La Sal NF Suitability Evaluation Report (10.8 MB PDF) Appendix A - Uinta & Wasatch NF Suitability Evaluation Report (52.5 MB PDF) Appendix B - BLM & NPS Rivers (686 KB PDF) Appendix C - Statutory Requirements (146 KB PDF) Appendix D - Effects of Managing Rivers (155 KB PDF) Appendix E - Water Rights Maps (16.7 MB PDF) Congressionally Authorized Study Reports We have collected a few of the study reports prepared at the direction of Congress (see next section, "Section 5(a), Congressionally Authorized Studies," for the complete list of congressionally authorized studies). If you do not see a report here, we do not have it, and you will have to contact the study agency at the local level for a copy. Allegheny River Study Report & Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Pennsylvania Assabet, Concord & Sudbury Rivers Draft Study Report, Massachusetts AuSable River Study Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Michigan Black Creek Draft Study Report & Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Mississippi Bluestone River Study Report, West Virginia Bruneau River Study Report, Idaho Buffalo River Study Report, Tennessee Cache la Poudre River Study Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Colorado Chattooga River Study Report, Georgia, North Carolina & South Carolina Clarion River Study Report, Pennsylvania Concord, Assabet & Sudbury Rivers Draft Study Report, Massachusetts Delaware (Lower) River Study Report, New Jersey, New York & Pennsylvania Delaware (Upper) River Study Report, New Jersey, New York & Pennsylvania Farmington River Study Report, Connecticut Farmington (Lower) River Study Report & Environmental Assessment, Connecticut Flathead River Study Report, Montana Great Egg Harbor River Study Report, New Jersey Housatonic River Study Report, Connecticut Illinois River Study Report, Oregon John Day River Study Report, Oregon Kern (North Fork) River Study Report, California Kern (North Fork) River Study Environmental Impact Statement, California 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 4/15 Kern (South Fork) River Study & Environmental Impact Statement, California Kern (North & South Forks) River Record of Decision, California Klamath River Draft Study Report (Section 5(d)(2) of the Act), Oregon Lamprey River Study Report, New Hampshire Lamprey River Resource Assesssment, New Hampshire Little Beaver Creek Study Report, Ohio Little Miami River Study Report, Ohio Loxahatchee River Study Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Florida Malhuer (North Fork) River Study Report, Oregon Manistee River Study Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Michigan Maurice River Eligibility & Classification Report, New Jersey Maurice River Study Report, New Jersey Merrimack (Upper) River Draft Study Report, New Hampshire Missisquoi River Study Report & Environmental Assessment, Vermont Missouri River Study Report, Montana Missouri River Environmental Statement, Montana Musconetcong River Study Report, New Jersey New River Study Report, Virginia & West Virginia New River Study Transmittal Memorandums, Virginia & West Virginia New River (South Fork) Study Report & Environmental Impact Statement, North Carolina Niobrara River Study Report, Nebraska Obed River Study Report, Tennessee Owyhee River Study Report, Idaho Pemigewasset River Draft Study Report, New Hampshire Pemigewasset River Draft Study Report Appendices, New Hampshire Pere Marquette River Study Report, Michigan Red River Draft Study Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Kentucky Rio Grande River Study Report, Texas Rio Grande River Study Environmental Impact Statement, Texas St. Croix River Study Report, Minnesota & Wisconsin St. Marys River Study Report, Florida Sheenjek River Study Report & Legislative Environmental Impact Statement, Alaska Skagit River Study Report, Washington Snake River Study Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Idaho, Oregon & Washington Sudbury, Assabet & Concord Rivers Study Report, Massachusetts Suwannee River Study Report, Florida & Georgia Sweetwater River Study Report, Wyoming Taunton River Draft Study Report & Environmental Assessment, Massachusetts Trout-Missisquoi River Study Report & Environmental Assessment, Vermont Tuolumne River Study Report, California Verde River Study Report & Environmental Assessment, Arizona Wekiva River Study Report, Florida White Clay Creek Draft Study Report, Delaware & Pennsylvania 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 5/15 Section 5(a), Congressionally Authorized Studies Wildcat Brook Draft Study Report, New Hampshire Wolf River Bureau of Outdoor Rrecreation Study Report, Wisconsin Wolf River Lake Central Regional Task Group Draft Study Report, Wisconsin Yellowstone (Clarks Fork) River Study Report & Environmental Statement, Wyoming Section 5(a), Congressionally Authorized Studies Through Section 5(a), Congress authorizes the study of select rivers and directs one of the four federal river-administering agencies to conduct the study, as outlined in Sections 4(a) and 5(c) of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. The enabling legislation of 1968, P.L. 90-542, authorized 27 rivers for study as potential components of the National System. Amendments to the law have increased the number of studies authorized by Congress to 144. These studies have lead to 48 designations by either Congress or the Secretary of the Interior. One study led to the establishment of a National Recreation Area. The number of rivers included in the National System differs from the number of rivers authorized for study by Congress for the following reasons: Not all rivers studied are found eligible or suitable for designation—many study rivers will not be included in the National System. Some rivers are designated by Congress or the Secretary of the Interior without a pre-authorization or 5(a) study (e.g., Niobrara River). Some rivers are designated as a result of recommendation in federal agency plans (e.g., 49 rivers designated in Oregon in 1988). The 144 rivers below have been authorized for study. The agency leading the study is indicated as National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR), Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), or U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Within the Department of the Interior, the study function was transferred from the HCRS (formerly the BOR) to the NPS by Secretarial Order Number 3017, January 25, 1978. All studies indicated as BOR or HCRS were completed by these agencies before the program was transferred to the NPS. The BLM was delegated responsibility for conducting studies on Public Lands on October 11, 1988. The USFS (Department of Agriculture) has always conducted studies on National Forest System Lands and as directed by Congress. For each study river, the number in parentheses is the approximate number of miles to be studied. If river segments were designated, the total designated mileage appears in the text. Several of these studies are available in the section above (Section 5(a), Congressionally Authorized Studies). I. Public Law 90-542 (October 2, 1968) — 27 rivers, studies due October 2, 1978 (1) Allegheny, Pennsylvania. (BOR) Letter report to Congress on January 23, 1974. River not qualified. (69.5 miles) (2) Bruneau, Idaho. (BOR) Report recommending congressional designation transmitted to Congress on May 23, 1977. (121 miles) (3) Buffalo, Tennessee. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on October 2, 1979. Preservation of river by state recommended. (117 miles) (4) Chattooga, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. (USFS) Fifty-six point nine miles added to the National System, Public Law 93-279, May 10, 1974. (56.9 miles) (5) Clarion, Pennsylvania. (BOR) Letter report to Congress on February 22, 1974. River not qualified. (90 miles) 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 6/15 (6) Delaware, Pennsylvania and New York. (BOR) Seventy-five point four miles added to the National System, Public Law 95-625, November 10, 1978. (75.4 miles) (7) Flathead, Montana. (USFS) Two hundred nineteen miles added to the National System, Public Law 94-486, October 12, 1976. (219 miles) (8) Gasconade, Missouri. (BOR) Report transmitted to Congress on May 23, 1977. Preservation of river by state recommended. (265 miles) (9) Illinois, Oregon. (USFS) Fifty point four miles added to the National System, Public Law 98-494, October 19, 1984. (88 miles) (10) Little Beaver, Ohio. (BOR) Thirty-three miles added to the National System by the Secretary of the Interior on October 23, 1975. Report transmitted to Congress on February 10, 1976. (33 miles) (11) Little Miami, Ohio. (BOR) Sixty-six miles added to the National System by the Secretary of the Interior on August 20, 1973. Report transmitted to Congress on November 5, 1973. An additional 28-mile segment was added by the Secretary of the Interior on January 28, 1980. (94 miles) (12) Maumee, Ohio and Indiana. (BOR) Report transmitted to Congress on September 13, 1974. River not qualified. (236 miles) (13) Missouri, Montana. (BOR) One hundred forty-nine miles added to the National System, Public Law 94-486, October 12, 1976. (180 miles) (14) Moyie, Idaho. (USFS) Report transmitted to Congress on September 13, 1982. Designation not recommended. (26.1 miles) (15) Obed, Tennessee. (BOR/NPS) Forty-five miles added to the National System, Public Law 94-486, October 12, 1976. Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. Submission of final report was in abeyance pending completion of a mineral evaluation. Further designation was not recommended. (100 miles) (16) Penobscot, Maine. (BOR) Report transmitted to Congress on May 23, 1977. Preservation of river by state recommended. (327 miles) (17) Pere Marquette, Michigan. (USFS) Sixty-six point four miles added to the National System, Public Law 95-625, November 10, 1978. (153 miles) (18) Pine Creek, Pennsylvania. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on October 2, 1979. Preservation of river by state recommended. (51.7 miles) (19) Priest, Idaho. (USFS) Report recommending congressional designation transmitted to Congress on October 2, 1979. (67 miles) (20) Rio Grande, Texas. (BOR) One hundred ninety-one point two miles added to the National System, Public Law 95-625, November 10, 1978. (556 miles) (21) Saint Croix, Minnesota and Wisconsin. (BOR) Twenty-seven mile federally administered segment added to the National System by Public Law 92-560, October 25, 1972. Twenty-five mile state- administered segment added by the Secretary of the Interior on June 17, 1976. (52 miles) (22) St. Joe, Idaho. (USFS) Sixty-six point three miles added to the National System, Public Law 95-625, November 10, 1978. (132.1 miles) (23) Salmon, Idaho. (USFS) One hundred twenty-five miles added to the National System, Public Law 96-312, July 23, 1980. Additional 53 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 7/15 miles subject to provisions of Section 7(a) of Public Law 90-542. (237 miles) (24) Skagit, Washington. (USFS) One hundred fifty-seven point five miles added to the National System, Public Law 95-625, November 10, 1978. (166.3 miles) (25) Suwannee, Florida and Georgia. (BOR) Report transmitted to Congress on March 15, 1974. Preservation of river by state recommended. (272 miles) (26) Upper Iowa, Iowa. (BOR) Report transmitted to Congress on May 11, 1972. Preservation of river by state recommended. (80 miles) (27) Youghigheny, Maryland and Pennsylvania. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on October 2, 1979. Preservation of river by state recommended. (49 miles) II. Public Law 93-621 (January 3, 1975) — 29 rivers, studies due October 2, 1979, except the Dolores River due October 2, 1976, and the Green and Yampa Rivers due January 1, 1987 (28) American, California. (USFS) Thirty-eight point three miles added to the National System, Public Law 95-625, November 10, 1978. (41.1 miles) (29) AuSable, Michigan. (USFS) Twenty-three miles added to the National System, Public Law 98-444, October 4, 1984. (165 miles) (30) Big Thompson, Colorado. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on October 2, 1979. Designation not recommended. (13.6 miles) (31) Cache la Poudre, Colorado. (USFS) Seventy-six miles added to the National System, Public Law 99-590, October 30, 1986. (76 miles) (32) Cahaba, Alabama. (USFS) Report transmitted to Congress on December 14, 1979. River not qualified. (116 miles) (33) Clarks Fork, Wyoming. (USFS) Twenty point five miles added to the National System, Public Law 101-628, November 28, 1990. (23 miles) (34) Colorado, Colorado and Utah. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. Designation not recommended. (75.7 miles) (35) Conejos, Colorado. (USFS) Report recommending congressional designation transmitted to Congress on September 13, 1982. (48.8 miles) (36) Elk, Colorado. (USFS) Report recommending congressional designation transmitted to Congress on September 13, 1982. (35 miles) (37) Encampment, Colorado. (USFS) Report recommending congressional designation transmitted to Congress on October 2, 1979. (19.5 miles) (38) Green, Colorado and Utah. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress in combination with the Yampa River on November 14, 1983. The river was determined eligible, but the Secretary did not include a recommendation for designation. (91 miles) (39) Gunnison, Colorado. (NPS) Report recommending congressional designation transmitted to Congress on October 2, 1979. (29 miles) (40) Illinois, Oklahoma. (HCRS) Report transmitted to Congress on October 2, 1979. Preservation of river by state recommended. (115 miles) 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 8/15 (41) John Day, Oregon. (NPS) One hundred forty-seven point five miles added to the National System, Public Law 100-557, October 28, 1988. (149 miles) (42) Kettle, Minnesota. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on October 2, 1979. Preservation of river by state recommended. (79 miles) (43) Los Pinos, Colorado. (USFS) Report recommending congressional designation transmitted to Congress on September 13, 1982. (54 miles) (44) Manistee, Michigan. (USFS) Twenty-six miles added to the National System, Public Law 102-249, March 3, 1992. (232 miles) (45) Nolichucky, Tennessee and North Carolina. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. River not qualified. (110 miles) (46) Owyhee, Oregon. (NPS) One hundred twenty miles added to the National System, Public Law 98-494, October 19, 1984. (192 miles) (47) Piedra, Colorado. (USFS) Report recommending congressional designation transmitted to Congress on September 13, 1982. (53 miles) (48) Shepaug, Connecticut. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on October 2, 1979. Preservation of river by state and local action recommended. (28 miles) (49) Sipsey Fork, Alabama. (USFS) Sixty-one miles added to the National System, Public Law 100-547, October 28, 1988. (71 miles) (50) Snake, Wyoming. (USFS) Report recommending congressional designation transmitted to Congress on September 13, 1982. (50 miles) (51) Sweetwater, Wyoming. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on November 14, 1979. Designation not recommended. (9.5 miles) (52) Tuolumne, California. (NPS/USFS) Eighty-three miles added to the National System, Public Law 98-425, September 28, 1984. (92 miles) (53) Upper Mississippi, Minnesota. (BOR) Report recommending congressional designation transmitted to Congress on August 25, 1977. (466 miles) (54) Wisconsin, Wisconsin. (NPS/USFS) Report transmitted to Congress on October 2, 1979. Preservation of river by state recommended. (82.4 miles) (55) Yampa, Colorado. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress in combination with Green River on November 14, 1983. The river was determined eligible, but the Secretary did not include a recommendation for designation. (47 miles) (56) Dolores, Colorado. (BOR/USFS) Report recommending Congressional designation transmitted to Congress on May 23, 1977. (105 miles) III. Public Law 94-199 (December 31, 1975) — 1 river, study due October 1, 1979 (57) Snake, Washington, Oregon and Idaho. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. Designation not recommended. (33 miles) IV. Public Law 94-486 (October 12, 1976) — 1 river, study due October 1, 1980 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 9/15 (58) Housatonic, Connecticut. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on October 2, 1979. Preservation of river by state and local action recommended. (51 miles) V. Public Law 95-625 (November 10, 1978) — 17 rivers, studies due October 1, 1984 (59) Kern (North Fork), California. (USFS) One hundred fifty-one miles of the North and South Forks added to the National System, Public Law 100-174, November 24, 1987. (74 miles) (60) Loxahatchee, Florida. (NPS) Seven point five miles added to the National System by the Secretary of the Interior on May 17, 1985. (25 miles) (61) Ogeechee, Georgia. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. Preservation of river by state recommended. (246 miles) (62) Salt, Arizona. (USFS) Report transmitted to Congress on September 13, 1982. Designation not recommended. (22 miles) (63) Verde, Arizona. (USFS) Forty point five miles added to the National System, Public Law 98-406, August 28, 1984. (78 miles) (64) San Francisco, Arizona. (USFS) Report transmitted to Congress on September 13, 1982. Designation not recommended. (29 miles) (65) Fish Creek, East Branch, New York. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. Preservation of river by state and local action recommended. (49 miles) (66) Black Creek, Mississippi. (USFS) Twenty-one miles added to the National System, Public Law 99-590, October 30, 1986. (122.8 miles) (67) Allegheny, Pennsylvania. (USFS) Eighty-five miles added to the National System, Public Law 102-271, April 20, 1992. (128 miles) (68) Cacapon, West Virginia. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. Preservation of river by state and local action recommended. (114 miles) (69) Escatawpa, Alabama and Mississippi. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. Preservation of river by state and local action recommended. (72 miles) (70) Myakka, Florida. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. Preservation of river by state recommended. (37 miles) (71) Soldier Creek, Alabama. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. River not qualified. (.2 miles) (72) Red, Kentucky. (USFS) Nineteen point four miles added to the National System, Public Law 103-170, December 2, 1993. (19.4 miles) (73) Bluestone, West Virginia. (NPS) Ten miles added to the National System, Public Law 100-534, October 26, 1988. (40 miles) (74) Gauley, West Virginia. (NPS) A 25-mile segment established as a National Recreation Area on October 26, 1988. (164 miles) (75) Greenbrier, West Virginia. (USFS) Report transmitted to Congress on January 7, 1993. Preservation of river by state and local action recommended. (175 miles) VI. Public Law 96-199 (March 5, 1980) — 1 river, study due October 1, 1984 (76) Birch, West Virginia. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. Preservation of river by state and local action recommended. (20 miles) 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 10/15 VII. Public Law 96-487 (December 2, 1980) — 12 rivers, studies due October 1, 1984, except the Sheenjek and Squirrel Rivers due January 1, 1987. The following rivers were added for study by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA.) (77) Colville, Alaska. (NPS) Study submitted to Congress on April 12, 1979, as part of 105(c) study mandated by Public Law 94-258. This was prior to passage of ANILCA. (428 miles) (78) Etivluk-Nigu, Alaska. (NPS) Study submitted to Congress on April 12, 1979, as part of 105(c) study mandated by Public Law 94- 258. This was prior to passage of ANILCA. (160 miles) (79) Utukok, Alaska. (NPS) Study submitted to Congress on April 12, 1979, as part of 105(c) study mandated by Public Law 94-258. This was prior to passage of ANILCA. (250 miles) (80) Kanektok, Alaska. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. Designation not recommended. (75 miles) (81) Kisaralik, Alaska. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. Designation not recommended. (75 miles) (82) Melozitna, Alaska. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. River not qualified. (270 miles) (83) Sheenjek (lower segment), Alaska. (NPS) Report recommending congressional designation transmitted to Congress on January 19, 2001. (109 miles) (84) Situk, Alaska. (USFS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. Designation not recommended. (21 miles) (85) Porcupine, Alaska. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. Designation not recommended. (75 miles) (86) Yukon (Ramparts section), Alaska. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. Designation not recommended. (128 miles) (87) Squirrel, Alaska. (Initiated by NPS/Completed by BLM) Final report/EIS issued January 26, 1999. Designation not recommended. (72 miles) (88) Koyuk, Alaska. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 26, 1985. River not qualified. (159 miles) VIII. Public Law 98-323 (June 6, 1984) — 1 river, study due October 1, 1990 (89) Wildcat Creek, New Hampshire. (NPS) Fourteen point five miles added to the National System, Public Law 100-554, October 28, 1988. (21 miles) IX. Public Law 98-484 (October 17, 1984) — 1 river, study due October 17, 1987 (90) Horsepasture, North Carolina. (USFS) Four point two miles added to the National System, Public Law 99-530, October 27, 1986. (4.2 miles) X. Public Law 98-494 (October 19, 1984) — 1 river, study due October 1, 1988 (91) North Umpqua, Oregon. (USFS) Thirty-three point eight miles added to the National System, Public Law 100-557, October 28, 1988. (33.8 miles) XI. Public Law 99-590 (October 30, 1986) — 2 rivers, studies due October 30, 1989, for the Great Egg Harbor and October 1, 1990, for the Farmington 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 11/15 (92) Farmington, West Branch, Connecticut and Massachusetts. (NPS) Fourteen miles added to the National System, Public Law 103- 313, August 26, 1994. Report transmitted to Congress on December 13, 1995. (25 miles) (93) Great Egg Harbor, New Jersey. (NPS) One hundred twenty-nine miles added to the National System, Public Law 102-536, October 26, 1992. (127 miles) XII. Public Law 99-663 (November 17, 1986) — 2 rivers, studies due October 1, 1990 (94) Klickitat, Washington. (USFS) Draft report issued June 1990. Final report completed, but not transmitted to Congress. (30 miles) (95) White Salmon, Washington. (USFS) Twenty miles added to the National System, Public Law 109-44, August 2, 2005. The portion designated was added to the study by the USFS and is the headwaters above the segment authorized for study. (13.5 miles) XIII. Public Law 100-33 (May 7, 1987) — 3 rivers, studies due October 1, 1990 (96) Maurice, New Jersey. (NPS) Ten point five miles added to the National System, Public Law 103-162, December 1, 1993. (14 miles) (97) Manumuskin, New Jersey. (NPS) Fourteen point three miles added to the National System, Public Law 103-162, December 1, 1993. (3.5 miles) (98) Menantico Creek, New Jersey. (NPS) Seven point nine miles added to the National System, Public Law 103-162, December 1, 1993. (7 miles) XIV. Public Law 100-149 (November 2, 1987) — 1 river, study due October 1, 1991 (99) Merced, California. (BLM) Eight miles added to the National System, Public Law 102-432, October 23, 1992. (8 miles) XV. Public Law 100-557 (October 28, 1988) — 6 rivers, studies due October 1, 1992 (100) Blue, Oregon. (USFS) Study initiated in 1989. River determined ineligible, but report not transmitted to Congress. (9 miles) (101) Chewaucan, Oregon. (USFS) Study initiated in 1989. River determined ineligible, but report not transmitted to Congress. (23 miles) (102) North Fork Malheur, Oregon. (BLM) River determined eligible, but report not transmitted to Congress. (15 miles) (103) South Fork McKenzie, Oregon. (USFS) Study initiated in 1989. River determined eligible, with plans to complete the study at revision of the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. (26 miles) (104) Steamboat Creek, Oregon. (USFS) Final report completed in 1993. River determined eligible, but report not transmitted to Congress. (24 miles) (105) Wallowa, Oregon. (USFS) Ten miles added to the National System by the Secretary of the Interior on July 25, 1996. (10 miles) XVI. Public Law 101-356 (August 10, 1990) — 1 river, study due August 10, 1993 (106) Merrimack, New Hampshire. (NPS) Draft report issued October 7, 1999. River was determined eligible, but final report not transmitted to Congress. (22 miles) 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 12/15 XVII. Public Law 101-357 (August 10, 1990) — 1 river, study due August 10, 1993 (107) Pemigewasset, New Hampshire. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on May 5, 1998. Designation not recommended. (36 miles) XVIII. Public Law 101-364 (August 15, 1990) — 1 river, study due August 15, 1993 (108) St. Marys, Florida. (NPS) Draft report issued on March 16, 1994. River was determined eligible, but final report not transmitted to Congress. (120 miles) XIX. Public Law 101-538 (November 8, 1990) — 1 river, study due September 30, 1994 (109) Mills, North Carolina. (USFS) Final report completed in 1996 but not transmitted to Congress. (33 miles) XX. Public Law 101-628 (November 28, 1990) — 1 river, study due September 30, 1994 (110) Concord, Assabet and Sudbury, Massachusetts. (NPS) Twenty-nine miles added to the National System, Public Law 106-20, April 9, 1999. (29 miles) XXI. Public Law 102-50 (May 24, 1991) — 1 river, study due September 30, 1994 (111) Niobrara, Nebraska. (NPS) Six miles added to the National System, Public Law 102-50, May 24, 1996. (6 miles) XXII. Public Law 102-214 (December 11, 1991) — 1 river, study due December 11, 1994 (112) Lamprey, New Hampshire. (NPS) Eleven point five miles added to the National System, Public Law 104-333, November 12, 1996. Twelve miles added to the National System, Public Law 106-192, May 5, 2000. (10 miles) XXIII. Public Law 102-215 (December 11, 1991) — 1 river, study due December 11, 1994 (113) White Clay Creek, Pennsylvania and Delaware. (NPS) One hundred ninety miles added to the National System, Public Law 106- 357, October 24, 2000. (23+ miles) XXIV. Public Law 102-249 (March 3, 1992) — 11 rivers, studies due September 30, 1995 (114) Brule, Michigan and Wisconsin. (USFS) River determined eligible; suitability study not completed. (33 miles) (115) Carp, Michigan. (USFS) River determined eligible; suitability study not completed. (7.6 miles) (116) Little Manistee, Michigan. (USFS) River determined eligible; suitability study not completed. (42 miles) (117) White, Michigan. (USFS) River determined eligible; suitability study not completed. (75.4 miles) (118) Ontonagon, Michigan. (USFS) River determined eligible; suitability study not completed. (32 miles) (119) Paint, Michigan. (USFS) River determined eligible; suitability study not completed. (70 miles) (120) Presque Isle, Michigan. (USFS) River determined eligible; suitability study not completed. (13 miles) 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 13/15 (121) Sturgeon (Ottawa National Forest), Michigan. (USFS) River determined eligible; suitability study not completed. (36 miles) (122) Sturgeon (Hiawatha National Forest), Michigan. (USFS) River determined eligible; suitability study not completed. (18.1 miles) (123) Tahquamenon, Michigan. (USFS) River determined eligible; suitability study not completed. (103.5 miles) (124) Whitefish, Michigan. (USFS) River determined eligible; suitability study not completed. (26 miles) XXV. Public Law 102-271 (April 20, 1992) — 2 rivers, studies due September 30, 1995 (125) Clarion, Pennsylvania. (USFS) Fifty-one point seven miles added to the National System, Public Law 104-333, October 19, 1996. (104 miles) (126) Mill Creek, Pennsylvania. (USFS) River determined eligible, suitability study not completed. (18 miles) XXVI. Public Law 102-301 (June 19, 1992) — 5 rivers, studies due September 30, 1995 (127) Piru Creek, California. (USFS) Seven point three miles of area below Pyramid Lake added to the National System, Public Law 111-11, March 30, 2009. Two areas of river authorized for study—source to Pyramid Lake and 300 feet below Pyramid Lake to Lake Piru. Study of area above Pyramid Lake completed in revision of Los Padres National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. (49 miles) (128) Little Sur, California. (USFS) Study completed in revision of Los Padres National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. River determined eligible, but report not transmitted to Congress. (23 miles) (129) Matilija Creek, California. (USFS) Study completed in revision of Los Padres National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. River determined ineligible, but report not transmitted to Congress. (16 miles) (130) Lopez Creek, California. (USFS) Study completed in revision of Los Padres National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. River determined ineligible, but report not transmitted to Congress. (11 miles) (131) Sespe Creek, California. (USFS) Study completed in revision of Los Padres National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. River determined eligible, but report not transmitted to Congress. (10.5 miles) XXVII. Public Law 102-432 (October 23, 1992) — 1 river, study due September 30, 1995 (132) North Fork Merced, California. (BLM) Study has been completed through the Folsom Resource Management Plan. River determined ineligible, but report not transmitted to Congress. (15 miles) XXVIII. Public Law 102-460 (October 23, 1992) — 1 river, study due October 23, 1993 (133) Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. (NPS) Sixty-seven point three miles added to the National System, Public Law 106-418, November 1, 2000. (70 miles) XXIX. Public Law 102-525 (October 26, 1992) — 1 river, study due October 26, 1993 (134) New, Virginia and West Virginia. (NPS) Report transmitted to Congress on April 8, 2011. Designation not recommended. (20 miles) 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 14/15 Transmittal Memos XXX. Public Law 103-242 (May 4, 1994) — 1 river, study due May 4, 1997 (135) Rio Grande, New Mexico. (BLM) Final report issued on January 4, 2000, but not transmitted to Congress. Seven point six miles determined eligible. (8 miles) XXXI. Public Law 104-311 (October 19, 1996) — 1 river, study due October 19, 1998 (136) Wekiva, Florida. (NPS) Forty-one point six miles added to the National System, Public Law 106-299, October 13, 2000. (27 miles) XXXII. Public Law 106-318 (October 19, 2000) — 1 river, study due October 19, 2003 (137) Taunton, Massachusetts. (NPS) Forty point zero miles added to the National System, Public Law 111-11, March 30, 2009. (22 miles) XXXIII. Public Law 107-65 (November 6, 2001) — 1 river, study due November 6, 2004 (138) Eight Mile, Connecticut. (NPS) Twenty-five point three miles added to the National System, Public Law 110-229, May 8, 2008. (15 miles) XXXIV. Public Law 109-370 (November 27, 2006) — 1 river, study due November 27, 2009 (139) Lower Farmington and Salmon Brook, Connecticut. (NPS) Study initiated in 2007. (70 miles) XXXV. Public Law 111-11 (March 3, 2009) — 1 river, study due March 30, 2012 (140) Missisquoi and Trout, Vermont. (NPS) Forty-six point one miles added to the National System, Public Law 113-291, December 19, 2014. (70 miles) XXXVI. Public Law 113-291 (December 19, 2014) — 4 rivers, studies due 3 years after the date on which funds are made available to conduct the studies (141) Cave Creek, Lake Creek, No Name Creek, Panther Creek, and Upper Cave Creek, Oregon. (NPS) (8.3 miles) (142) Beaver, Chipuxet, Queen, Wood and Pawcatuck Rivers, Rhode Island and Connecticut. (NPS) (86 miles) (143) Nashua River, Massachusetts. (NPS) (32.5 miles) (144) York River, Maine. (NPS) (11.3 miles) For each study river, the number in parentheses is the approximate number of miles to be studied. If river segments were designated, the total designated mileage appears in the text. 3/20/2020 Wild & Scenic River Studies https://www.rivers.gov/study.php 15/15 Designated Rivers About WSR Act State Listings Profile Pages National System WSR Table Study Rivers Stewardship WSR Legislation River Management Council Agencies Management Plans River Mgt. Society GIS Mapping Resources Q & A Search Bibliography Publications GIS Mapping Logo & Sign Standards NATIONWIDE RIVERS INVENTORY CONTACT US PRIVACY NOTICE Q & A SEARCH ENGINE SITE MAP