The purpose of this discussion was so all of the RGPT would be familiar with the rivers wild and scenic political history. Two handouts were distributed to Partnership Team members: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and, the Rio Grande designation legislation.

As early as the 1950's and 1960's there was national concern over the loss of free-flowing rivers from dams and diversions. The lower Rio Grande was designated for study as a potential wild and scenic river under the passage of the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Between 1973 and 1977 several attempts at designation through the federal and state system failed. Then on November 10, 1978 the Rio Grande was added to the national system under P.L. 95-625.

Following the designation the National Park Service opened a planning office in Alpine, TX. Over the next two years the NPS developed a draft general management plan which was distributed to the public in March 1981. Controversy surrounded the draft plan and shortly after public scoping meetings, a "landowners alternative" was submitted for consideration. In November 1981 the park superintendent accepted a final general management plan (GMP)/development concept plan with the landowners alternative for boundary identification. (River center to a "gradient boundary" on the left bank.) The final GMP was approved at the National Park Service regional level in March 1982, though public comments suggested the boundary did not protect the river's outstandingly remarkable values. The final GMP was sent to Washington D.C. (National Park Service Headquarters Offices) for review and comment. Headquarters staff did not approve the plan and therefore Big Bend National Park could not implement the recommendations.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was amended in 1986, which established a one-quarter mile boundary on all designated rivers that did not have an established boundary in place. Technically this quarter-mile boundary exists on the Rio Grande.

In 1999, the National Park Service allocated funds to revise the Big Bend National Park general management plan and develop a plan for the river.

A white paper entitled "Establishment of Wild and Scenic River Boundaries" was distributed to the RGPT. Within this paper are the various WSR Act references [Sections 3(b), 4(d), and 10(a)] determining the need and establishment of boundaries.

Group discussion focused on conflicts between property rights and federal management of a boundary on private land. Citizens and RGPT representatives are concerned if the WSR boundary implies federal ownership, and how wide WSR boundaries are. Several discussion points focused on the groups desire to determine how to protect and manage the outstandingly remarkable values and that establishing river boundaries are one of many tools for river management. The NPS suggested that the river boundary implies an area where the NPS may have an interest. As an example, if a landowner is willing to sell a river access area to the federal government, the NPS could not pursue the offer if the land in question is outside of the designated boundary.

The group debated two approaches to establishing boundaries with no specific outcome. The RGPT decided to devote additional time at a future meeting to discuss whether the resources are evaluated and appropriate boundaries established OR accept the gradient boundary (as established in 1981 Final GMP) and apply further boundary as needed. See list of action items.

Specific discussion items included:

There is not an existing resources study for the entire stretch of river. However this October the USGS will begin a survey of in-stream and riparian zone resources that will include this entire stretch of river. NPS has completed some resources assessment work on turtles and fisheries and a fisheries study is currently being conducted by Sul Ross graduate student Chris Garrett. Other agencies that have data that could be significant to the RGPT's efforts are Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, International Boundary Waters Commission, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and, archeological studies completed by State archeologist Bob Malouf.

The RGPT should pay close attention to relationships with Mexico. Landowners in Mexico along the lower canyons should be informed of this process. It is evident the RGPT may have to collaborate with Mexico on many of the issue categories since land ownership and government control could help or hinder the planning team.

This list of issues was created because the RGPT felt they were not adequately addressed.

Landowner liability

La Linda bridge -- evaluate opportunities

Landowner restrictions -- by the landowner, to the landowner

Landowner rights

Safety for boaters

Legal issues -- solicitor opinion, congressional direction

Funding for long-term management

User limits

Are recreational boaters who camp in Mexico trespassing?

Does Texas have river laws based on Mexico law?

 

RGPT private boater representative David Riechert and Sanderson citizen Susan Rawlins are very interested in exploring innovative techniques for citizen involvement in this planning process. The RGPT brainstormed a list of potential activities that could be explored as effective outreach strategies.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Expo (end of September)

County Fairs

Livestock Show (January)

Newspaper articles

County Commission meetings

Civic Clubs

WebPages of various organizations (some listed include: NPS< outfitter businesses, American Rivers, Sierra Club, National Parks and Conservation Association, World Wildlife Fund, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Chamber of Commerce's, National Cattleman's Beef Association, Texas Wildlife Association, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, American Canoe Association, River Management Society, Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Basin Coalition, Lower Rio Grande Development Council

Develop one-page status report

Explore computer list-serve ideas for communication

Landowner and user surveys

Reaching kids and youth

Project Del Rio (throughout basin)

Dia del Rio (in October)

Utilize new curriculum developed for watershed

University recreation groups and clubs

Additional members to be considered for Rio Grande Partnership Team:

General Land Office (Paul Loeffler)

Texas Wildlife Association (hunting interests)

Riverside Landowners Association

Mexico participation (Pronatura)

International Boundary and Water Commission

National Parks and Conservation Association

 

Landowners can help identify significant resources along the river that need management/ protection from degradation and help define which management strategies are appropriate.

There are 15+ private landowners along the corridor.

Each RGPT meeting should have an evaluation component to check progress.

The RGPT endorsed the idea to start the mapping exercise sooner. This would include identifying existing map resources and determining what additional mapping is needed for making sound resource management decisions.

The RGPT recommended park staff identify existing research and studies completed on Rio Grande. The data could be provided in list form or brief summaries of the reports.

 

Notes submitted by:

Attila Bality

September 7, 2000