PWSR Toolkit Home > Study > Demonstrate Local Endorsement

Local support is a key part of PWSR studies and is necessary to move a PWSR designation forward. The demonstration of local endorsement is two-fold and includes: approval to pursue designation into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and acceptance of the river management plan that establishes stewardship objectives and recommendations to sustain river resources. Affirmative votes / approvals by the legislative bodies of each municipality demonstrate suitability for PWSR designation. If a municipality does not approve designation and the plan, its river segment(s) will likely be deemed unsuitable for designation in the NPS Report to Congress.

Your Study Committee will be the first entity to endorse pursuing designation and adopt the river management plan. If the Study Committee does not approve pursuing designation, then subsequent town votes aren’t needed. Your Study Committee’s votes / approvals could be at different times and will need to be recorded in minutes of meetings. [For example, the York River Study Committee voted to endorse pursuing designation for at least a part of York River and its major tributaries and voted to establish the recreational classification for any designated segments at its October 2017 meeting; voted to approve specific river segments for the designation proposal at its November 2017 meeting; and voted to approve the York River Watershed Stewardship Plan at its July 2018 meeting.]

Each town’s legislative or governing body will be asked to vote to endorse river designation and the river management plan. Formats of endorsement votes vary by town and can include, among others:

Adoption of resolutions by councils or select boards
Approval of an article at Town Meeting
Majority of affirmative votes on a warrant article on the ballot

Depending on the municipalities involved, votes for your study can be the same format in all communities (e.g., select boards and councils in all 12 towns in the Wood-Pawcatuck River study area voted on resolutions) or you might have different vote formats by town (e.g., citizens in two towns voted on ballot items, and town councils in two towns voted on resolutions for the York River study). Check with your towns’ managers, clerks and/or councilors well in advance of any votes to confirm the format and timing. Offer to assist with drafting or reviewing language for any articles or resolutions that will be voted upon.

Following the municipal votes or approvals, regardless of format, you’ll need official documentation (typically from a town clerk) that records the local approval or voting results. It’s likely this documentation will be incorporated into the NPS WSR Study Report that will be developed for your study. See the NPS WSR Study Reports (appendices) for the Nashua River and York River studies for examples of documentation of town approvals/votes.

The legislative bodies in each town must vote as part of the suitability determination for PWSRs. It’s optional to obtain additional approvals or support from other town boards and committees. You can choose to request that other town boards (e.g., town conservation commissions, planning boards, historic district commissions, harbor boards, etc.) endorse designation, and you’ll have to work with each to determine whether it’s possible and how that support is best demonstrated and conveyed.

Examples – Resolution/Articles for Consideration

Missisquoi and Trout Rivers, VT – article for town meeting:

To see if the voters of the Town of _______ will petition the Congress of the United States of America that the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers be designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers with the understanding that such designation would be based on the locally-developed rivers Management Plan and would not involve federal acquisition or management of lands.

Wood-Pawcatuck Rivers, CT & RI – resolution for council consideration:

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of ______ hereby supports the recommendation for designation of Seven Rivers of the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed – Beaver, Chipuxet, Green Fall, Pawcatuck, Queen, Shunock, and Wood Rivers – as Wild and Scenic Rivers through an act of the United States Congress.

And, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED; that the _______ Town Council endorses the Wood-Pawcatuck Wild and Scenic Rivers Stewardship Plan developed by the Wood-Pawcatuck Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Committee.

York River, ME – ballot article and accompanying statement of fact:

ARTICLE TWO: Shall the Town endorse the York River Study Committee’s recommendation to seek Wild and Scenic River designation for the York River and its major tributaries with the understanding that designation would not involve National Park Service ownership or management of lands, and further, accept the committee’s York River Watershed Stewardship Plan?

Statement of Fact: The York River Wild and Scenic Study, which was authorized by the US Congress, evaluated the York River for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System under its “Partnership” river model. The York River Study Committee believes a Partnership Wild and Scenic River designation would provide key financial resources, technical assistance, and a local structure to best enable implementation of the York River Watershed Stewardship Plan. The Stewardship Plan is a non-regulatory guidance document that recommends strategies to preserve important historic, cultural, economic and natural resources in the York River watershed consistent with goals in towns’ comprehensive plans. Community support for designation and acceptance of the Stewardship Plan is a prerequisite to Partnership Wild and Scenic River designation. However, such endorsement does not commit the Town to provide any financial resources. Funding to implement the Stewardship Plan is anticipated to come from annual Congressional appropriations through the National Park Service’s Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers Program if the York River is designated. There is no land ownership or management by the National Park Service, and there are no required changes to local ordinances with a Partnership Wild and Scenic River designation.

Letters of Support

At various stages of the study process, it’s helpful to have letters of support to publicly demonstrate local endorsement of the overall study or, more specifically, the committee’s recommendation to seek PWSR designation – from individuals, conservation organizations, agencies, volunteer committees, etc. Letters can be sought in advance of town votes, for inclusion the NPS WSR Study Report, and/or to support Congressional efforts to sponsor and pass a river designation bill. Letters of support from river user groups and from organizations and entities that participated in the study and have a role in river stewardship initiatives are particularly helpful. Letters of support are a specific example that NPS can cite in its assessment of local support for river protection (a suitability criterion). Details of support letters contained in two NPS WSR Study Reports are noted below:

York River, ME – The NPS WSR Study Report, Appendix 2: Record of Endorsements and Support for Wild and Scenic Designation, lists 33 letters of support and provides copies of each. Letters were from state legislators, community leaders, local and regional conservation organizations, town boards and committees, agencies, civic groups, and others.
Missisquoi and Trout Rivers, VT – The NPS WSR Study Report and Environmental Assessment, Appendix 3. Designation Support Letters, includes copies of 10 support letters from statewide and regional conservation organizations, a state agency, a town select board, and town conservation commissions, among others.

Other Outcomes and Factors

In most cases, communities have endorsed river designations usually with overwhelming support. However, there are instances of towns voting down designation or deciding to defer decisions to a later time. Outcomes of votes will affect the suitability assessment for PWSR designation. If a town does not support designation, its river segments will not be suitable for designation.

Another factor to consider is that not all towns identified and participating in the study will necessarily be voting at the conclusion of the study. The need for community endorsements through votes will be based on the eligibility and suitability findings, the river segments recommended for designation, and river management approaches identified in your plan.

Examples: When Votes Fail or Don't Happen

Merrimack River, NH – lacked local support, deemed not suitable. A study of the Upper Merrimack River found it met eligibility criteria for a PWSR designation for river segments flowing through five municipalities. In May 1994, four towns voted against seeking designation and a fifth town’s Council tabled its vote. Without the affirmative local votes, the river was found not suitable for PWSR designation and a recommendation against pursuing designation was made by NPS in its Study Report.

Lamprey River, NH – deferred vote in one town, two rounds of designations by Congress. In May 1995 at the conclusion of the river study, three of the four study area towns voted overwhelmingly to pursue designation; the fourth town deferred its decision and did not take a vote at the time. The river segments in the three towns that voted were designated by Congress in 1996. Four years later, the remaining community voted to endorse designation and 12 more river miles were added to the designation in 2000, through a second act of Congress.

Musconetcong River, NJ – rejection by one township with later reconsideration and adoption, designation of additional segment by Secretary of the Interior. Resolutions of support for the management plan and designation were adopted by 13 of 14 river corridor municipalities in 2002, thereby demonstrating local support for two of three river segments eligible for designation. Congress designated those segments in 2006 under Public Law 109-452, and Section 5(d) authorized the Secretary of the Interior to add the additional segment upon a finding that there is adequate local support for designation and upon publication of notice in the Federal Register. In 2018, the Pohatcong Township Council reconsidered and voted unanimously by resolution to demonstrate its support for adding the additional segment, and the Secretary of the Interior published notice in the Federal Register on June 3, 2022.

Missisquoi and Trout Rivers, VT – one “No” vote, designation recommendation adjusted. One of nine towns/villages considering designation voted down the article at its Town Meeting in 2013. The designation recommendation, and ultimately the segments identified in the 2014 authorizing legislation, was adjusted to exclude the 3.8-mile river section in Lowell (it happened to be an uppermost/headwaters river segment). House Bill H.R. 2569 as introduced would have allowed designation of the Lowell segment upon determination by the Secretary of the Interior of adequate local support for designation, but this language did not survive the legislative markup process. As noted in the NPS WSR Study Report, the town of Lowell can reconsider and should an affirmative vote occur, that section could then become suitable for PWSR designation. However, a second act of Congress would be necessary for designation.

Examples – Deciding Which Towns Vote

Missisquoi and Trout Rivers, VT – no proposed segments, no town vote. The study area included rivers in the town of Jay (along with nine other towns/villages), and the study committee included representation from all study area towns. Several major tributaries were evaluated and found to be eligible for designation, however, no suitability analyses were completed for the major tributaries. As noted in the NPS Study Report, “The Missisquoi and Trout River tributaries were not evaluated for suitability based on a desire to move forward with designation of the mainstem of the Rivers, and timing constraints on the Study.” The town of Jay contained tributaries only, so it did not contain river segments proposed for designation (having not met eligibility and suitability criteria), and townspeople were not presented with an article to consider at Town Meeting when all other study area towns were.

York River, ME – no proposed segments, still conducted town vote. South Berwick is one of four towns with lands and water resources in the York River watershed, though no major tributaries and no river segments proposed for designation exist within the town. However, in conducting its PWSR study and in developing key actions for the York River Watershed Stewardship Plan, the Study Committee recognized the importance of implementing a watershed-based approach to preserve water quality, ORVs, and regional biodiversity. As such, the committee decided to seek endorsement from all watershed towns, and the South Berwick Town Council was asked to approve a resolution to seek designation and accept the Stewardship Plan. The Council approved the resolution by unanimous vote.