PART III: In a series on the MNRRA

The Hastings Bridge. The MNRRA extends along 72 miles of the Mississippi River starting just below Hastings, MN and extending northward along the river.

This third installment in a series of articles on the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), referenced as a potential precedent for the Hudson River Valley Special Resource Study Act (H.R. 4003) introduced November 2009 by Congressman Maurice Hinchey, explores the framework of this National Park Service designation’s Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP).  Part IV in this series will summarize the management goals and content of the CMP.

A final CMP for the MNRRA was released to the public in 1994 and approved by the secretary of the interior in 1995.  The purpose of this plan is to:

(1) protect, preserve, and enhance the significant values of the Mississippi River corridor through the Twin Cities metropolitan area;

(2) encourage coordination of federal, state, and local programs; and

(3) provide a management framework to assist the state of Minnesota and units of local government in the development and implementation of integrated resource management programs and to ensure orderly public and private development in the area.

To accomplish these goals the CMP prescribes a two-tiered approach:

Tier 1 calls for the maintenance and improvement of the state Mississippi River Critical Area Program and the state shoreland management program.  Local governments are already required to comply with the standards of these programs, and this does not change.

Tier 2 is a voluntary move that local governments can make by updating their community plans and ordinances to incorporate land use, resource protection, and open space policies as described in the CMP.  Local governments pursuing this tier can request funding and technical assistance.  Technical assistance for plan development is available from the Metropolitan Council and ordinance development is available from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Tier 1 is the initial goal, as it requires more effective implementation of existing state and regional programs. However, the long-term goal is to have all of the communities reach tier 2 and fully implement the MNRRA plan to achieve all of the plan’s purposes.

To fulfill these two tiers of implementation, the NPS collaborates with 25 local governments, several state agencies, and many civic organizations.  The Mississippi River Coordinating Commission, with the assistance of the focus groups formed early in the CMP planning process, developed vision and purpose statements that function as the CMP’s groundwork for implementation. This is carried out through a partnership framework composed of collaboration at the federal, state, and local levels, allowing this national park designation to be referred to as a “partnership park.”

This partnership approach relies upon coordination between different levels of government to manage the corridor. The plan adopts and incorporates the state critical area program, shorelands program, and other applicable state and regional land use management programs that implement the visions and concepts identified for the corridor. An important feature of the CMP is that it does not create another layer of government, but rather stresses the use of existing authorities and agencies.

The CMP states that it “will not prevent new development or expansion of existing development in the corridor that is consistent with state and regional land use management programs. It is not a regulatory document and does not mandate actions by non-NPS entities. The NPS and the commission do not have approval authority over local plans and ordinances, and they do not have authority to approve or deny project-specific land use decisions.”

Local governments retain local control of land use decisions consistent with applicable state and regional land use management programs. Land use management consistent with the MNRRA CMP is encouraged through an emphasis on incentives, including a grant program authorized in the MNRRA act, but yet to be funded by Congress.

In summary, the CMP framework, as directed by legislation, establishes a vision and provides a flexible structure for local, state, federal, and civic organizations to collaborate on preserving cultural resources and visual character, managing land and water, and enhancing visitor use, tourism, and economic development in the Mississippi River corridor through the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The next installment in this series will describe in more detail the programmatic goals of this management plan.

PART I: In a series on the MNRRA

The Hudson River Valley (HRV) Special Resource Study Act (H.R. 4003), introduced November 2009 by Congressman Maurice Hinchey, references the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) as a precedent.

But what exactly is a National River and Recreation Area?

The Mississippi River through the St. Paul/Minneapolis metro area is a rapidly growing destination for canoeists and boaters. *2008 NPS

Established in 1988, the MNRRA is an example of this National Park Service (NPS) designation. The MNRRA encompasses a total of 54,000 acres of public and private land and water along a 72-mile stretch of the Mississippi River and a four-mile run of the Minnesota River, between the cities of Dayton and Ramsey, MN to the south of Hastings, MN. The NPS owns only 65 acres of the 54,000 acres that make up the MNRRA.

The MNRRA was founded to “(1) protect, preserve, and enhance the significant values of the Mississippi River corridor through the Twin Cities metropolitan area, (2) encourage coordination of federal, state, and local programs, and (3) provide a management framework to assist the state of Minnesota and units of local government in the development and implementation of integrated resource management programs and to ensure orderly public and private development in the area.”

This federal designation is in one sense, an outgrowth of a preexisting Minnesota state legislation — the Critical Areas Act of 1973.  The Mississippi River and its adjacent corridor were designated a Mississippi River Critical Area in 1976 as the Minnesota Legislature found that “the development of certain areas possessing important historic, cultural, or aesthetic values or natural systems that perform functions of greater than local significance could result in irreversible damage to these resources, decrease their value and utility for public purposes, or unreasonably endanger life and property.”  The Mississippi River Critical Area comprised 54,000 acres of the Mississippi corridor, and it is these external boundaries that the MNRRA adopted when it was established in 1988.

The Mississippi River’s national designation process, however, first began in 1968 when Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act establishing a system for protecting nationally significant wild and scenic rivers. Congress revised the list of these Wild and Scenic Rivers in 1975 and included a portion of the Upper Mississippi River between Anoka and Lake Itasca, MN. Two years later, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Outdoor Recreation conducted a study that recommended the inclusion of about 350 miles, spanning 12 segments, of the Upper Mississippi River for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers system. These segments had previously been excluded from consideration for Wild and Scenic River status because of development.

Later the same year, legislation was introduced in Congress to incorporate these 12 segments of the Mississippi River into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. However, public hearings in 1978 were poorly attended and controversial, which led to an amendment to the legislation requiring the NPS to prepare a master plan for the Upper Mississippi as a prerequisite for congressional action.

Congress created the Metropolitan River Corridors Study Commission in 1980 to recommend ways to protect and manage the resource values of the Mississippi, Minnesota, and St. Croix Rivers in the metropolitan area.  The Commission’s final report was released in 1986 finding that although there were many efforts towards protecting and enhancing the river’s resources, “a more concerted effort was needed to provide an overall vision for the river and to protect it.”  This report led to the 1988 legislation that created the MNRRA.

This 1988 legislation also established a 22-member Mississippi River Coordinating Commission composed of federal, state, and local officials and citizens to develop a comprehensive management plan (CMP) to manage the corridor. With extensive public involvement, the Mississippi River Coordinating Commission and the NPS released a finalized CMP to the public in 1994 and the Secretary of the Interior approved the plan in 1995. A distinguishing feature of this multi-party CMP is that it is based upon the concept of a “partnership park” that includes both private and public lands.

MNRRA Timeline

1968 – Congress enacts the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

1973 – State enacts the Critical Areas Act.

1975 - Congressional legislation introduced to designate Upper Mississippi as a Wild and Scenic River.

1976 – Mississippi River and its adjacent corridor becomes the Mississippi River Critical Area under the state Critical Areas Act of 1973.

1978 – Public hearings lead to an amendment requiring NPS to prepare an Upper Mississippi master plan as a prerequisite for Wild and Scenic River designation.

1980 - Metropolitan River Corridors Study Commission created to recommend a management framework.

1986 - Metropolitan River Corridors Study Commission releases its report, recommending “a concerted effort to provide an overall vision for the river and to protect it.”

1988 – The MNRRA designation is created, establishing a 22-member Mississippi River Coordinating Commission composed of federal, state, local officials, and citizens to develop a comprehensive management plan (CMP).

1994 - After an extensive public process led by Mississippi River Coordinating Commission and NPS, a CMP is released.

1995 – Secretary of Interior approves the CMP, which is based upon the concept of a partnership park including both public and private lands.

Congressman Maurice Hinchey’s Hudson River Valley Special Resource Study Act passed in the House of Representatives on March 19, 2010.  The bill required two-thirds majority (272 votes) to pass.  The totals were 293 Ayes, 115 Nays, and 22 Not Voting.  Of the 293 Ayes, 243 were Democrats and 50 were Republicans while two Democrats and 113 Republicans voted Nay.

All 28 New York Congressmen voted Aye with the exception of Gary Ackerman [D] who did not vote.

The following is a press release from the office of Congressman Maurice Hinchey.

For Immediate Release

March 19, 2010

Washington, DC — The U.S. House of Representatives today approved a bill authored by Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) that would authorize the National Park Service (NPS) to conduct a study on whether the Hudson River Valley should become a unit of the National Park system. As part of the National Park system, the region would see an influx of tourism, additional federal resources and increased preservation efforts that would create jobs and grow the local economy.

“Today the House recognized the historical and natural significance of the Hudson River Valley by calling on the National Park Service to conduct a study to determine if the region would be a good fit with the National Park system,” Hinchey said.  “I am optimistic that this bill will soon pass the Senate and be signed into law by the president, allowing the area to gain proper national recognition that would make it more attractive to visitors and businesses.  This is a momentous day for those of us who live in the Hudson River Valley and one that I believe will eventually lead to a National Park designation for the region.”

The vote to pass Hinchey’s bill, H.R. 4003 — the Hudson River Valley Special Resource Study Act, follows a successful vote in committee on February 24. A hearing was held on January 21 by the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

In order for the Hudson River Valley to become part of the National Park System, a congressionally-authorized NPS study must be conducted.  Hinchey’s legislation would authorize such a study from Fort Edward in Washington County down through Westchester County.  If the NPS’s study finds that the Hudson River Valley would be a good fit as part of the National Park System then subsequent legislation would be needed to make that designation.  Hinchey said he would immediately introduce the necessary legislation.

Hinchey’s bill outlines specific guidelines to ensure that the NPS study recognizes the realities of the Hudson River Valley.  These guidelines require the NPS to closely examine park unit models, in particular national river and recreation areas, as well as other landscape protection models, that: encompass large areas of non-federal lands within their designated boundaries; foster public and private collaborative arrangements for achieving NPS objectives, and protect and respect the rights of private land owners.  No forced land acquisition activities would be permitted.

Hinchey has long sought greater recognition, protection, and resources for the Hudson River Valley.  As a member of the New York State Assembly, Hinchey authored the legislation that led to the creation of the Hudson River Valley Greenway.  In Congress, he authored legislation that led to the designation of the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area, which provides technical assistance to local communities or local managers to assist them in managing natural and historic sites of national importance.

How is a congressional bill passed? In this article, the legislative process is broken down to track the progress of H.R. 4003, the Hudson River Valley (HRV) Special Resource Study Act.

Step 1: Introduction
Any member of Congress can introduce a legislative bill, and it may be introduced in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. Congressman Maurice Hinchey, representing New York’s 22nd Congressional District introduced the HRV Special Resource Study Act on November 3, 2009. To introduce a bill in the House, a Congressman simply places the bill in a “hopper” with his or her signature as the sponsor at the side of the Clerk’s desk. The Clerk assigns the bill a number—for example, the HRV Special Resource Study Act’s number is H.R. 4003—and the Speaker of the House refers the bill to the House Committee or Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the area affected by the bill.Step 2: Referral to a Committee

Once a bill is introduced and referred to an appropriate committee, the committee holds public hearings and markup sessions for the bill. The public hearing is usually the first step in the committee consideration process and it is also the time when citizens are given the opportunity to testify or be heard. Committees make public the date, place, and subject of every hearing that they hold.

Following the hearings, the bill advances to a “markup” session where committee members study the legislation, offer amendments, and vote to accept or reject these changes. At the conclusions of the deliberation, committee members vote to determine the bill’s next steps. It can either be reported, with or without amendments, or tabled, where no further action will occur. If reported, a “Committee Report” is written describing the purpose and scope of the bill and the reasons for recommended approval. Then the bill moves to the full House floor for consideration.

There are 20 committees in the House of Representatives, and 16 committees in the Senate. Each of these committees may in turn have several subcommittees. In the case of the HRV Special Resource Study Act, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources and its subcommittee, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. On January 21, 2010, this subcommittee held a public hearing on the bill and now the bill is scheduled for a markup by the House Committee on Natural Resources on Wednesday, February 10, 2010.

A bill originating in the House also needs a sponsor to carry it in the Senate. According to Bob Elliott, a board member of the Hudson Valley Greenway Council and former Mayor of Croton-on-Hudson, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has agreed to carry H.R. 4003. If the Senate changes the language of the legislation, it must return to the House for additional changes or concurrence. Often a conference committee, composed of members of both the House and the Senate, is appointed to resolve the differences between the two legislative bodies.

Step 3: House Vote
The full House votes on the bill.

Step 4: Senate Vote
The full Senate votes on the bill.

Step 5: Signed by the President
If the House and the Senate vote in support of the bill, then the HRV Special Resource Study Act will be sent to the President for signature. If signed, the bill becomes law and the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to study the suitability of establishing the HRV as a unit of the National Park System.

New York Congressman Maurice Hinchey’s Hudson River Valley Special Resource Study Act went before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Natural Resources, Thursday, January 21, 2010. The Subcommittee hearing was an initial step for this legislation, which would authorize the National Park Service (NPS) to conduct a study on whether the Hudson River Valley is suitable as a unit of the National Park system. The Subcommittee heard supportive testimonies from Congressman Hinchey and Bob Elliott, a board member of the Hudson Valley Greenway Council and former Mayor of Croton-on-Hudson, as well as dissenting testimony from Carol LaGrasse, president of Property Rights Foundation of America, Inc.

Both Hinchey and Elliott spoke of the Hudson River Valley’s world-renowned scenic beauty, recreational assets, unique and sensitive ecosystem, and its historical significance, referencing its influential role in the American Revolution, home to important movements in American art, and its influence in moving the country from an agrarian to an industrial economy. They also spoke to the timeliness of this legislation, referencing the 400th Quadricentennial anniversary of Henry Hudson’s 1609 voyage of the river that now bears his name. Elliott testified, “given this unique moment and the world-class resources of the region, now is an ideal time to authorize the NPS to study the Hudson River Valley for inclusion in the national park system.”

During questioning, Hinchey and Elliott reinforced that a park service designation would not infringe open New York State’s municipal authority, and that it would support the Hudson Valley Greenway, a state sponsored program created in 1991 to facilitate the development of a regional strategy for preserving scenic, natural, historic, cultural and recreational resources while encouraging compatible economic development and maintaining the tradition of home rule for land use decision-making.

Speaking in opposition, LaGrasse questioned the historical significance of the Hudson River Valley and expressed concern about the negative effects of national park designation. Such status would affect 12 counties abutting the Hudson River, and she expressed concern that privately owned land would become difficult to access and that state and local lands’ tax status could change, resulting in potential loss of tax revenue.

“Ultimately, the shift in land ownership to the National Park Service would have an even broader economic and cultural impact then the loss of tax base. As land is foreclosed from development, the future would be cut off and the growth and flourishing of the vast 12-county region would be stunted,” LaGrasse argued.

Two weeks after the subcommittee hearing, on February 3rd, the Hudson River Valley Special Resource Study Act took another legislative step. The House Committee on Natural Resources announced that it will hold a markup on this bill next Wednesday, February 10th.

Congressman Maurice Hinchey, the US representative for New York’s 22nd district, introduced the Hudson River Valley Special Resource Study Act to the House of Representatives on November 3, 2009. This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to evaluate the resources in the Hudson River Valley to determine the suitability of establishing the area as a unit of the National Park System. At core, this bill authorizes the study of this region to evaluate whether or not the Hudson River Valley is suitable as a unit of the National Park System and outlines the “study area,” which is the portion of the Hudson River from Rodgers Island at Fort Edward to the southern-most boundary of Westchester County, New York.Speaking with Andy Bicking, the Director of Public Policy and Special Projects of Scenic Hudson, about the prospect of the Hudson River Valley as a unit of the National Park System offered greater insight into this proposed legislation and what it means. According to Bicking, the bill in general is a great idea for the Hudson Region, as it would bring increased funding to conservation efforts orchestrated by the local government and non-profit organizations. Generally, New York State and the Hudson River Valley have not received the amount of federal funds as other nationally significant watersheds, such as Puget Sound and Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, this bill would bring in more financial resources making this proposed legislation more forward-looking for the Hudson Region.

The Hudson River Valley would not be a traditional National Park. This bill references the National River and Recreation Area (NRRA) designation of national park. The only NRRA in existence today is the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. This designation applies more appropriately to the Hudson River Valley because, with this designation, the National Park Service (NPS) has a presence in the area, but does not own a large portion of the land as they do with traditional parks like Yellowstone National Park or the Grand Canyon. Bicking clarified that with this designation, the NPS partners with the state, local communities, and organizations to create an action agenda, which would guide the conservation efforts of the Hudson region. If conservation plans line up with the action agenda drafted by the NPS and its partners then the conservation could then be funded with federal dollars. This is a great benefit of the existing NRRA designation because local jurisdictions retain their voice while collaborating with the NPS through an action agenda, which would entitle the Hudson River Valley to a greater wealth of resources that could strengthen overall conservation efforts.

New York State has been supportive of conservation endeavors in recent years, evidenced by the Walkway over the Hudson, the signature project of the Quadricentennial. The state has also created the Hudson Estuary Program Action Agenda 2010-2014 draft or a blueprint that identifies projects to be conducted in the next five years to keep the Hudson River Valley green and prosperous, which is to be carried out by state agencies, the federal government, local municipalities, non-profits and other organizations. This document has many focuses including improving the water quality of the Hudson River and its tributary streams for nature and the people; conserving the world-famous scenic landscape that attracts visitors from around the world; and revitalizing waterfront communities to sustain vital human populations and a healthy environment. With the Estuary Program as the template for a federal action agenda, the new federal program has strong chances of being implemented in a timely fashion.

The Hudson River Valley Special Resource Study Act is being considered in 2010. The bill outlines two years for the NPS study to be completed. Therefore, with persistence and support, it could be possible to see the legislation of the Hudson River Valley as a unit of the National Park System passed by 2012, if not sooner.

Our distinguished Congressman Maurice Hinchey has once again proposed a highly promising idea for the Hudson Valley.

It was Congressman Hinchey who sponsored the Greenway, 22 years ago, that has become such a success. It was Congressman Hinchey who sponsored the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area in 1994 that makes us feel so proud. And it is he and his excellent staff members who do so much, every day, to support local environmental, cultural, and economic development efforts throughout the Hudson Valley.NOW, THE CONGRESSMAN IS PROPOSING A NEW, AND IMPORTANT LEGACY OF THE QUADRICENTENNIAL YEAR: THAT THE HUDSON VALLEY BECOME A UNIT OT THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE!

How creative, gutsy, and effective such a move would be—typical of all the Congressman’s work for us. The series of Listening Workshops now in progress throughout the Valley under the aegis of the Quad Commission has disclosed a widespread desire to consider the Hudson Valley as a community. How better to achieve that end than to be recognized by the National Park Service as a region of significance to all Americans!

National Park designation would mean, says Mr. Hinchey, “vastly increased” resources to help with conservation, historic preservation, tourism, and other forms of economic development. It would mean in no way any impingement on local decisions or private ownership. Above all, it would mean that all Americans (and visitors from everywhere) would at last come to understand the central role our River has played in the story of the nation, would discover the Hudson Valley’s astonishingly rich natural resources, and marvel at the uniqueness and growing strength of our communities.

If other American rivers – as they do – enjoy National Park status, prosper in the relationship and are protected for all people and all time – then surely our glorious Hudson River should enjoy it too!

Hosannahs to Congressman Hinchey for this exciting proposal, and Excelsior!