Nationwide Rivers Inventory, Science, Civics, Action

2009 River Rally Workshop
Baltimore, Maryland

Nationwide Rivers Inventory: Science, Civics, Action!
Remarks by J. Glenn Eugster
Alexandria, Virginia

Introduction and Overview

Good day! I appreciate the opportunity to join this panel on saving rivers using the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Let me begin by saying that there are many ways to save a river. Over the last 30-plus years that I’ve been working on rivers the Nationwide Rivers Inventory has proven to be an effective way to:

* Learn more about river values and functions and who cares about them.

* Stop a bad river-related projects that require some sort of government or public approval.

* Encourage governments and private sector organizations to avoid doing inappropriate things to important rivers.

* Set priorities for which rivers you would like to save, or have someone else save.

* Build a public and, or private constituency for rivers at the local, state, regional, national, or international level.

* Take action to save rivers through new and existing state and federal policy actions; state or federal river designations; private land trust action; conflict avoidance efforts; more effective communication; and greater public awareness of the ways to protect, conserve, manage and enjoy rivers.

Insights from the Past

I’ve been away from organized EPA , NPS, state and private sector river and watershed protection efforts for a while now but I’m still involved in river protection locally within the Potomac River watershed. My passion for river protection remains with me and I thought I’d share a bit of perspective on the NRI so that as you consider, or reconsider, it as a way to save rivers you will understand what it is and can be.

There is limited, fairly uneven, information on the history of the NRI that goes back to the:

--1970 Guidelines for Evaluating Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River Areas Proposed for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

--1975-76 Proposal made by BOR to identify potential wild and scenic candidate rivers, including a 1975 draft “Identifying a Minimum Wild and Scenic River System”.

--Various American River documents

However, efforts to document the history of thinking that went into the evolution of the NRI, as a way to inventory and assess river values and functions, as well as turn the data into action does not appear to exist.

So what happened during the life of the NRI that you should know now about now to be more effective in protecting rivers?

First, rivers are important to the public

Second, the destruction of free-flowing rivers, and their values and functions continues to outpace river protection.

Third, the NWSR Act is a good way to protect rivers but it’s a federal law and people don’t trust feds--and for good reason. If you use the law, and the NRI which is an outgrowth of the legislation, keep the focus on rivers not what people feel about feds.

Fourth, the NRI was intended to:

* Identify a balanced representation, in terms of physiographic provinces and sections, of the most significant river segments in the nation;

* Identify for the President and Congress the parameters of a basic National Wild & Scenic River System;

* Identify those rivers which may be considered under the provisions of Section 5(d);

* Stimulate actions, at all levels of the government and within the private sector, which will assure the conservation of and public access to these rivers.

It is important to note that:

NRI is a preliminary survey of rivers and should not be confused with more Congressionally mandated studies conducted by federal agencies.

River conservation is a shared responsibility. Only through the combined efforts of the federal, state, and local governments and the private sector can a comprehensive and meaningful nationwide river conservation effort be continued.

Although the relationships between various levels of government and the private sector in river conservation are not explicit, in general the river stewardship role should be assumed by the lowest possible level of government that is willing to pursue minimum standards for environmental quality. Moreover, if a river corridor is in private ownership and the landowners are willing to serve as stewards, then government’s role could be limited to that of complementing private efforts.


Criteria for Selection

So how do you know one of these NRI’s when you see it?

First, it is five miles more in length;

Second, it is free-flowing;

Third, it is generally undeveloped, or largely undeveloped;

It’s interesting to note while Congress was determining how to design the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System the Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Congressman Wayne Aspinall of Colorado, suggested that there be four categories of rivers---wild; natural environment; pastoral; and historic and cultural. These terms reflect a land use gradient that the national system strives for with the wild, scenic and recreational categories.

Fourth, it is adjacent to or within a related land area that possesses outstandingly remarkable geologic, ecological, cultural, historic, scenic, botanical, recreation, or other similar values. (I.e. interpreted to mean an area of multi-state or national significance).

It’s important to note that this standard needs to be applied within some type of natural, physical, biological context such as physiographic provinces and sections--See Neven M. Fenneman‘s 1923 books the Physiography of Eastern and Western United States.

Also note, the fourth criteria is the identification of a river value or function that has the potential to influence policy decisions. It is not a suitability or feasibility evaluation. It’s some tangible recognition of a value or values for why the area should be protected or conserved.

What is important about the historical evolution?

* Change from 25 to 5 mile length--to eliminate the bias toward small streams;

* Change from a free-from filter to identify candidates to a filter that uses free-from criteria, as well as has significance criteria using the best available data. Luna Leopold’s 1969 work, Quantitative Comparison of Some Aesthetic Factors Among Rivers is very helpful.

* Change from a minimum system (best of the best) to a system that sets a minimum or optimum threshold criteria. This was not intended to be an elite system but rather a system of rivers to be protected, conserved, enjoyed.
Change from federal river protection to options including a partnership approach to river conservation. It is interesting to note that

* Change from top-down-fed approach to a shared responsibility approach to the NRI in all phases of inventory, assessment and implementation using the most appropriate expert, government or private sector leader, or elected official.

We used a “river expert” and “river nomination” process that improved accuracy, substance, cooperation, and networking.

This approach also laid the groundwork for implementation of the NRI, which started in HCRS in 1978 through the LWCF State Implementation Assistance Program; which morphed into the 1980 State & Local River Conservation Assistance Program; which is then morphed into NPS’s Rivers, Trails & Conservation Assistance Program. All of these efforts helped redesign the Wild & Scenic River Studies effort under NPS, which has branched into the Partnership Rivers Program.

This river data also served as the currency for future partnerships with state governments (I.e. Maine, Vermont, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, etc.), regional entities (I.e.Pacific NW Power Planning Council, NE River Basin Commission, Chesapeake Bay Program, etc.), and others to use the NRI to develop statewide river assessments. These assessments have helped protect important rivers through state and local action.


Future Challenges

What are the challenges you will face to use the NRI?

--AADD (Agency Attention Deficit Disorder) versus Vision: Federal agencies such as NPS are often distracted and lose perspective about efforts like this one. There is, and has been a bias against inventories and assessments and efforts that are too time consuming.

--Presidential versus Agency or CEO Leadership: Former President Carter was the Governor of GA. First, then a river saver. He stepped-up when he became US Presidents and gave rivers priority attention by issuing a Directive to federal agencies to avoid adverse impact to rivers on the NRI.

--Institutional versus Short-term Memory: Turnover in agencies and the private sector organizations is always a healthy phenomena. However, insights, expertise, and hands-on NRI experience is often lost when seasoned staff depart or are discounted.

--Environmental versus Conservation Movement: Philosophical differences in the way rivers are saved can make riverwork much more difficult. The conservation movement emphasizes multi-use river development while the environmental movement advocates natural conditions which are free of engineering obstructions.

--Paper versus Digital Age: A great deal of the NRI historic information that could be useful to save more rivers was done before the digital age and has not been converted.

--River Programs versus Passionate River Savers: We all learn that people, rather than programs, save rivers. No matter who you work for, ultimately the work belongs to us. It is essential to have individuals who are prepared to invest exceptional amounts of time and energy to ensuring things happen and that people are motivated. It’s not so much about your budget, staff, authorities, management, or the political climate as it is about your interest in making a difference and helping people help themselves to save rivers.

I wish you continued success in your work!




J. Glenn Eugster is a community activist living in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife Deborah. In the past he worked for the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Heritage Conservation Association, National Park Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as well as state, local and regional governments, in a variety of positions. From 1976 until 1989 he and his staff worked on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. He is trained in ornamental horticulture, landscape architecture and ecological planning. He is currently a board member of the America the Beautiful Fund, Northern Virginia Conservation Trust, and the Seminary Hill Association, Inc. He can be reached at: 4022 Ellicott Street, Alexandria, VA. 22304. By e-mail write: glenn_eugster@comcast.net