Potomac American Heritage River

Potomac American Heritage River
River Navigator
1999 Status Report



Prepared by J. Glenn Eugster, River Navigator
Potomac American Heritage River
National Park Service, National Capital Region
Washington, D.C.

Draft January 26, 2000
















Table of Contents

I. Introduction Page 3
II. Summary Page 3
III.Background Page 4
IV. Assumptions Page 5
V. Issues Page 7
VI. Recognizing Success Page 9
VII.Implementation Activities Page 11
A. Communication Page 11
B. Partnership Agreements Page 13
C. Funding Page 13
D. Identifying Local Needs Page 15
E. Federal Agency Team Page 15
F. Potomac AHR Strategy Page 16
G. “A Commitment to the Potomac” Page 17
H. Project Assistance Page 18
I. Evaluation & Reporting Page 19
VIII. Accomplishments Page 20
A. Overall Achievements Page 20
B. Specific Achievements Page 21
IX. Findings Page 23
A.Strong Support for the Potomac Page 23
Federal Agency Liasons Page 24
Funds for a Watershed Approach Page 24
Coordinated Federal Funding Page 24
Support for Change Page 24
Existing Priorities Page 25
Examples of Success Page 26
Measuring Progress Page 27
Recommendations
A. Inventory Existing Federal Commitment Page 26
Support for AHR Page 26
CEQ Support Page 26
Local Needs Page 27
Local & National Priorities Page 29
Communication Page 30
Group Agreement & Action Page 30
Indicators of Progress Page 30
XI. Summary & Additional Information Page 31







I. Introduction

The Memorandum of Understanding between the National Park Service (NPS) and the Friends of the Potomac (FOP), approved in July 1999 to provide a framework for the implementation of Presidential Executive Order No. 13061, requires the River Navigator (RN) to prepare project status report for the Potomac American Heritage River (AHR). This report is intended to provide a status of projects and activities for the period of January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999.


II. Summary
































III. Background: On July 30, 1998 the Potomac River watershed, minus Hardy County, WV, was designated an American Heritage River by the President. The designation was based on an application prepared and submitted by the Friends of the Potomac, a non-profit organization. The Friends, representing approximately 200 government and private sector organizations, agreed to serve as the Community Partner Organization for implementing the Potomac AHR effort.

The National Park Service was chosen by the Friends of the Potomac, and approved by the Council on Environmental Quality, to serve as the Lead Federal Agency to assist the Friends in implementing their proposal.

Each of the AHR’s is provided the services of a Federal River Navigator to serve as the Led Federal agency representative for the initiative. NPS and the Friends advertised for the River Navigator position by contacting Federal agencies and in early January 1999 Glenn Eugster, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employee, was selected to serve as the first River Navigator. It was agreed that Mr. Eugster would be detailed from EPA to the NPS National Capital Region of the National Park Service to perform his assistance services.

The Friends of the Potomac, and staff members of the Congressional delegation who were involved in the early discussions of this effort, envisioned the Navigator working with a core group of other senior level Federal agency representatives (river pilots) from the NPS, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and possibly other federal agencies. This arrangement was to create a small cadre of experienced federal parks and conservation practitioners who would work to help the Friends. Agency priorities hindered carrying out this idea.

Much of the groundwork for the Potomac AHR effort was laid by the Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin’s (ICPRB) effort “The Potomac River Visions Project”. The Potomac AHR application drew from the Visions Project, a 1993-94 effort intended to “develop and implement a long-range strategy to protect and enhance the water quality and living resources of the Potomac River”. The project was led by the ICPRB, funded by EPA and others, and co-sponsored by 14 government agencies and private groups-including the Chesapeake Bay Program, the State of Maryland, The Conservation Fund, the Northern Virginia Regional Planning Commission, and others. The visions project used small group meetings, a Steering Committee comprised of the representatives from the co-sponsoring agencies and organizations, and a consensus-based approach to make recommendations for the watershed.

The Visions Project was an important effort in that it stressed the need to develop a locally led strategy for the Potomac which relied on the full-use of all government and private sectors programs, approaches, tools and techniques to implement it. More so than any of its numerous predecessors, such as the “Potomac River Area of national Concern, insert---------, the Potomac Visions Report sought to work with local governments, private landowners and the business sector to meet environmental, cultural and economic goals simultaneously.

The direction for the Potomac AHR initiative is derived from the Potomac AHR Nomination from December 10, 1997, and contained in the Friends of the Potomac July 30, 1999 Mission Statement. The goal of the Potomac American Heritage River initiative is:

To facilitate and support community-led initiatives in the Potomac River watershed that will:
Protect and restore water quality and living resources
Promote enjoyment of natural, recreational and heritage assets
Encourage more citizen involvement in community decision-making, and
Foster sustainable economic development


IV. Assumptions: The River Navigator and the NPS began the Potomac AHR initiative with the following assumptions:

A. The Friends of the Potomac, and their member organizations worked long and hard to secure AHR recognition for the Potomac. Their application had broad-based support and was endorsed by all of the local governments in the watershed. Designation of the Potomac as an AHR, by the collaborative work of this broad coalition, was viewed as a significant achievement itself.

B. Experts and the public view the Potomac as one of the great rivers of America. A litany of public and private inventories, assessments and strategies has documented over and over the importance of the values and functions of the Potomac River watershed, individually and as an ecosystem. The natural, cultural, recreation, economic and quality of life values and functions of the watershed are important to residents, communities, State and regional governments, the watershed and the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

C. A number of successful and less-than-successful Potomac watershed-wide projects have been carried out over the years. Most community leaders feel that the area has been extensively studied and that past and current recommendations need to be implemented. There is a strong support in many parts of the watershed to build on the work of the past and take action.

D. The Potomac is recognized as a river basin where consensus agreement is important and often difficult to achieve. The River is often viewed as a dividing line, sometimes a barrier to states, and always a place with a diverse mix of cultures, environments and ideology. The strong traditions of State and local government home rule, private property and independence within the watershed challenge any venture which is not committed to respecting the opinions and values of others, and the need to work toward win-win solutions.

E. The AHR initiative was proposed to be
implemented with “no new money”. The initial vision for this effort was to assist community-based efforts through existing federal and private sector programs. The inhernet limitations in the design of the initiative have been complicated by directives from various Committees of Congress regarding what role the Federal government should, and shouldn’t, play in this effort.

Community leaders believe that this
Presidential initiative would add-value to existing local efforts and give additional priority to applications for assistance through existing programs.

G. Although a number of government organization focus on the Potomac River watershed, most notably the Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin and the Chesapeake Bay Program, there is no broad-based, locally-led, non-government organization which currently speaks for the river, its watershed and residents. No one public agency or private organization, individually or in partner, is an advocate and a service provider for community-led environmental, cultural and economic action in this watershed.


V. Issues: A number of issues, or matters of concern were identified during the nomination process and during the implementation effort including:

EPA Uneasiness: Leaders in
the watershed, including local officials and the previous Chair of the Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin, expressed serious concern about the role of EPA and possible regulatory activities in the Potomac AHR effort.

Local Capability: The Friends of
the Potomac is a new organization comprised of a number of existing organizations. As a new group, the Friends first order of business was to establish their group as a functioning and financial supported organization.

Federal Cooperation: The River Navigator position was
created by NPS and EPA in January 1999. The EPA agreed to fund the Navigator’s salary and the NPS agreed to assume responsibility for administrative support, office space, travel and implementation assistance. The Navigator, an EPA employee was placed on detail to NPS. Although each of the agencies partnered to support the Navigator the written commitments to sustain funding for this position were withdrawn in the fall of 1999.

D. Federal Coordination: Two existing Federal government efforts which include the Potomac River watershed have committed to support the President’s Executive Order for American Heritage Rivers effort. The EPA-lead Chesapeake Bay Program, Federal Agencies Committee and the Mid-Atlantic Federal Partners for the Environment Agreement overlap, in terms of interest and activities with the Potomac AHR. Certain federal agency leaders
Within these initiatives perceive that the AHR effort is overlapping or duplicative with their work. Federal leaders in these programs were reluctant to provide support for this initiative.

Existing Programs: The President’s “no new
money” pledge, and the concerns raised by certain members of the U.S. Congress about the appropriateness of federal involvement in this effort, served as disincentive to some federal agencies participating in this initiative. In other instances, federal agencies at the field level did not feel that there was a need to modify their assistance programs to communities in the watershed (i.e. our programs work just fine as they are) in order to respond to the Executive Order.

Federal Support: Despite the significant
efforts of the Federal Interagency Committee to design the implementation of the AHR effort the River Navigator was not initially provided with basic support (i.e. stable salary, implementation funds or staff support) to advance the Potomac effort. Despite the value of technical advice, lists of contacts, training and program information, basic implementation needs had to be negotiated after the fiscal year budgeting process had been completed. Although these needs were eventually met, valuable time was lost.

Great Expectations: The Presidential
recognition of the Potomac created interest and expectations within many of the communities of the watershed. Most leaders felt that the Friends of the Potomac met their part of the partnership and it was the Federal agencies turn to meet theirs. Despite the support of other Federal agency liaisons and the CEQ, the expectations created, and the scope of the work proposed, for the River Navigator was, and is, unrealistic given agency support. AHR program designers may have seriously over-promoted the benefits to communities and under-estimated what this type of commitment is required for this initiative to be successful.

H. Changing Priorities: Following the designation of the first 14 AHR’s there was a significant turnover in the federal agency headquarters staff working on implementation of the Executive Order. The change hindered continuity and created an impression within the Potomac communities that that some of the Federal leaders had declared success after the designations and were giving this effort less priority.

I. Potomac Interest: Potomac AHR designation has
added value to locally led efforts within the Potomac watershed. Following on-the-heels of the successful Potomac River Watershed Visions Project, and other watershed-wide efforts such as “Potomac River Clean-Up Day”, AHR recognition has provided assistance ongoing community-based efforts.

Early in this process it was clear that the Potomac leaders viewed this effort as another way to help local governments; groups, businesses and State agencies solve problems and benefit from the River’s assets. More than National recognition, this partnership was attractive to community leaders because it had the potential to support local efforts aimed at the river, its watershed, its communities and living resources, and the communities vision of the future.


VI. Recognizing Success: Although the AHR guidance and the Potomac AHR application provided direction for the implementation of the effort, there was a need to ascertain a clearer focus for the first year’s effort. Key community and federal agency partners were asked to describe what they thought success looked like for the first year of the Potomac AHR effort. The responses, by organization follow.

A. Friends of the Potomac: At the April 6, 1999 FOP Board Meeting, and during conversations with the FOP Coordinator Karen Zachary, each member was asked to describe what success of the Potomac AHR would look like in a year. The Board’s view of success included:

· If we still have people calling us.
· The organization is financially stable.
· Actually see some solidification of a basin caucus.
· Turn minds around near Old Town Alexandria, VA.
· One third of projects are accepted, prioritized
supported by government agencies.
· Get help from member organizations-a true partnership.
· Get as many partners as possible.
· Get word out.
· Hold an election for the new Board
· Accomplish short-term projects
· Complete administrative chores of a member organization.
· Win-win results.



B. National Park Service: On April 12, 1999 a briefing was held for NPS Director Robert Stanton, Sally Blumenthal, Wilton Corkren and Roger Stephenson and the River Navigator. Director Stanton was asked to describe what he thought success of the Potomac AHR effort would look like in a year. His response follows:
· I’ll know what it looks like when I see it. It’s an ongoing process.
· Have each park in the watershed should be a good neighbor. Parks should be exemplary of what a good landowner should be.
· Use the river to tell the larger story of the connection to the Chesapeake Bay and other government and private sector efforts.
· Use AHR to describe how we pass on a legacy of stewardship of our rivers.

Additional meetings were held with John Parsons, Sally Blumenthal, Doug Farris and Don Briggs of NPS-NCR to get their thoughts on what the first years efforts should strive for. They stressed the need to:
· Focus on action and implementation of existing plans. Show some success. To many people are making a living doing plans and producing paper.
· Recognize what federal agencies are doing already. Don’t just ask for more assistance.
· Create a creditable organization
· Design an inclusive process
· Let people know what is going on. Publicize process
· Describe how the States, CBP, ICPRB, PHP and others fit in.
· Describe the vision for AHR. Explain what it is and communicate it to the communities within the watershed.

C. Council on Environmental Quality: The Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines for AHR’s indicates that this effort is intended to:
· Support communities within existing laws and regulations by providing them with better access to tools and resources, and encouraging private funding of local efforts deserving special recognition.
· Provide focused support in the form of programs and enhanced services, including a River
Navigator to work with the community to provide access to the federal agencies and existing programs and to simplify the delivery of these programs.
· Provide a commitment from federal agencies to act as “Good Neighbors” in making decisions that affect communities.
· Use the river as a laboratory for reinvention of federal programs and delivery of services that will support each Community’s revitalization efforts.
· Help implement the community’s vision and provide a single contact/ liaison for all federal resources.


VII. Implementation Activities:

I. Introduction:
The federal portion of the Potomac AHR began in January 1999 with a series of small meetings and interviews between the Navigator, management for the National Park Service, CEQ staff, Board members of the FOP, and other partners of the Friends, the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Interstate Commission for the Potomac Basin. The FOP with the offices of Congressional members arranged a series of staff briefings. Initial discussions focused on explaining the role of the RN and listening to people’s ideas on the vision for the Potomac.

Discussion with the FOP Board included getting them to describe what they thought success looked like and gaining insights into the approach they wanted to use to implement the AHR initiative.

Initially, and over the first year, the RN’s time was largely spent in the following general areas:

A. Communication: Communications, outreach and access where determined to be an important aspect of the RN’s activities and from the outset there have been regular inquiries, requests for information and assistance. Meetings have been held with the following organizations and agencies.

· Chesapeake Bay Program · International City & County Management Association · Potomac Heritage Partnership, · Friends of Pierce Mill · Washington Council of Governments · MD State Soil Conservation Committee · Trust for Public Lands · The Conservation Fund · Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin · Anacostia community leaders · Anacostia Watershed Society · Capitol Hill Partners
· Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee · Friends of Mt. Aventine.

· MD Audubon · Alliance for Sustainable Communities · Mid-Atlantic Federal Partners for the Environment · National Association of Counties · Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historic Park Citizens Advisory Committee · Cumberland Rotary · Frostburg State University · Heritage Conservancy · Partners in the Parks · Landscape Architecture Foundation · Taylor & Thomas Environmental, Inc. · National Center for Resource Innovations · Alice Fergueson Foundation · Accokeek Foundation · Potomac Conservancy · Canaan Valley Institute · Shenandoah River Watershed Council.

· International Network to Freedom Association · Charles County, MD · Poultry & Water Quality Consortium · The Wilderness Society · Commonwealth of Virginia · State of Maryland, · State of West Virginia · Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · District of Columbia · Mid-Potomac Tributary Team · Muncaster Challenge · American Heritage Rivers Alliance · Lockheed-Martin · Glynwood Center · Canaan Valley Institute · Price Charitable Trust · River Network · EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office · Chesapeake Bay Trust · Hand Craft Alliance · Craig Shirley & Associates · State of MD, and many private landowners, businessmen and others.

In addition, presentations on the Potomac effort where made at the following forums:
· Shenandoah Pure Water 2000 Annual Meeting, Harrisonburg, VA
· Remembering Frederick Gutheim Future Forum, Washington, DC
· North Branch of the Potomac Symposium, Frostburg, MD, Southern MD HUD Community Builders Meeting, Leonardtown, MD
· A Citizen’s Advisory Committee Meeting of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic Park, Cumberland, MD
· Chesapeake Bay Program Federal Agency Committee, The USDA Keep America Growing Conference in Philadelphia, PA;
· National Town Meeting on Sustainable America in Detroit, MI;
· Jefferson County, WV Mayors Meeting, Charlestown, WV,
· WV HUD Community Builders Meeting, Martinsburg, WV,

An e-mail newsletter on RN activities was used to keep FOP and approximately 100 public and private leaders, including delegation staff, informed on a monthly basis.

In addition, at the request of CEQ, FOP and NPS, a variety of presentations were made on the Potomac and the AHR effort including: an interview with WV Public radio and WTEM radio; a meeting with the Department of the Interior Education Partnership/ Summer Study Employees group; National Conservation and Training Center Course on Land Conservation in Sheperdstown, WV; and the Smithsonian Speaker Series in Washington, DC.
.

Partnership Agreements: A series of operational documents
were prepared by the Friends, with the help of the Interagency AHR Team, to provide the framework for the Potomac AHR partnership. Early Navigator efforts were focused on making final revisions to:

1) the Memorandum of Understanding between NPS and the Friends;
2) a Position Description for the RN.
3) a written agreement between NPS and EPA was completed for salary, financial, administrative and travel support of the River Navigator position.
4) a description of the roles and responsibilities of the River Navigator and the CEQ AHR Liaison, including a flow chart diagram of the function relationships of the overall Potomac AHR.

In addition, assistance was provided to the Board in the development of the “Potomac American Heritage River Watershed Agreement” between the Friends and the Federal Advisory Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Program.

C. Funding: The Friends of the Potomac is a new non-government organization comprised of existing governments and private organizations. The group was formed to nominate the Potomac River watershed for AHR status and is the lead Community Partner organization for implementation of the designation.

Early in the partnership with NPS the Friends identified funding as one of their needs. The RN agreed to assist the FOP fund raising effort for AHR-related activities and assisted with:

1) funding strategy prepared with assistance from CEQ;
a Corporate Fund Raising Breakfast;
identification of possible sources of private and federal funds;
and technical assistance to FOP in private fund raising and developing grant proposals.

Initially CEQ offered assistance from Private Sector Partners (a CEQ created workgroup to assist AHR Community Partner organizations) and the American Heritage Rivers Alliance (a private organization offering to assist AHR fund raising efforts). Discussions were held with both of these groups and although the discussions produced useful ideas and funding leads, neither group was able to provide fund raising assistance.

The Friends Board’s efforts relied on a strategy which made use of assistance from CEQ, the Federal Agency Team members, the River Navigator and private sector organizations. As a result the Friends have secured for the FOP and the Potomac AHR:

$ 368,000 of Federal funds including grants from the Appalachian Regional Commission-through the State of Maryland, USDA Forest Service, National Park Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—to implement the Potomac River Visions Report.
$ 25,000 of private funds including grants from the MARPAT Foundation and the Allegheny Energy.

The Friends of the Potomac, with the support of the Administration, has agreed to convene a discussion roundtable to seek private support, from both the corporate and private foundation sectors, for community and watershed-wide projects.

In addition, the Friends are using the Nation’s River Bass Tournament to raise funds to be used for Community Partner Workshops, a web-based Habitat Restoration training Center, and a Lower Potomac Fishing Guide. Discussions are also underway for possible funding assistance from the Glynwood Center, EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Prince Charitable Trust and others, for other specific projects.

D. Identifying Local Needs: The Potomac AHR listed the priority local projects for possible federal assistance. These projects were the focus for early River Navigator technical and financial assistance, and this information was provided to the various CEQ workgroups. The implementation effort also attracted a series of additional local assistance requests. A process was agreed to by the Board and the River Navigator for responding to local requests to insure that AHR projects would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the effort.

Early discussions with the members of the Federal Agency Team indicated that in order for various agencies to consider local project requests they would need specific information on the type of assistance needed. Preliminary information included in the nomination, and later compiled by the Friends, did not provide enough detail for many of the projects to be considered.

As a result of these discussions, and as part of the NPS-Friends Memorandum of Understanding, the Friends staff began to develop a more complete list of local project needs. The project needs list is still being updated to reflect all project requests and to provide accurate and useful information. Once completed, this list of project needs will be provided to the Navigator and the Federal Agency Team for further discussion and assistance.

E. Federal Agency Team: A Potomac AHR Federal Agency Team was organized and a series of meetings were held. Federal agency Potomac AHR Liaisons were established and requested to review the Potomac AHR nomination and identify local projects, which they could assist with. Twenty-eight federal agency offices participated in five meetings and teleconference calls over the year.

Although CEQ encouraged the Navigator to develop a memorandum of agreement with federal agencies to implement the AHR the Friends and the NPS decided that another federal process agreement was not appropriate. The Potomac effort, instead, focused on identifying federal agencies who were willing to provide assistance to community leaders through existing programs. Federal agency liaisons were presented a list of fifteen options for providing assistance to the Friends, their member organizations and the AHR effort overall. Ten agencies, plus the Federal Emergency Management Agency which was not included in the President’s Executive Order, agreed to provide some form of assistance and these commitments served as the basis for “A Commitment to the Potomac” described in Appendix A.

Potomac AHR Strategy: In May a portion of the Board met
with the RN to discuss a “common agenda” for the FOP and the NPS to implement the AHR. The priorities from that work session included:

A strategy for completing project descriptions and community needs for federal assistance;
Plans for the July 30, 1999 Potomac River Day event;
Communication activities;
The August 1999 Friends/ NPS Status Report;
Priority project assistance.
6) Further discussion about the “visions” for success in 1999.

In October 1999 the Board, and other leaders of the Friends, met to prepare a “Strategic Review of 2000 Priorities and Commitments” for FOP and AHR. With the technical assistance of Michelle Mauthe-Harvey of the Society of American Foresters, the Friends Board agreed to the following:

Creation of three “Councils” (State & Local Government; Business & Agriculture; and Nonprofit) and the Election of a permanent Board by February 24,2000
A strategy for paid Friends staff.
Final agreement for GSA-provided office space, with NPS, in the District of Columbia.
Current project issues, needs, staffing and funding.
Strength/ Weaknesses/ Opportunities/ Threats Analysis of the FOP

In December 1999 the Board met to prepare a funding strategy for 2000 and 2001. Projects proposed to received FOP funding in 2000 included:

· Friends of the Potomac leadership, service and facilitation
· Congress for the Potomac
· Leadership Potomac
· Nation’s River Bass Tournament
· Curriculum Guide
· Shad Restoration Project

G. A Commitment to the Potomac: July 30, 1999 marked the first anniversary of the Potomac’s designation as an American Heritage River. A public event had initially been planned to bring the Federal agency representatives together to sing a Memorandum of Agreement for the Potomac effort. Since there are two existing federal agency agreements, which pledge support of the AHR, initiative, and valley leaders are anxious to use this effort to take action, the FOP and NPS agreed look beyond an interagency coordination agreement as the centerpiece for the event.

It was decided to use the first AHR anniversary to:

· Celebrate the Potomac;
· Recognize federally assisted local successes;
· Announce initial Federal agency commitments to implement the Potomac AHR;
· Announce the start of a FOP membership drive;
· Start a private sector fund raising campaign for the Potomac.

Meetings were held with the Federal Agency team and the staff of the Congressional delegation to help shape the effort. Members of the delegation agreed to co-sign a letter in support of Potomac River Day. As a “Potomac River Caucus” fourteen Senators and House Representatives from the watershed agreed to unite to:

Celebrate July 30, 1999 as Potomac River Day;
Offer continued assistance to implement Potomac Leadership Training;
Urge citizens, private organizations and government agencies to participate in the Congress for the Potomac.


Federal agencies, based on their earlier review of the Project Needs List, were able to identify specific technical, financial and information assistance for Potomac AHR projects. Federal agencies, and the FOP, announced 12 major commitments and twenty-five specific action projects to help implement the goals of the Potomac AHR.


H. Project Assistance: Members of the Friends and their partners have used the River Navigator to assist them with specific local projects. The range of federal service varies from project to project based on the status of the project and the community’s specific needs. In some instances the RN provided minor assistance while in other situations considerable support was provided. The
following local, state, federal or privately led projects were provided assistance during this period.

· Children’s Island, Washington, D.C.
Anacostia River Community Vision Project and Forum,
Washington, D.C. and MD.
African American Heritage Link, watershed-wide
The Journey to Freedom: The Reenactment of the Pearl Affair, Washington, DC and MD.
Lower Potomac Green Infrastructure Study, MD and VA.
Lower Potomac River Dredging Environmental Assessment, MD and VA.
· Department of Justice Youth Environmental Services
· Recognition for the Alexandria Seaport Foundation, VA.
· Cobb Island, MD Maintenance Dredging
· Coan River, VA Maintenance Dredging
· North Branch of the Potomac River Symposium, WV and MD
· Chesapeake Bay Gateways & Water Trails Strategy, watershed-wide
· Chesapeake Bay Countryside Stewardship Exchange, watershed-wide
· Chesapeake Bay Program Wet Weather Pollution-Stormwater
· Management Meeting, Washington, DC and MD.
· Chesapeake Bay Program String-of-Pearls Project, watershed-wide
· Rattlesnake Run Land Trust Strategy, WV
· Ransom, WV Stormwater Management Project, WV
· Pendleton County Poultry Digester Evaluation, WV
· Nation’s River Bass Tournament, Washington, DC, MD, VA.
· Greening Growth-Community Dialogue Workshops, watershed-wide
· Green Infrastructure Training, watershed-wide
· Hunting Creek Restoration, VA.
· Audubon Naturalist Society Potomac River Water Flow Petition, watershed-wide
· Congress on the Potomac, watershed-wide
· Regional Heritage Tourism Strategy, watershed-wide
· National Training for AHR River Navigators, nationwide
· Kitzmiller, MD Strategy
· Friends of Potomac Local Awards Program, watershed-wide
· Potomac Conservancy Land Trust Workshop, watershed-wide
· Leadership Potomac, watershed-wide
· Canaan Valley Institute Watershed Workshop Design, MD, VA, · Friends of the Potomac Community Partner Workshop Design, watershed-wide
· Chapman’s Forest, MD
· Pierce Mill, Washington, DC, MD
· Appalachian Highlands Project Design, portions of Potomac (WV, VA, MD), New (NC, WV, VA) and Upper Susquehanna River (PA) watersheds
· NPS Land Managers Work Session, watershed-wide
· Martinsburg, WV Regional Discussion
· Leonardtown, MD Southern MD Discussion


Evaluation & Reporting: In the 1999 Memorandum of
Understanding between the Friends of the Potomac and NPS, it was agreed that the River Navigator would provide a semi-annual project status report for ongoing projects. It is also agreed that the Friends will furnish, by August first each year, a description and status report on projects in the nomination and additional projects for which FOP requests assistance. The Friends have not provided the RN with the status report for August 1999. Future reports should include Friends and River Navigator information.

Also, it may be useful agree on measures of success for the Friends and River Navigator’s Potomac AHR activities to be measured against. Such Potomac River Watershed indicators would help clarify common goals and measure progress.









VIII. Accomplishments

The following are the highlights of major accomplishments of the Potomac AHR for 1999.

A. Overall Achievements: This section describes achievements related to the first year visions of success described by the Friends, CEQ and the NPS.

Friends of the Potomac:
People are still calling about AHR and FOP.
The FOP is financially stable.
An election of new Board members is scheduled to be completed by February 24, 2000.
Several short-term projects are being completed (describe).
Administrative tasks for FOP and the AHR have been completed.
6. The Friend’s Coordinator has been paid.

National Park Service:
Several action projects are being completed (describe) and have produced results.
The effort is being publicized by newsletters, the Friends web-site, and active outreach activities.
NPS, FOP, and Federal Agencies, such as HUD, FWS, NRCS, FS, ARC, EPA, FEMA, and others have worked with community partners to establish creditability.
The vision in the Potomac AHR nomination has been described in more detail.

Council on Environmental Quality:
The communities have been provided with more focused support including provision of a River Navigator.
The Potomac AHR is demonstrating new, and transferable, approaches for the delivery of local and private services on a watershed basis.
3. Community partners have a single contact/ liaison for federal resources and a private sector, watershed-wide advocacy group.







B. Specific Achievements: The following activities and projects were selected to highlight the major achievements of 1999. By no means are these all of the significant accomplishments of the Friends or their partner organizations.

1. Friends of the Potomac: A new private non-profit, watershed-wide organization—called the Friends of the Potomac, has been formally created to help local governments, private groups, communities and businesses to help themselves conserve, protect, restore, revitalize, interpret and enjoy the Potomac River watershed.

2. National Park Service & River Navigator: A formal partnership has been created between the Friends of the Potomac and NPS-the lead federal agency for the AHR, to help States, Regional and local governments, and the private sector implement a vision for the watershed. The Department of Interior has agreed to fund the River Navigator’s salary and Glenn Kinser of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has agreed to serve in that position starting next month.

3. Federal Agency Team: A team of Federal Agency representatives has been organized and eleven agencies are assisting, and willing continue to help, the Friends and their partner organizations. The initial commitments made by the agencies are described in the 23 actions identified in “A Commitment to the Potomac”.

4. Potomac Caucus: A Potomac River Watershed Congressional Caucus has been formed to assist the Friends and other watershed leaders to implement their vision for the Potomac. The Caucus has demonstrated its commitment to this effort by supporting funding for 2000, recognizing July 30 as Potomac River Day, and supporting the Congress for the Potomac and Leadership Potomac projects.

5. Strategic Business Plan: The Friends have completed a plan for 2000 including project, budget and staffing priorities and commitments, and plans for creation of the Councils, Board elections and membership-drive.

6. Action: Federal and private sector funding and technical assistance has been secured to continue work on the following locally led priority projects:

· Leadership Potomac
· Regional Heritage Tourism Initiative
· Congress for the Potomac
· Community Partner Workshops
· The Nation’s River Bass Tournament
· Shad Restoration Project
· Integrated Science and Humanities Educational Curriculum
· Pendleton County, WV Poultry Waste Digester Evaluation
· Appalachian Highlands Project/ Countryside Stewardship Exchange

Overall $ 393,000 in public and private funding has been secured, since January 1999, to help the Friends and their community partners implement the Potomac AHR.

Potomac Celebration: The first annual Potomac River Day
celebration was held, on Roosevelt Island with close to 200 Congressional, federal government and watershed leaders, to:
· Recognize the anniversary of the Potomac AHR designation; · Honor six locally-led, and federally assisted, Potomac projects; and,
· Announce the initial Federal support for community-based activities in the watershed.

8. Land Trust Workshop: The Potomac AHR effort assisted the Potomac Conservancy and others, with the first Potomac Land Trust Workshop. The purpose of the dialogue, which was attended by 45 watershed leaders, was to find ways to strengthen the collective efforts of the land trust community to work with private landowners and public officials on voluntary land conservation and restoration efforts.

9. Anacostia Community Summit: The Friends of the Potomac co-sponsored, and provided financial and technical assistance for the December 1999 Anacostia River Community Summit. The purpose of the summit, which was attended by over 200 community, District and federal leaders, was to create an opportunity for community dialogue and begin to develop a community vision for lands along the Anacostia River.

10. African American Heritage: “The Potomac River: A Guide to African American Heritage” was completed with help from the National Park Service. The guide sought to begin a partnership with the International Network to freedom Association to give more attention to the African American experience within the Potomac watershed. The guide uses narrative and geographic information system data to develop, and celebrate a network of sites directly related to African American heritage.

11. Chesapeake Bay Agreement: The Friends established “The Potomac American Heritage River Watershed Agreement” with the Chesapeake Bay Program. The agreement, reached with the Federal Agencies Committee, intends to support community-based efforts and commitments the Bay Program to support AHR projects, assist the Navigator, complete an inventory of federal programs and provide geographic information.

12. National Tournament: A “Nation’s River Bass Tournament” is scheduled for June 8-9,2000 to recognize the importance of clean water, the value of the Lower Potomac bass fishery, and the role American sportsmen have played in the conservation and clean-up of the Potomac. The event, which is being led by the Friends, the Alexandria Seaport Foundation and the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, will be used to generate funds to support local fishery-related projects.


IX. Findings:

Strong Support for the Potomac: There is strong
and inspired private, community, agency and Congressional support for locally led efforts to conserve, protect, restore, interpret and revitalize the Potomac River watershed. The Friends of the Potomac, members of the Steering Committee who helped prepare the AHR application, Congressional offices and many federal agency representatives have worked rigorously to support community-based efforts and the Potomac AHR initiative in 1999. The Friends of the Potomac Board has invested a great deal of time and effort this year to build a platform for the next phase of the implementation effort.

Their ongoing efforts reflect a deep commitment about the Potomac River, its watershed and the people who live, work and recreate in this basin. Although the President’s recognition is an important contribution to Potomac movement, this initiative intends to support local actions to achieve the communities vision for the future of the watershed.

2. Federal Agency Liaisons: The activities of the last year illustrate that the liaisons for Federal agencies participating in the Potomac AHR have the ability to be the "gateways" to agency programs for Community Partners and River Navigators. Federal agency liaisons for CEQ, HUD, FEMA, NPS, FS, EPA, FWS, NRCS, OSM and COE have been able to assist the FOP and their partners through existing programs and activities. Their “can-do attitude” and contributions to this effort have enabled local leaders to help themselves conserve, protect, interpret, restore or rengnerate their portion of the watershed. Continued support of these federal liaisons is essential to this effort.

3. Funds for a Local Watershed Approach:
Funds are needed by the Friends of the Potomac for local capability building and “umbrella activities”. Although ample funding is available through existing programs for specific projects there are few, if any federal programs, which are aimed at helping to increase the capability of a program, like the Friends to implement a vision like AHR.

4. Coordinated Federal Funding: Ample funds are available for many of the projects proposed by the Friends of the Potomac and their partner organizations. However, there is no overall list of federal programs, nor is there easily accessible information on existing programs, grant application dates, and contacts. This lack of information on existing programs makes the task of improving the delivery of services daunting. Despite impressive efforts to publicize individual grants and program activities, the distribution of information available to help community efforts is fragmented and unpredictable. The Department of Housing & Urban Development's "Super NOFA" approach, which attempts to consolidate information on and the delivery of a variety of programs, holds great promise for reducing local transaction costs.

5. Support for Change : AHR's are viewed as reinvention, cutting-edge approaches, and the next generation of conservation, protection, and restoration. As with any initiative that encourages change, there is considerable skepticism about the value of, and need for, this approach. It appears that there may be less Federal agency regional office support for this effort than anticipated and no real incentives (or dis-incentives for that matter) for delivering federal programs differently.

6. Existing Priorities: There is an impressive ongoing commitment, by Federal agencies and members of Congress, to government and private sector activities within the Potomac watershed. Unfortunately these commitments do not seem to reflect a watershed approach nor do they reflect local basin-wide federal priorities. Federal and regionl government, and Congressional budget processes, in some cases, seem uncoordinated. It may be helpful to look at existing activities and funding to avoid duplication and see whether federal funds are being used most effectively to meet the highest ecological, cultural and economic priorities within the Potomac watershed.

7. Examples of Success: There is a proud and successful tradition of government and private sector ecological and economic regeneration activity within the Potomac River watershed. Unfortunately there does not seem to be any inventory of the best of these local, state and federal government and private sector success stories. Such an inventory and assessment would create peer examples of best management practices for conservation, restoration, protection, development and regeneration.

8. Measuring Progress: Multi-objective efforts such as the Potomac AHR challenge local leaders to decide where to spend their time and money most effectively. There a variety of places where the Potomac AHR can focus and the Friend’s Strategic Business Plan begins to provide a workplan of priorities which could be discussed with other watershed interests. However, at this time there is no agreed upon set of indicators to assess the results of the Potomac AHR. In order to sustain this iniative it will be important for the FOP, and their partner organizations, to agree on tangible goals and demonstrate specific achievements.








Recommendations:

The following recommendations have been developed based on discussions with FOP, NPS and partner organizations.

Inventory and Assess the Existing Federal Commitment to the Potomac River Watershed.

1. Continue to inventory existing federal agency projects to inventory what work is being done and is planned. Regional Offices for EPA and FWS have completed inventories of current activities in the watershed. Such information could be packed into a format that would be useful for local leaders (see Merrimack River Watershed, MA, NH, Federal Agency Activity Inventory).

2.Request Congress and the Federal agencies participating in the Potomac AHR to conduct a budget crosscut to identify where existing federal funds are being targeted and whether program dollars are services are meeting the most important watershed needs.


Provide for optimum support for the River Navigator and the Potomac AHR.
The vision for River Navigators is innovative, ambitious and adds value to existing local efforts and federal program initiatives. The River Navigator’s performance will be enhanced or diminished based on the amount of support provided by the federal agencies involved. In order for a River Navigator to be effective in meeting existing expectations it is important that the position be supported in terms of salary, administrative assistance, travel, office space, implementation funds (a minimum of $50,000 per year) and a graduate student, fellow or retiree to provide research assistance.

C. CEQ Should Provide Continued Support to the Friends of the Potomac and the River Navigator.
The Council on Environmental Quality has provided valuable assistance to the Potomac River Navigator and the Friends and can do so in the future. Despite it’s leadership role, and certain staff and funding limitations, CEQ needs to continue to acknowledge that the Potomac is a locally-led initiative and be responsive to local needs. Such as assistance should be agreed to between the Friends and the River Navigator and could include:

Clarify what AHR success looks like from a National perspective.
Re-affirm that AHR is a priority with Administration and agencies
Help coordinate AHR within States with more than one designated river initiative.
Provide tangible subcommittee/ workgroup assistance to RN’s and Community partners. Respond to needs and deliver.
Prepare a database of all AHR projects. Help package, target, and bundle local projects by common project type/ theme.
Maintain the National AHR web-site; link the National site to individual AHR sites and keep all information current.
Serve as a liaison for AHR meetings with Federal Headquarter agencies.
Provide assistance, on a request basis, to Community Partner organizations on identified priority projects.
Encourage AHR’s to develop indicators to measure accomplishments and progress.
Review and periodically assess the implementation of MOU’s.
Continue to create opportunities to share success among all 14 AHR’s.


The Friends of the Potomac Should Continue to Describe, Package and Market Local Needs.

In order for the River Navigator and Federal
agencies to help Potomac River watershed communities help themselves to implement the AHR there must be descriptions of local project needs. FOB should complete, as soon a possible, a report that describes the specific projects identified in the Nomination; and any additional projects for which the Friends of the Potomac seek enhanced federal services under this initiative. The report should be provided to the River Navigator, the Potomac AHR Federal Agency Team and other private sector organizations that have expressed an interest in this effort.

The Potomac AHR effort should continue to design and
implement the Friends of the Potomac “Umbrella Approach” for working with partner organizations to implement the AHR. It may be useful to continue research on similar models such as:

· AHR’s such as New River ;
· Coastal America;
· Schuylkill River partnership with the William Penn Foundation;
· Emscher Park, Germany International Exposition to demonstrate ecological and economic regeneration;
· Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative Network with Dow Chemical Company;
· Delaware River Watershed partnership with States, local governments the Delaware Basin Commission and the William Penn Foundation.

This approach may be a way for Friends and their partners to “Find ways to get your arms around the watershed” and help other groups help themselves to achieve the goals of the Potomac AHR. This approach could:

· Emphasize the regional marketing of local projects;
· Consider using a map to organize and publicize opportunities;
· Use a grantee roundtable to get people to talk and help each other;
· Use small grants for seed money;
· Publish a “State of the Watershed Report”(see Brandywine River Valley Association report); establish measures to assess and quantify results—dollars leveraged, miles of trails/ greenways, children educated, new canoe access points, etc.
· Get groups to endorse funding proposals rather than submit competing proposals;
· Package key projects into one proposal.

Possible sources of assistance to further implement this effort include:

· Seeking technical assistance from the National Academy of Public Administration. NAPA has been conducting research on Learning from Environmental innovations” and doing case studies on watershed approaches. DeWitt John of the National Academy is aware of and interested in the Potomac AHR and would be a good person to contact for help.

· Use the Chesapeake Bay Countryside Stewardship Exchange to learn more about the highly successful Emscher Park in Germany. Emscher Park was created with a pledge of a modest amount of support through existing programs and over ten years has been able to complete over 100 projects and leverage 6 billion DM. An exchange with Germany is now being discussed with the Canaan Valley Institute, the Upper Susquehanna, New and Potomac AHR’s, the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and the Glynwood Center.

3. A number of Federal agency partners made commitments in July and are waiting for local partners to show interest and take action. Follow-through on offers of Federal agency assistance. As part of the Potomac River Day Event Federal agencies committed to helping the friends and the RN with various actions and activities related to Potomac AHR priorities. These commitments including local training; habitat restoration; environmental education; Community Partner Workshops; public land manager cooperation; and others. These actions represent the first implementation phase of the Potomac AHR partnership and can provide support to many local initiatives. This assistance is also a way for the friends to begin to develop a deeper working relationship with these agencies.

E. Continue to reach agreement on how to use AHR to meet local needs and National priorities simultaneously.
Matching Federal and local priorities has proven to be difficult but not impossible. The Potomac AHR is not a federal “top-down bottoms-up approach” nor is it only about recognizing local needs. It seems as if the key to using existing programs to implement the Potomac AHR is to meet local and federal needs simultaneously. It may be helpful to focus upcoming Federal Agency Team Meetings on different ways to meet the common agenda of the Potomac River watershed.

In addition, it may be useful for FOP, the Federal Agency Team and the RN to look at ways that other federal-state-local-private partnership efforts have met local needs while meeting National priorities. Possible programs to examine include: Coastal America; EPA’s Brownfields and Community-Based Environmental Protection Program; NOAA Coastal Zone Management’s Special Area Management Plans (i.e Accommack County, VA.); NPS’s Rivers, Trails & Conservation Assistance; HUD’s Community Builders, and others.

Maintain a high level of communication, about the Friends and the Potomac AHR, between the Community Partner organization.
Throughout the year, at almost every meeting, Friends and community partner organizations and interests expressed a desire to know more about what is the status of the Potomac effort. Local government and private sector interests, whether supporters, neutral or opponents, constantly asked to be updated on the status of the AHR effort. It would be helpful for the Friends of the Potomac to incorporate information about the status of the Potomac AHR within their periodic newsletter and continue to upgrade the Friends home-page.

Continue to implement the Potomac AHR with the
major groups and governments who speak for the Potomac River Watershed.
Despite distance, state boundaries, different cultures and politics, many of the people who live in the Potomac River watershed have worked to transcend boundaries and differences. This commitment to collaboration between the major watershed groups is a key element for all of the Friends and AHR visions. It may be useful, and timely, for the Friends and the NPS to convene the major Potomac organizations together to discuss the status of the AHR effort and next steps. The meeting should include leaders from all of the watershed-wide groups who actively support community-based activities and be designed to discuss how a coalition can work together to help each other’s organization. The support of these groups, who speak for the river and its residents, is most timely and will influence the success of the Friends and the AHR initiative.

H.Develop clear indicators to measure progress.
New initiatives such as the Potomac AHR are sustainable if they prove to add-value to existing public and private efforts. The work of the Friends and the Federal agencies participating in the Potomac AHR will be judged on demonstrable gains in terms of cooperation, funding, management, leadership and other tangible results. It would be useful for the FOP and Federal Agency team to agree on measurable results in order to measure the progress of this effort. A series of Potomac River watershed indicators would be helpful to set a more specific direction for targeting projects, securing funding and measuring progress.