RTCA HISTORY: PHILADELPHIA 1976-1989

RTCA HISTORY: PHILADELPHIA 1976-1989
Draft: Prepared by Glenn Eugster
March 6, 2001


FY 1976

Early efforts in MARO, which included New England and the Mid-Atlantic States, focused on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory and federally authorized Wild and Scenic River Studies. Trails work was in a separate unit.

NERO had a tradition of river conservation. Red Arnold, Jack Hauptman, Kevin Coyle, Chick Fagan, Frank Thomas, Bill Bock were all looking for a way to apply federal laws while using a place-based approach. NERO also had strong state river interests in NY, CT. ME and PA looking to shape an appropriate federal role.

Congressional studies struggled however with little on-the-ground results to show.

While the NRI was starting NERO was also involved in the National Urban Recreation Study. Emphasis on greenline park approach to protection and close to home recreation. Philadelphia office prepares demo project on Providence RI Metro region and case studies on Philadelphia, NY and Boston Metro areas. Interestingly the Philadelphia project identified the need for federal action on Lower Delaware and Schuylkill and the Bucks and Hunterdon Co. portions of Delaware.


FY 1977

As the NRI progressed staff pushed to go from a minimum system to more inclusive system of recognizing nationally important rivers. Under Kevin Coyle's leadership and the wisdom of Bernard Chick Fagan, NERO was starting to change the approach to Congressional river studies to emphasize partnerships and local approaches in the Shepaug and the Housatonnic River studies in CT.

While BOR and HCRS were working on river conservation other agencies were busy. EPA's Office of Land Use Coordination published The Public Benefits of Cleaned Water: Emerging Greenway Opportunities August 1977--with assistance from BOR

FY 1978
The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planners began the State Implementation Assistance Program as a way to help State's implement good land and water conservation projects through technical assistance. Implementation Assistance was a consultant service responsive to SCORP and unique opportunities tied to SCORP & LWCF. Staff from what is now the RTCA Office in Philadelphia proposed a number of rivers, and States with significant NRI mileage, as technical assistance projects. An early project was an assessment of CT Watershed Lands.

In 1978 the Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan Task Force issued a report on Protection of Outdoor Recreation Values of Rivers. Prepared by HCRS. Multiple recommendations by a panel who include: Howard Brown; Bob Eastman, Larry Rock, Mike Presnitz; Chuck Hoffman, Claude Terry


FY 1979
NERO published the Final List of Potential National Wild and Scenic Rivers in January 1979. This was essentially a list of undeveloped or eastern wild rivers.

The first phase of the NRI brought about a change in philosophy in NERO. As the second phase of the NRI began NERO started to do business collaboratively with States and private groups. For example, the NRI was co-sponsored with all the States and a nomination process was used to identify important river values. As part of this effort the concept of river types and working with constituency groups advanced by Mike Presnitz and Howard Brown of American Rivers.

As HCRS broadened the scope of federal river conservation to include working and urban rivers, support for assistance increased. Early requests came from places like Wheeling, WV on the Ohio, the Delaware in PA and White Clay in PA and DE.

Interest in federal technical assistance was growing. Early in 1980 Congressman Peter Kostmayer introduced the State Wild and Scenic Rivers Planning & Preservation Act. He proposed that the feds provide assistance to States and local governments for the protection and preservation of certain wild and scenic rivers, and for other purposes.

Meanwhile, inside HCRS, Chick Fagan stressed the potential of Section 11 of the National Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. This little known and underused provision would turnout to be the rationale for the original State and Local Rivers Conservation Assistance Program.

HCRS Director Chris Delaporte was encouraging HCRS leaders to think about the currency of the future. He urged us to enter into agreements; buy into situations; develop new models and look for opportunities. He asked us how could we use our programs differently? During his tenure, Delaporte created the three-program concept--Recreational, Natural and Cultural.

NERO's transition from the NRI to technical assistance continued as the office undertook Maine Rivers Study, Delaware Rivers Study, Rhode Island Rivers Inventory, Low Head Hydro strategy, as well as the completion of the Recreational Rivers Phase of the NRI.

The second year of the Implementation Assistance Program included assistance projects in Delaware, completing the State Assessment, a NY State Rivers Program Manual, the Maine River Information System, the James-Tye River Nuclear Proposal Assessment in VA, and an evaluation of the Sheepscot River in Maine.

The completion of the NRI and the early technical assistance work enabled HCRS to further refine a new direction for the feds in river conservation. A consensus agreement was reached in NERO that the river stewardship role should generally be assumed by the lowest possible level of government that is willing to pursue minimum standards for environmental quality. River conservation was viewed as a shared responsibility.


FY 1980
In 1979-80 HCRS had a Rivers Program. There were six major areas including NRI, Consultation Directive, Federal lands inventory, and Technical assistance to states, Administration of Section 7, Review of Components of National System. Some technical assistance was done and it was linked to NRI and possible LWCF grants.
The positions committed to these Regional River programs were MCRO 6.3; LCRO 3.0, SWRO 3.3, SCRO 3.0, NERO 8.5, and NWRO 4.5. WASO had 6.0.

1979 was also the year of the Mohonk Rivers Conference in NY. Secretary Herbst and Congressional staffer Dale Crane and others spoke to hundreds of river conservation and revitalization advocates from New England, the Mid-Atlantic region and Washington, DC. The attendee's message to HCRS was clear, help States and local governments help themselves to conserve, protect and revitalize. The Conference resulted in an "Agenda for the 1980's with recommendations for Federal assistance to local, State and private sector.

Quietly in Washington, DC a fellow named David Poor was developing a data base of information on various existing laws, programs and authorities that could be used to help State and community-based efforts. Known later as "Poor's Almanac" this catalog of programs gave practitioners greater insights as to what was possible.

Was the year that various interests gathered in MA, at
the call of Senator Tsongas, to do something publicly to recognize rivers. Lead by Theda Leonard of Sen. Tsongas office the group first created a MA June Rivers Day which lead to American Rivers Month

During this time EPA and HCRS published Recreation and Land Use: Public Benefits of Clean Waters

HCRS's assistance in Maine was starting to take shape. At the request of the Governor, HCRS began the design for the Maine Rivers Study. The work, based on the NRI, included assisting the state with a statewide inventory; establishing a technically sound and politically acceptable river conservation priority list; development of a model rivers inventory and priority process; further defining the appropriate role and relationships between Federal, State and local government agencies and private sector in river conservation.

NERO, under the then Regional Director Bob McIntosh, also initiated a "Landscape Study Proposal" to assess the 13 state region to identify landscape values, land use patterns and regional identity.

NERO's thinking on the technical assistance concept was quickly evolving. It included: a grass roots and outreach program; shared responsibility; river info system--extension of NRI; federal staff as river information brokers; and an emphasis on cooperation. Good information and technical assistance were seen as the key to this approach. The office stressed local commitment prior to starting a project and a focus on implementation!


FY 1981
In October 1980 NPS-MARO proposed a State and Local River Conservation Assistance Program to implement the most significant river conservation opportunities as identified by the NRI. The proposal called for staff and funding to establish greenway/ corridor management plans; local tasks forces for each river; and technical assistance by NPS.

Support for NPS assistance continued as local and private sector interests requested a technical assistance project on the Farmington River as an alternative to NWSR Act bill.

Other requests were made and projects began on the Delaware River, St. Lawrence-Thousand Islands area and the Hudson River.

The FY 1981 work plan include work on a new federal role and responsibility in landscape conservation; an AT Case Study; the Weems Creek, MD effort; a VA CEQ-NRI Agreement, assistance to East Branch of Fish Creek, continued assistance for the Delaware and Maine Rivers Study, National Landmark technical assistance, and an Urban Rivers Action group. In addition collaboration began with the Natural Lands Trust to discuss landowner master planning and the use of land trusts.

Memos of Understanding were issued for the HCRS/NPS Rivers program which included: Northeast Region: NRI, conflict avoidance; state technical assistance; distribution of NRI to States; evaluation of designated NWSR's; public inquiries; 5(a) studies and 5(d) activities. Other regions with programs included: Lake Central: $65,600; Northwest: $89,389; Mid-Continent: $90,000; Southeast: $57, 843; Southwest $50,000; Pacific Southwest $50,000.



FY 1982
The DOI House Appropriation Committee notes clarified that the National Recreation and Preservation appropriation within NPS replaces salaries and expenses appropriation of the former HCRS. Functions described include technical assistance to federal, state and local agencies.

1982 was a time of innovation and major change. The LWCF Planning Requirements for municipalities were published in MA. These allowed funding for river corridor management plans.

As a follow-up to the NRI, and in response to increasing interest in "close-to-home" rivers, NPS-MARO published a Draft List of Significant Urban Rivers.

1982 also brought threats from the budget process. The MARO Rivers & Trails unit was proposed to be eliminated in the FY 1983 budget. Staff reductions as a management tool were discussed and all temporary staff, a mainstay of SLRCAP, was to be laid off. People were encouraged to leave.

As the funding threats loomed innovative work continued. In Boston a meeting was held on the Big A project and NPS recommended that impacts be replaced with rivers of equal value.


FY 1983
The DOI Appropriations Bill for FY 1983 notes that the House Committee included $500,000 to allow NPS to continue to review and approve rivers submitted by States for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Discussions with WASO indicated that the FY 83 budget for SLRCAP was proposed to be cut from $230,000 to $72,000.

Spitzer strategy included "if you don't do this it will cost us $". He wanted us to identify what happens if we don't do assistance work (i.e. more areas will be designated). He suggested two options for SLRCAP: 1) fertilizer option--spread it out to regions; or 2) create a center of excellence. MARO was selected as the Center of Excellence and he asked us to describe the program and whey we do it. Why should it be done and why should we do it? He proposes that MARO get $280,000. His strategy was to export the program to other regions from MARO.

As part of this strategy Congress appropriated a $500,000 add-on for NPS river conservation technical assistance. Following the appropriation the NPS Director approved the NPS policy and priorities for the State and Local Rivers Conservation Assistance Program authorized under Section 11(a) of the NWSR Act. This signaled the creation of what is now known as RTCA.

In the face of budget cuts and a lack of support from within NPS Bill Spitzer and Bern Collins told us that we had 6-7 months to continue the program. They outlined concepts for 5 Regional Centers and outlined a budget including $115,000 WRO; $10,000 MWRO; $100,000 SERO; $112,000 NWRO; $100,000 RMRO.

A memo was issued to the field offices from Director with prospectus; contact list of outside supporters; strategy for contacts; description of support system--technical assistance to help set up regional office technical assistance programs.

Later that year Spitzer, Collins and Paul Solomon outlined the prospects of the FY84 Rivers Technical Assistance budget--$269,000. From within NPS, and DOI, the policy was "no TA, no support for any of these programs". Spitzer strategy was how do we create the demand? Dave Wright approved as Associate Director over SLRCAP and discussions focused on need to battle the Denver Service Center for technical assistance money and work-- a national rather than regional focus.

Dave Wright was negative about MARO technical assistance and Don Humphrey, another NPS Washington manager, wanted to push SLRCAP money to DSC. Wright thought the effort was a grant program.

Spitzer and Collins responded to the challenge by reaffirming that this is an ongoing mandated and funded program. They emphasized the need for MARO to expand regional program capabilities and staff.

FY 1983 included publishing a Greenway Planning: A Conservation Strategy for Significant Landscapes. The process-steps described would later form the basis for the forthcoming Riverwork Book.


FY 1984
The DOI Appropriations report for FY 1984 added $760,000 to "allow NPS through its regional offices to provide assistance to State and local governments for river conservation and to continue to review and approve river submitted to States for inclusion in NWSRS. Technical help should be delivered through consultations, training, demonstration projects, and program development".

Despite direction from Congress Dave Wright turned down the budget request and requested us to "do the work out of existing money". The reports out of Washington were dismal for FY 1985. The base money was going to DSC; $40,000 to Man in Space in Denver; 10% reprogrammed.

While resistance increased in Washington, support was building in PA as Congressman Kostmayer, and his staff person Dave Weiss took and interest in SLRCAP. Kostmayer was interested in helping Bristol, PA and wanted to discuss a "Lowell approach" to the riverfront community. Also, Kostmayer was planning Oversight Hearings and would consider NPS funding issues.

Kostmayer would eventually become a strong advocate for State and local river conservation. He introduced HR 5166 "to provide for assistance to State and local governments and private interests for conservation of certain rivers".

Chris Brown, then of American Rivers was contacted and soon he was testifying in support of SLRCAP. Said Brown, at a February 1984 hearing, "NPS River Conservation Technical Assistance is one program we consider to be the most vital and vigorous occurring in river conservation today. Things are getting done!".

While the future was being settled on the Hill, MARO continued to work on SLRCAP projects. In June MARO staff arranged for E.I. du Pont de Memours Company to donate 1,800 acres of land along White Clay Creek to PA and DE to create a bi-state park.

MARO also provided assistance to Texas and SWRO for a State & Local River Conservation Workshop in Austin, TX.

The FY 1984 budget for SLRCAP included: River & Trail Studies: $269,000; Man-in-Space Project $40,000; WASO staff: $146,000; MARO $425,000; WRO $52,000; PNWRO $50,000; Trail Volunteer Workshops: $23,000; Reserve: $23,000. Total $1,028,000.



FY 1985
The DOI House Appropriations of FY 1985 indicated that "The Rivers and Trails Studies and State and Local River Conservation Assistance programs increases are to maintain fiscal year 1984 levels and includes $75,000 for Wildcat Brook. The Committee has also included $80,000 within available funds for NPS to assist the Commonwealth of PA and the town of Bristol to conserve, interpret and appropriately develop the Delaware River in the vicinity of Bristol".

Bill Spitzer urged MARO to evolve the program; develop technical expertise and transfer it; get smarter about this--focus on constant learning. He stressed the need to look at ways of communicating other than reports; look at the delivery system--pull strings rather than hold hands. Make it and sell it! He urged us to get letters from Governors to delegation and the Secretary. Market the product. Answer these questions: What is the political and economic feasibility; what is the payback for the price? Results and help should be the priority. Make sure people understand how things get done. What generates political support for a project? Why do we need to help? Project specificity critically important. For each project develop a marketing plan: Who? What? What do they want? Will they help us if we do the work?

In March of 1985 support reached a new level. William K. Reilly, President of The Conservation Foundation, and the former Administrator of the US EPA, testified before the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations to support the funding for the State and Local River Conservation Assistance Program. He said, "It has been a key to unlocking the sometimes resistance to river conservation of local officials and riparian landowners. It is a program in the best tradition of federalism and local initiative, as well as contribution to the greater effort to protect our natural landscapes and vital ecosystems. It represents a prototype of what The Conservation Foundation foresees as the next generation of land and water conservation techniques in America, one that adroitly melds federal, state, local and private efforts into a cost-effective partnership".


FY1986
The DOI Appropriations Committee FY 1986 budget provided an increase of $1,200,000 for State and local river conservation assistance; $50,000 to maintain NNL's at the 85 level; and $200,000 for a national inventory of trails.

In FY 1986 regional office programs were taking shape and evolving. NARO and Chris Brown proposed a SLRCAP program office in Boston, MA and the 86 budget included: ALO 15,000; WRO 25,000; PNWRO 60,000; RMRO 50,000; SERO 50,000; MARO 426,000; NARO 35,000; WASO 403,000. The budget included 100,000 for trails, 50,000 for the Natural Lands Trust and 234,000 for headquarters staff.

FY 1987
FY 1987 brought the Wild River Search and a budget with: RO Assistance 219,800; PNWRO 90,000; SERO 70,000; MCRO 25,000; SWRO 3,000; NARO 35,000, ARO 15,000; RMRO 50,000; PRO 3,000; MARO 430,000 and WASO 271,000.

Spitzer and Collins stressed that they wanted the program to take on more focus; more teaching; be more selective of projects. They stressed that it's not an NPS program but a Congressional one--target Appropriation, direction and get American Rivers to sign-off on this.


FY 1988
The FY 1988 DOI Appropriations bill included a program of assistance to State and local governments for rivers and trails. For this program, the Committee included an increase of $1,500,000 to re-establish and increase assistance to States and local governments and $400,000 for general management responsibilities for trails/

At a rivers strategy meeting in 1988 Bern Collins said, "SLRCAP is functioning very well. We gained back what was lost in 1979". He stressed the need to run the program on a project-by-project basis.

Kevin Coyle, then of American Rivers, discussed that in 87 rivers and trails were combined. Bill Spitzer reassures that there will be a balance between rivers and trails---trail interests want to earmark. Chris Brown talked of the need to develop a SLRCAP History outline for training. And, Ray Murray talked of his 3-wave theory Wave #1: Products, publications and workshops; Wave #2 processes institutionalized; Wave #3 visitor days, acres, miles and dollars.

In September at the first National Program Review Meeting Annual Program Bill Spitzer said, "We would not have a National program unless MARO did the work in other Regions. Chris Brown, then of NPS, said "A clear set of objectives needed for each project. MARO has a track record of innovation".


FY 1989
The DOI House Appropriations Committee reports for FY 1989 included recommendations for a $2,200,000 program of assistance to States and local governments for rivers and trails.

In 1989 MARO lead a series of National Meetings to to gain public input on how Congress could better help states and local communities manage and better use their rivers and adjacent lands. Meetings were held in San Francisco, CA; Omaha, NB; Denver, CO; Atlanta, GA; Boston, MA and Washington, DC. The meetings lead to federal legislation--HR 4250 and increased federal agency collaboration on river conservation and regeneration.

FY 1990 also was a time when the Administration's budget proposal called for the termination of State & Local Program.


FY 1990
The DOI House Appropriations report of FY 1990 included "a $3,500,000 program of assistance to States and local governments for rivers and trails. Included were funds to complete the Farmington River study at a level beyond the authorized level. The Committee also recommended $500,000 associated with the river activity of NPS. Many hydroelectric licenses are coming up for renewal before FERC. With these funds the NPS will be in a position to make formal comments on recreational river flows in relicensing and on projects proposed for rivers listed on the NRI".