VOLUME I

AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS

INITIATIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

+ + + 

Monday, May 11, 1998 

+ + + 

White House Conference Center

Truman Room

726 Jackson Place, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

+ + +

Dayton Duncan, Chairperson

PARTICIPANTS:

WILLIAM GRAF

DR. GERALD GALLOWAY, JR.

P. KAY WHITLOCK

DONALD SAMPSON

DAVID OLSEN

MARIA TERAN

MICHAEL HOOG

ANTHONY GRASSI

DANIEL KEMMIS

CHARLES JORDAN

DOUG WILSON

JERRY DELLIPRISCOLLI

Facilitator

STAFF:

CHIP SMITH

ROGER STEPHENSON

FRAN EANGEL

JANET PAWLUKIEWICZ

KAREN HOBBS

I N D E X

PAGE

Welcome..................................4

Ray Clark, Council on

Environmental Quality....................14

Roger Stephenson

Department of Interior...................21

P R O C E E D I N G S (9:15 a.m.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Good morning everyone.

We will begin our two-day meeting.

I just wanted to say a few things at the outset. I wanted to share a thought from someone who cannot be at this meeting because he has been dead for 200 years, Thomas Jefferson.

He said that the work in -- in his first administration, wrote to a colleague that, the work we are now doing is a trust done for posterity in such a way that they need not repeat it. We shall delineate with correctness the great arteries of this great country. Those who come after us will fill up the canvas we begin.

Those arteries that Jefferson was speaking about were rivers, which, in Jefferson's time, were universally recognized as the lifeblood of the nation. Simply mapping them was, he thought, an essential task for Americans.

And now, nearly two centuries later, those arteries, as we know, have been well mapped; and, as Jefferson said, the canvas has been filled in. But we here are that posterity that he described and ours is a different, yet equally important, task for the next two days, to recognize and to encourage the grassroots local efforts by so many different communities who are seeking to reinvigorate their connections to the rivers running through them. Because despite the advance of centuries, the advent of automobiles and airplanes and the Internet, America's rivers still are the lifeblood of our nation.

They carry with them our shared history, connecting us to our heritage. They provide millions of Americans with access to the natural environment, which Jefferson considered one of the greatest blessings of our land, a blessing that falls upon all of us to preserve for our posterity. And the rivers are still essential to our economic well being, a fact that more and more local communities are realizing as they turn back to the rivers that in most cases gave birth to their existence, in the first place.

We have got a difficult task here, as a committee; because, on the one hand, it makes --

MR. WAY: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I'm sorry?

MR. WAY: Could I interrupt just one minute, please.

My name is Lawrence Way. I live a short distance from the Potomac River.

I think it is grossly unfair on the part of this commission that members of the public cannot address you as to their concerns about the so important subject you just spoke about.

If Thomas Jefferson thought the rivers, and in my particular instance the Potomac, was such an important thing, then, I really believe that the public should have a voice in your decision-making process, and I do not think we can do that.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Thank you, sir.

MR. WAY: I think this whole thing has been done very underhandedly across the nation where the public has not had the benefit of putting in their input, and it is actually a kangaroo court.

This has already been decided before we ever walked in the door, and I think that is grossly unfair on such an important item as the rivers of this nation.

I personally do not want to see the Potomac River in the American Heritage River Advisory Committee.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Please be seated.

Let me -- let me move to address that point in case there are others here who came here with similar thoughts.

From the outset of the preparation for this meeting, it was publicly announced that written comments from the public would be welcome and accepted; and I also want to say that these river proposals are the results of literally thousands of people in local communities, local organizations, doing thousands of hours of work to -- to make their proposals, and some of them are here today as well. And we welcome all of you to observe our meeting as we discuss the task before us. In fairness to all of those groups, many of which live miles away, could not attend a meeting such as this, written comments were accepted and we have several folders of those, both people in favor of particular rivers, overwhelmingly from people in favor of river -- river proposals.

This meeting will, therefore, in fairness of those who cannot come, and following the rules that were set up from the beginning, we will be holding our meeting here in public, but we will not be accepting testimony from people sitting in the audience.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Point of order. I would like you to state for the record, please, why this meeting, as stated in the Federal Register Notice last week about this meeting, why it was noticed it was going to be closed to the public, and I would like you to state for the record what exemption under FACA you are claiming for the closure of a portion of this meeting. No such exemption has been given.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Chip, do you want to address that.

MR. SMITH: Yes, I do.

We will close a portion of this meeting in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act that allows us to meet in private, protect the President's privilege to weigh information and recommendations prior to making final decision, where a premature disclosure would disrupt resulting proceedings.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: I'm sorry, a further point of order; because in the case Common Cause v. NRC, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, decided D.C. Circuit Court, February 26, 1982, that is not a valid reason for closure under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. It was found that you had to meet two criteria.

And, by the way, what --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Can I just raise a point here.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: ... advisory committee.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Excuse me. I am Chairman here.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm sorry, this is illegal.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I'm sorry. If you think it is illegal, I understand. I am not from Washington. There are plenty of lawyers in this town and there are avenues for you to do that.

We are operating under --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: ... (Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: -- the rules that we have -- I understand what you just said.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: ... (Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: This is not -- we are not going to be looking into the legal precedence. We are not here as lawyers and there are plenty of opportunity for you if you think we are doing something illegally for you --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Sir, with all due respect --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: -- to take action.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- I understand that, and I am not a lawyer, either. I understand you are not and probably most of the Committee members are not; but, this meeting must be conducted in accordance with FACA, and is not, to my knowledge.

And I just need ...

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: And we are relying on the advice of our staff on that.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: ... the record right now as to how this meeting is improper...I will read that.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay, can you sit and he will respond then? Thank you.

MR. SMITH: Pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 552b:c of Title 5, U.S.A., specifically Sub-paragraph 9 thereof, and Title 5 U.S.C., Appendix i, Sub-section T:d, this meeting can be closed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act for private deliberation as long as it is announced in the Federal Register the intent to do so.

This is by our legal counsel in the Army and at the White House.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: A further point of order. There is no justification given for why there has to be under NRC, under... there has to be specific justification given for why... (Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Thank you. Thank you very much.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: ... (Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Thank you for your opinion on this.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Because there are two criteria you haven't met. One is that it can be closed is there is potential financial gain for the people in the audience potentially get from this. I do not see how that would apply. Or, two, disclosure would allow people to circumvent an agency regulation.

This meeting does not meet those criteria.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Thank you for your opinion.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Could I have -- this is under -- could I restate it... this is under Exemption 9b of the Federal Advisory Committee Act?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: It is... (Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Please sit down, sir. We are -- we are -- this is not the venue to get into legal precedence.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: ... (Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: You have raised your objection. You have stated for the record what we are doing and we are going to move on.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Could I have a further -- counsel, could I please have a further explanation?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: No, you are out of order now. Please sit down or leave.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: The meeting is out of order.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: We understand your opinion on that.

This is an appropriate time for me, I think, to thank the many members of the staff, who have worked themselves so many hours in compiling our packets of material, sifting through the nominations from so many different communities, and to help get us to where we are today. And we thank them for helping getting us prepared.

At this time, I would just like everyone here in the -- at the table to introduce themselves before we go any farther.

My name is Dayton Duncan. I am from Walpol, New Hampshire, and I am the Chairman of the Committee.

These microphones are to help the person sitting back there in the corner, who is recording this, so you do not need to speak into them but try to speak loud enough that he can hear what you have to say.

Let's start here.

MR. GRAFF: My name is Will Graf. I am a professor of geography at Arizona State, University.

MR. GALLOWAY: I am Jerry Galloway. I am a professor at the National Defense University in Washington, D. C.

MR. OLSEN: I am David Lawson. I am the CEO of Padigodia, a private corporation, in Ventura, California.

MR. HOOG: Michael Hoog. I am an environmental attorney in Denver, Colorado.

MR. GRASSI: Tony Grassi from Wilton, Connecticut.

MR. WILSON: Douglas Wilson. I am from

Gridley, Illinois. I am a corn and soy bean farmer and Vice President of the Illinois Corn Growers Association.

MR. JORDAN: My name is Charles Jordan. I am from Portland, Oregon. I am Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Portland.

MR. KEMMIS: My name is Daniel Kemmis. I am from Mazzoula, Montana, and I am the Director of the Center for Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana.

MS. TERAN: My name is Maria Teran. I am a business owner in El Paso, Texas.

MS. WHITLOCK: My name is Kay Whitlock. I am Assistant General Manager of the Santa Clare Valley Water District in San Jose, California.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: We have two members who are unable to attend for health reasons, Yolanda Rivera and Deborah Jaramillo and Donald Sampson should be joining us soon.

At this point in time, I would like to encourage -- well, first of all, before we go farther, I do want to say that, while we are not going to be having members of the public address us, there is a notice board there at the entrance to this room; and people who have comments, concerns, specific points of fact, or other things that they think that they would like to have the Committee be aware of, they can post those there over the next two days and as we take occasional breaks and things like that, we would be happy to look them over.

But, now, on behalf of the Administration, I would like to call on Ray Clark, the Associate Director of the Council on Environmental Quality.

MR. CLARK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the President's Advisory Committee on American Heritage Rivers.

My name is Ray Clark and I am here to welcome you. I am very, very sorry that Katie is not here this morning. She is still in Wyoming with a very ill brother and -- and has not had a chance to get back to Washington.

I do want to say that we are honored by your service here and we will do everything in the world to make sure that you are -- to make sure you are able to carry out your charter in the way the President has outlined it.

I would like to give you a little bit of a background -- I would like to give you a little bit of a background on the origins of this initiative.

The President has put a great deal of trust in your hands as you look at these 126 nominations and, so, I want to make sure that you understand the background and the origins of this initiative.

In both the President's and the Vice President's travels across the country, he has found, they have found, communities working together taking responsibility to restore their rivers and in using them many times as an anchor for economic revitalization of their communities.

The President has wanted to take an opportunity, then, to bring the federal government's help, without hinderance, because many times what these communities need is a little bit of help, not a big pot of money, sometimes it is just technical assistance or knowledge about existing resources by the government.

In his State of the Union Address on October 4th, 1997, he announced that he would designate ten rivers in the next year to help communities restore their rivers and revitalize economies.

He directed his cabinet to develop an initiative that would recognize these communities and that were attempting to integrate environment economic revitalization and historic preservation.

So, throughout the spring of 1997, through their agency committee, at the direction of the President, developed public involvement that went to 15 -- had 15 public meetings in cities around the country.

We briefed four states on agriculture, leadership, hosted by the Farm Bureau. We spoke to national private property rights organizations in two different states. We visited a number of communities that were considering applying or had questions about the initiative. We went where we were invited. We stayed away where we were not.

As a result of public participation, interaction with Congress and Congress' staff, elements of this initiative were modified to insure that it achieved the communities' goals, and it was a bottoms-up driven initiative, not a top-down initiative.

Let me turn for a moment to some of the elements of the program that were directed, that were developed as a result of the initiative, as a result of participation, as the result of interaction with Congress.

In the end there are no losers in this initiative. Every river that is trying to restore its river, revitalize its economy, and honor our ancestors and our heritage, are winners.

Every river that nominates themselves will get a red page of services that we have developed, trying to bring together all of the services that exist in the public government, whether or not it is economic impact forecasting, models, or whether or not it is just technical assistance.

Second, they would get tailored packets of the federal services available and based on the goals of the community, that these packages are tailored to the kinds of plans and actions that these communities are taking.

And, third, they would get an invitation to the National Symposium, hosted by ... University in Atlanta in October, and it will -- it will be run by the communities who have the most knowledge about how to restore their rivers and to revitalize their economy. It would simply be facilitated by the federal government.

The designees, those ten that are designated, will get all of those things, plus they will get recognition by the President of the United States.

They will get an ombudsman, who is called a river navigator, to help them read through the many services, the myriad services, that are available from the federal government.

They will get focused federal support to realize their dreams and their plans. And they will get leveraged support from national associations, national non-profits, national corporations.

We have had an enormous amount of interest from across the country from organizations who want to participate and help these communities.

The President signed the Executive Order 13061 on September 11th, 1997, which opened the door to the nomination for 90 days.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. We expected 40 to 50 nominations. The outpouring was really heartening. There were 126 nominations.

There are communities across this country who are taking their responsibility very seriously.

Let me just tell you what we think this initiative is and what it is not.

First, this initiative is an opportunity to cultivate the idea that environment and economy are interwoven.

Second, it is a laboratory to demonstrate a new way of delivering federal services in the spirit of Vice President Gore's government reinvention effort.

Better coordination will lead to more efficient use of the existing federal resources.

Third, it is a celebration of the American spirit that honors our ancestral linkage to rivers throughout the roots throughout discovery: trade and commerce, national defense, music, literature, and knowledge.

Fourth, it is a volunteer efforts. It is a bottoms-up initiative for communities who are taking their responsibilities seriously, and we are going to offer help.

And, last, it is access to a tool box for the public's use.

Let me tell you what it is not.

It is not a regulatory program. There are no new mandates. There are no new regulations.

Second, it is not a cash cow. There is no new money. It is not a new, big federal program.

Third, it is not mandatory. People can choose -- communities can choose to apply. Communities can choose not to apply. Communities can choose to opt out.

Fourth, it is not top-down. We will not tell rivers what to participate, when to participate, and we will not tell them what their goals are. They know what their goals are. We are there to help them achieve the goals that they have developed.

Now, what a river must do to demonstrate that it is an American heritage river, by the criteria we have developed.

First, there must be notable historic, environmental, agricultural, scenic, cultural, recreational, and other resources along the river that is notable.

Second, there has to be a clear plan of action for which the government can help achieve their goal.

Third, there must be broad community support; and it is noteworthy to say at this point that a member of Congress can choose for a river in his or her district not to be considered. A Senator can choose for a river not to be considered.

If a member supports a designation and one Senator does not, that community can still show broad community support, though the challenge is greater, obviously.

If both Senators oppose, that river should not be considered, even if the member representative of the district desires the designation.

Of the 126 river nominated, eight total rivers have been opted out by Congressional opposition.

Ten stretches of river that have opted out and stretches, to a greater or lesser degrees, does effect the remaining stretches of river.

I want to turn now for a moment to how some of the work that the interagency committee has done to help you in your deliberations but, by no means, should -- should -- should the work that we have already done influence at the ultimate whether or not you choose -- which river you choose.

But we have tried to go through the nominations and I would like for Roger Stephenson, from the Department of Interior, to give you a rundown on the staff review.

MR. STEPHENSON: Good morning.

My name is Roger Stephenson. I am with the Department of Interior; and I was fortunate enough to lead a professional review team that was composed of 15 federal employees representing the agencies participating in the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.

Those agencies include the Department of Defense, the Office of Attorney General, the Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for Humanities.

Our -- the Federal Register Notice states that in preparation for review by the panel agency staff will score individual nominations based on community responses.

Our product is intended as a guide, not as direction, to this Committee.

I was asked to spend a few moments to describe the process that we went through and to take questions that are necessary.

Team members were appointed to the review team because of their expertise in issues related to the three objectives of the initiative, as well as their previous experience in evaluating similar and analogous applications.

The review team developed and applied specific methods of procedure for evaluating nominations perceived by the working group lead by Karen Cox.

The team produced a list of nominations grouped on the basis of their qualifications.

The Federal Register Notice specified that each applicant's nomination must address four principal items:

Describe the proposed American Heritage River area;

Describe the notable resource qualities in the area;

Describe the community's plan of action; and

Illustrate support which the nomination and plan of action.

Further, the final Register Notice stated that responses in the applications to Items 3 and 4 constitute the primary basis for evaluating nominations, and will be given equal weight in the scoring process.

Items 1 and 2, available resources qualities and a description of the proposed area, were used by the team to put the -- to put the criteria in context, but were not used to assess the merits of the nominations.

The working group has developed a set of criteria with working definitions and those criteria that were in the Federal Register Notice were developed in large part through the 15 public meetings that were held around the country.

There was a lot -- a great degree of public input on what criteria would be used to evaluate nominations.

And, Item 4, the plan of action, the review team looked at vision, product and projects, resources, schedule, citizen involvement, public education, logistical support, challenges to action, measures of performance, and whether the plan meets the goals of the initiative.

In Item 4, range of support, the review team examined strength of support, diversity of support, the nature and s cope of that support, evidence of partnership agreements, and the roles of key decision makers.

With 126 nominations received through the initiative, the review team developed a process that would maximize the amount of review and discussion that could be afforded each nomination within the time and staffing constraints.

The review team met for nine days an 18 dozen donuts between December 10th and the 18th.

The primary method ... for reviewing nominations was a small group individual level. I split the review team into five groups of three, with each group composed of one member each who had expertise in one of the three initiative goals.

Each small group then received about 20 to 25 percent of all nominations. The nominations were assigned to each small group randomly and an individual from each small group was randomly assigned to be a lead person on one-third of the nominations.

Small groups tested a review process with three nominations and each group member serving as a lead reviewer of nominations led the review process.

The reading and scoring process was discussed and ambiguities or idiosyncracies that might lead to discrepancies and ratings were resolved.

Upon completing their assignment, the small groups reconvened to discuss or compare ratings. For each nomination, each person on the small group review team stated his or her grand total, the merits of the nomination, including its strengths and weaknesses; and if individual's sub-total scores deviated significantly, the group went into a special round of discussion and/or negotiation.

The entire review team convened after nominations were read individually and with group scoring and ranking completed the full review team reconvened to discuss results and combine their efforts.

As a first check for consistency, groups were asked to describe what they felt were the characteristics among the most successful and least successful nominations and how those characteristics related to the final scores they assigned to a nomination.

As a second check for consistency, I compiled all the group scores and presented a matrix showing the distribution of the nominations and this exercise showed the individual groups were very closely aligned with respect to how they rated their assigned nominations.

And, as a final check of consistency, a sub-sample of three nominations per group was cross-read and scored by another group, and subsequent discussion served to anchor intergroup definitions of what they considered to be the categories that you have before you.

There are several members of the review team. I would like to introduce them for you and they are here and they will be here during your deliberations.

Tony Tai is over here in the first row. He is with the National Endowment for the Arts.

Elizabeth Moss is with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Dough Frost with the Department of Energy.

Ken Smith from U.S. Geological Survey.

And Frank Ehrle from the Environmental Protection Agency.

MR. CLARK: Thanks, Roger.

And, finally -- go ahead.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Does anyone have any questions for Roger at this point? He will be here the whole time. We can ask more.

I just waned to say again, on behalf of the Committee, thank you to the people who put in all that work of reviewing all the documents that you had before you; and I -- and I want to emphasize at the same time that now the process is here with us as members of the Committee and our job is to make our decisions based on our discussion among ourselves here at the table and the nominations themselves.

I'm sorry.

MR. CLARK: Just finally just to say under the Federal Advisory Committee Act provisions, Mr. Chairman, after your deliberations, of course, and we have no question that you would judge fairly but also judge a good distribution geographically and settings, and send from 10 to 20 names to the President for his consideration for the ten designations.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Does anyone have any questions for Ray or Roger at this point?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: We have got a -- we have got a big challenge in front of us between today and tomorrow to take these 126 -- and these are on the board behind us. The black dots are ones in which there are Congressional opposition has eliminated.

So you can see that there -- that they are spread throughout the United States and there is an awful lot of them, and somehow together we are going to have to get that down to, as Ray said, 10 to 20.

And I want to say at this point that, in my mind, one of the happy results of this initiative, from reading through the different materials that were sent and talking to people involved in different proposals, is that there are more than ten American heritage rivers in our nation and there are certainly more than ten nominations that I think we, as a committee, could -- and the President -- could stand behind as worthy ones.

And the simple act of the initiative has brought different communities together as they have put together proposals. It has spurred other places to think more in terms of their relationships with their rivers.

And we have got to get from there to a smaller number but my sense is that those will not be the only ones that are actually worthy of being named.

I want all of us here to feel welcome to make comments and ask questions. At the same time to remember as we move forward that the clock is ticking and we do have a short time period.

We are going to have an informal process that we are going to use that we will refine as we go along, that we may change as we proceed.

We are going to use a number of techniques, with the help of our facilitator, that will periodically ask us to record our inclinations at a certain time to see how we are progressing and that will prompt further discussion.

My hope and intention is at the end of this day, for instance, to do an exercise like that that will at least give some closure to today and be a launching point for us tomorrow.

At the same time, I want everyone on the Committee to remember and the people here who are watching us to understand is that those would just be techniques in which we will try to reaching conclusions and nothing is final until we, as a committee, decide together that we have reached a final decision.

We will be taking a number of breaks throughout the two days and it will be an opportunity for us to see any comments and reactions on the posting board to review proposals and other things such as that.

But we -- as we begin the process, I am just reminding us again that nothing will be final until we reach the end of that process.

And at that point I would like to call on Jerry Dellipriscolli, who is our facilitator, to actually get us finally started on this process.

Jerry.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: I will take a deep breath.

Good morning. My name is Jerry, Jerry Dellipriscolli, a long Italian name. Jerry is fine.

And I -- my job here is to work with the group at the table, and I will try to focus us and think of it as working around the table. I know we have observers, but we are trying to get some work done here and so my primary responsibility is to try to help in this effort.

I want to be sure we can try to get the best we can out of us as a group and my job will be to try to suggest ways that we can move along if we are stuck. If we really get stuck, Dayton can suggest better ways.

But I am not here to inject any substance or any positions at any time. It is a process role. And one of the things we have to do is to be sure or at least try to get everybody at this table feeling like there is some procedural fairness and satisfaction at this table.

In other words, you have had enough to say and we got it all out; there is not too much left that we need to put on the table. And that is a part of my job and if it is not happening, you got to say it. I mean, this group would not hesitate in a minute. But, I mean, I just want to put that on the table as a thing we are trying to do.

Also, to have read back, which is happening as we go along, that may be very useful for the group; and, in fact, I want to encourage people around the table to look at the walls over here for any reactions that may show up. I do not know if they will or not but I want to be sure, you know, if stuff is posted up there or any other place, that you use it, you use the materials that we evolve.

The materials that we have here, I could use -- we could use to help with the staff. We have got maps that we just talked about.

We have the individual applications in the back, all racked up along there.

And in the packets we have a couple of very important pieces of paper because we are going to be using them in exercises.

I am not sure if everyone has one of these, but this is a list of all the applications. Pass this around. It is like a working document. Be sure we have got -- it is the name of all the applications and number next to it; because, as we get into mixing and matching or whatever we are going to do, it will be easier if we have a number and identifier.

We have all got the results of this very preliminary first cut when we were asked to look at the top five and that looks like this. So, I want to be sure everybody has got one of those things in front of you, too.

What else do we have of background? We have got the book with the three-page, or, two-page summaries of each of these.

We have the summaries that are built in the staff work.

As the facilitator to the group, I want to emphasize again that that staff work is to help us. We may end of reprioritizing and throwing out and putting it back in several times in the next two days. So, that is an aide to help or, you know, it may stay the same. I do not know what will happen. But that is all in this book.

The -- did I miss anything of the materials that we have?

MR. STEPHENSON: Just the most recent communications from communities around the country are here in the blue binders, supportive letters on specific rivers or the initiative, and letters of opposition to specific rivers in the initiative.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: And, as you notice, in the agenda as you got it and we reviewed it, it is general and flexible of necessity.

Let me give you what I think it is my impression of how we would work; and, of course, this is subject to change and how the group feels at any given time around the table.

Basically, this morning we are going to do what we are doing here, which is to get familiar with the data, get familiar with what is on the floor, get familiar with each other, and what we are expecting out of this, and essentially begin to get into the substance.

After lunch and most of the afternoon, I expect we are going to have dialogue around the table and probably many questions but at least two, which would be: How does this mosaic look that we started with? How should we change it? What should we put in and out? Why do we get there? Does it make any sense?

And then some specifics. People may have very specific questions on various proposals. We have a staff and other -- I think that dialogue will occur for a few hours this afternoon.

When it appears appropriate, we will try to stop -- not stop it, but call a halt to take a look at another reading from the group. We have listened to one priority that we have done; we have listened to our discussions. Let's see where we are at. And we will do a quick exercise to do that to give another sense of priorities.

And we will close the day with that as a map. In other words, a final sense of priorities for today.

That will, I think, allow us, as a group, you, individually, or in pairs, or whatever way you want to talk tonight about this stuff, and to give us a sense of some working accomplishment and achievement during the day and a sense that we are moving towards this goal of 10 to 20 as was just articulated.

All right. The -- tomorrow, I think what we should -- my vision would be that we would probably start with that, where we ended today, with this notion of how we are whittling down to a few areas, given what may have gone on in the evening in discussions, and I do not know where we will be; but we probably be at some point where we would be talking about 10 or 12 items and rivers that we need to work with. If that is the case, we will set up and focus on those.

If we are still at 30 or 40, then, we will go back to the same kind of process again. And it pretty much depends on what happens. But I am prepared to work us through that.

I am also going to try to push on it, not artificially in the sense of coming up with stuff that everybody says yes because they are exhausted and so forth and so on and have gone through this so much that they say, let me get on a plane and go home; but push in the sense that we do have the difficult job in two days to try to whittle down. So that is what I am going to do and to the point where it may be a little annoying sometimes to people.

A couple of rules on this -- not rules, but just some things to keep in mind.

First, I do not think it needs to be said, really, but the basic notion of stability around the table, you have discussions without beating each other up, if we can do that. Trying to focus on issues, rather than personalities, around if you can; and I will remind the group that that is helpful.

And on consensus, two things that I think will be useful, as I was trying to put myself in the place of the Committee members.

The first is essentially coming up with the 10 or 20, or 10 to 20, the way you termed it, we would like to look at it eventually as a package; and, as a package, I am sure that everybody is going to agree equally to everything in that. But they may say this is the good package, you know, with diversity and all the other issues that are involved. So, we are shooting for the package. And that will be useful to remember as we go through individually through these.

And, secondly, the prioritization exercise and so forth that we go through are just that. They are aids to move us ahead. If you don't find them as aids, say so, and we will do something else. Okay? But that is what they are for. They are not to say, look, we have now got 32, now we are going to have 20, and we are just going to march on down the road.

It isn't cooked. If we were cooked, I would not be doing -- at least as far as the 12 at this table are concerned and that is what I am focusing on, it isn't cooked. If it were, I would not be here working with it.

That is basically my feelings on this and the role.

I don't know, do you want to react? Do we have any quick reactions before we dig into our first exercise here to this?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: No. The only thing I want to do is to welcome Donald Sampson, who has arrived now. We are now at full strength and ready to move forward. But, welcome, Donald.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Okay. I found in the past it very useful, you know, as a group, particularly one that has not worked with each other, we do something to start ourselves off.

And what I had in mind here is I know there is a lot of questions. They started to come up earlier today.

I would like to take some time and address -- I would like you to think about this question. What, if any, are the one or two major issues or questions you need to have answered or put on the table to discuss? One or two major issues or questions right now to jump into this to get started.

I would like you to think about that question for about five minutes and jot what answers you have, if you have any, and maybe none, you may just be willing to start. Jot them on a piece of paper in front of you.

What I am going to do after that is we are going to go around the table and see what we have here and what I am going to try to do is get a sense of this group and what we really need as basic questions and issues to dig in and move forward.

So, in shorthand, one or two major questions you, personally, need to start; what you need as an individual here. One of the most important things. It may be nothing. You may be ready to go right now. But there may be other kinds of questions. I do not know. Think about it for about five minutes, silently, and write on a piece of paper in front of you and then we will go around and see what we have got.

They could be micro in a specific case or they could be macro.

MR. GRAF: How will we know to put it all together?

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: I do not particularly care. I just want a data dump of what is on your mind because this will help each of us understand where we are coming from.

MS. WHITLOCK: If we do that, then, there is going to be more than two.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: That is okay. You will end up. You will end up. I guarantee -- Kay, I guarantee that about half the people around will put down several of the same ones that we will probably come up with.

MS. WHITLOCK: Okay.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: That is the reason for asking what are the two most important right now.

MS. WHITLOCK: Okay.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: And then we will throw them all in.

What I would like to do is quickly go around the table. Let's see if we can quickly go around the table.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Could we have quiet in the cheering section. Thank you.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: I would like to get just one from each and then see where we are and throw out whatever else we need, but I want to get -- and if you do not have anything, just pass on, just go to the next person. Let me start over here.

MR. GRAF: Well, I think that my -- my question is, Karen Hobbs, what are you doing there in the middle of the --

MS. HOBBS: I'm -- I'm sorry, I am being a nuisance. There are post-it notes on those chairs if you want to make a comment on the wall.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: But what they need is some more pens on the chairs.

MS. HOBBS: Okay, here.

MR. GRAF: I guess my question was one of a philosophical nature rather than a procedural one. And it is that it seems to me that one of the things we are going to have to consider is how to balance the needs of the -- the local needs and the local desires that are expressed in our proposals with a different scale of analysis?

We are being asked to deal with this from a national perspective as a committee. Now, I think that is -- I think that is a good thing and I think that that is a richness in the process, but I am not clear yet how I am going to deal with a committee person, say, on the Ohio River who looks out the window of his hardware store and says that he does or does not want this particular designation; and I am being asked to fit this into a very broad-based national perspective, a system that would balance across nation, scale, geographic areas.

And I think that is a basic philosophical tension that is going to drive some of the decision-making that I have to do.

DR. GALLOWAY: I would be very interested in learning more about the glue that binds together the varying bodies that support a particular proposal because, as we looked at the proposals, there were many agencies listed but what is not shown is the strength of that relationship, its persistence over time, how they have come together in the past, and what it bodes for the future.

MR. OLSEN: I need some specifics on action plans. It is really very difficult to tell how well each of the plans addresses the three major goals of the initiative; how rivers their performance measures are; and -- and, for example, to what extent the existing efforts would happen by themselves versus being leveraged very well by federal dollars, where would federal dollars make the most difference.

MR. HOOG: I guess mine is a combination of the previous two.

Number One, I need more details on action plans; and

Number Two, once -- once those are obtained, then, how our efforts coordinate it, what role does -- does the river navigator play to -- to insure success of the -- of the objectives.

MR. GRASSI: I think a interesting question to me is how do you balance rivers where efforts are just beginning and you want to encourage them versus rivers where they have been going at it for a long period of time and maybe all this is sort of redundancy for the efforts that are already in place...

MR. WILSON: I think I would probably go along a similar line of not being able to give a full scope from my point of view. I do have a question as far as the scoring, since the group that was comprised of commerce, the arts, interior, and EPA, you know, where USDA was, and how the impact to agriculture and to the river transportation issues were dealt with.

Some of the initiatives that I read, was able to read in full, discussed it very well; but a large percentage of them had a fairly large extent of agricultural ground and did not seem to really address any potential impacts that this could have.

MR. JORDAN: I need to develop an appreciation for ways in which we are going to split rivers, divide rivers, that one part of it is out, another part is in, as if knowing the pressurous journey that the salmon take going through poison water, then coming into clean water, back to poison water again. Are we really kidding ourselves to think we can do that?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: We encourage river analogies throughout.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Next time you can work one, you get an extra point.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Put one down for you.

MS. WHITLOCK: I'll give points for asking that.

MR. HOOG: I think mine have been covered pretty well.

MS. TERAN: I am just concerned about the prioritization, you know, reading the... What are we looking at? What is first priority, human need, environmental need, and then historical, or the other way around?

I also am concerned and want to know how this committee can look for ways to address some of the fears of federalism.

Some of the letters that I have received from farmers and ranchers, surely there is something that we can do to take back some reassurances to them and assure them that this is not the intent.

Was that too many?

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: That's all right. We got them all up here, I think.

MR. SAMPSON: (Speaking in American Indian and then translating.) Just to let you know, my name is Donald Sampson, and I am from the river people, that is what tribe I am from, Illula, where the Snake and Columbia River come together, and we have been there for over a thousand generations. So, I welcome this opportunity to look at the rivers from a holistic and long-term point of view.

My first question is, or, my need is an opportunity to review the entire nomination proposal for a top 20 of rivers that I have kind of sorted out in my mind. I think it would be helpful to look at the details of them. I have read their abstracts; but in order to begin, I guess getting more comfortable with the flavor of the support, the types of activities, the action plans, I would like that opportunity. If that is tonight, then, that's fine, I would like to do that.

Second, is would we develop a numeric scoring system or something to at least categorize or organize the nominations in our own minds somehow?

Third, is why has Congressional opposition eliminated some of the rivers?

And, then, fourth, is some -- some of the issues that have already been addressed is, how do we address the geographic diversity?

Being from the west, of course, I am biased towards the west; but, in looking at a lot of the rivers, somehow we are going to have to balance that.

So, that's all.

MS. WHITLOCK: One of my questions is, what new information -- I need an opportunity to review the new information that has come in since the packages were -- since that last Federal Register Notice went out and, you know, this new information; and I just need to know if the staff has gone through that to see if there is additional points that might have been missed before.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Any others? We have gone around.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Kay's got another one.

MS. WHITLOCK: I've got six more.

(Laughter.)

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: But some things that have not been put up here so far. New information since...

MS. WHITLOCK: Since the last Federal Register Notice.

And, then, I look at this as an opportunity to teach the federal government lessons from local governments' knowledge base and I don't think that -- I did not see that highlighted in the abstracts, so I would like to find a way to bring some lessons to the federal government from our local experiences.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Any others from anybody around the table that we need to put up?

MR. HOOG: Actually, one relates back to something that Charles asked and that is, you know, in terms of the best stretches of river, not only where you are excluding certain portions, but how do you account for in a long stretch where the focus will be insuring that that focus does not leave out certain areas that presumably have participated in this and, yet, you know, you have a discrepancy between the efforts, say, between rural and urban areas where you have 450 miles of water line.

MS. WHITLOCK: I have two more definition questions.

One of them is one of the proposals talked about a black water river and I do not know what a black water river is.

And three proposals talked about brown field reclamation, which seemed to be a term of some kind of background that I did not understand.

MR. WILSON: My second one and I guess I will ask the question and I will state the philosophy that our organization came up with, but that was in backgrounds of private property...the farmer. Our course, I am very sensitive to that and it seems like new regulations are either proposed or talked about on a continual basis.

But, in the process of review and looking at initiatives that affect it within our State of Illinois, directly from the Register and then also we were pleased that we were able to secure a meeting with Wesley Warren and some other representatives from the Heritage Rivers Association, and discuss those issues with us and we felt that there was not an agenda there to go forward with. And I trust this group will be very sensitive to that as I intend to be as far as the way that proposals are written.

MS. WHITLOCK: Number 15 says brown field not --

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Oh, I'm sorry.

Any other things that we think we need to -- let me see. We have -- do any of these pop out immediately to any of the staff or Dayton --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I think there is some ones that we could answer quickly, particularly if someone, perhaps Rogers, can just give the definition of what a black water river is, and the references to brown field.

(Laughter.)

MR. STEPHENSON: I did not bring my -- is there someone here from -- Fran --

MS. EARGEL: Have originated in the black water area, they are basically rivers that -- that start in coastal plain sediments and the black coloration is due to... in the water.

MS. WHITLOCK: Okay, that is what I --

MS. EARGEL: So, if you can imagine Spanish moss and this sort of meandering sort of low -- low velocity kind of rivers in coastal plane sediments.

MS. WHITLOCK: Okay.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: You want to talk about brown fields while you are standing up?

MS. EARGEL: Janet, can you answer that?

MS. PAWLUKIEWICZ: I am Janet Pawlukiewicz and I am from EPA.

Brown fields are those places that are perceived as contaminated but potentially can be brought back to good use, particularly in urban areas we have a lot of brown fields... and the EPA...

MS. WHITLOCK: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: We have been addressing the thing about regulations and that is to keep us on notice.

Are there any others that you can see?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I was going to say, Donald had a question about the Congressional opposition policy, which is part of an agreement that did -- Ray, jump in if I am incorrect here. But, my understanding is that as part of this initiative from the earliest moment that the Administration in their conversations with members of Congress assured them that, A, the opposition from a member of Congress is taken as a significant matter in terms of a person in Congress and the House of Representatives, if they were opposed to the -- a particular proposal in their district, that that would be viewed by the Administration as sufficient enough expression of public -- lack of public support that they would not consider that river in that district; and, if that proposal covered that whole district, then, that proposal would not be considered by us, by this Advisory Committee.

Secondly, if it was just a portion, that portion would not be considered; and we, as a committee, can decide how that affects the entire proposal.

In terms of Senators, the Senator's opposition and support, we are also taking those indications of public support or weakness of public support if both Senators of a state are opposed to a river in their state being named, and that as well is considered as reason to withdraw it from our Committee.

If one is opposed and one is in favor, that has become something that we can consider in judging the level of public support.

But that is an agreement that was -- that predates our existence here as a committee.

MS. HOBBS: Number 12, we have made copies for all of the Committee members of all of these comments. We are having staff analyze them now and there will be a summary for you to read by the end of the day by river opposition, support, et cetera. You will also have an actual copy of the letters.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: And these are?

MS. HOBBS: And these are just binders that are floating around. You can feel free to grab them. They are...

MR. JORDAN: Now, the nature of those additional letters, those are letters of support, not supplemental -- not supplements to the application?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: That is correct. It was part of -- in the announcement of this meeting, the members of the public, organizations, whatever, were given the opportunity, with a certain deadline, to add additional comments to their opinions of the -- of the proposals, and that is what those represent.

MR. JORDAN: How do we consider that? Does it strengthen the proposal? What if the proposals are weak in certain areas and the letters of support strengthens that area, do we -- can we consider that?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Yes. The purpose for that, at least my judgment would be, is that that is -- you know, that is for us to consider.

MR. JORDAN: Mm-huh.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: That it came in under the different deadlines of process for us to; and if we want to look at it as sort of a last-minute thing, we can. If we want to consider it essential, you can as well.

ME. KEMMIS: Dayton, what are the -- what were those deadlines and what is the effect of comments submitted after the deadline?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I have to turn to Karen on that.

MS. HOBBS: We published the Federal Register Notice announcing the meeting on April 23rd and, then, we asked for comments by May 8th, which was last Friday.

We had a few come in over the weekend on the FAX machine and we consider those just having maybe tried during the day and the FAX machine was busy or they could not get through.

And I think we had -- Chip, from the Army, compiled those and I think we had about 400 comments come in.

MR. SMITH: I think we had about 400.

MR. JORDAN: Post-deadline?

MR. SMITH: No, total.

MS. HOBBS: Total.

MS. WHITLOCK: I am confused. You are saying that we can accept amendments to the record?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: No, I'm sorry.

MS. WHITLOCK: Or are these letters... (Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Yes. No, they are -- the proposals, in and of themselves, of what they say, this is who we are, this is what we plan to do, that deadline was a long time ago.

This is just to give the opportunity again for members of the public or organizations or whoever to register their support or opposition to the nomination itself; but the nomination, as it stands, what we will be considering is what was outlined in their -- in their proposal.

MR. STEPHENSON: I think there was a question, Number 4. First, with regard to the agriculture, both the NRCS and the Forest Service were members of the staff review team, and an employee from the Maritime Administration and from the Department of Transportation was also a member of the review team.

With respect to scoring, the review team adopted a numerical scoring system as a pre-decisional tool to help them go through the 126 applications and the product you have before you in the four different categories of -- of applications, that is the result of the exercises that the review team went through over the course of the nine days.

MR. WILSON: A follow-up question for that. In some of the review materials you did make the statement where you do, you know, garner more support or things like that in review or that it had good basis of support.

If there was no comment and there was maybe a fairly substantial amount of agricultural interest, would that mean there was a gap there, you could determine no gap with the team review, that the section of river that would be designated would not naturally have an impact on that, it would be too urban, or it would be otherwise related that --

MR. STEPHENSON: Right. I think you could take it that the stakeholders with the most interest have the most to win or lose and we did not receive a lot of agricultural interest... earlier regions.

MR. WILSON: Right. Okay.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: One of the things that Roger has done in relation to a question that you arrived, Donald, about the staff scoring and earlier at the start of the meeting I said, and I want to repeat it for you now that you are here as well, is that we asked the staff members to go through those nominations as a -- just as a tool to help -- help us; but, I have made clear to them from the outset and, hopefully, to everybody here in advance of this, that that is all that is and that how ever they, as a review team, may have rated a river, now and for purposes of this Committee is -- is helpful but is not determinative of anything.

It is -- it is within our jurisdiction, if we decide that the rivers that we wanted to recommend to the President were all from the ones that the staff had determined for what -- for their reasons, were the lowest, that is -- we are now -- the process is now ours and -- and ours to make our individual judgements and collective judgment out of that.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Most of the things up here, at least on the issues of more -- of information, again you have got the new pieces here. The documents are lined up in the back should you need them and the review comments are here.

Some more analysis summaries will be coming around with all of that data. We have an awful lot of data. It is a huge thing, but it is categorized in ways that is tractable.

The master sheet we gave you has a river plus an identifying number. If you get los of all of this at some point you can come back to the numbers and the rivers.

So -- and the mapping is right in back there, also.

Let me see. Can anybody here or the staff find anything else of -- my interpretation of things like how to address fears of federalism and opportunities to teach, I think would be things that come out perhaps in this process, maybe in recommendations. I do not know. These are obvious things that have to be kept no the boards here but maybe something has to be said. But that is -- I am not sure but that depends what we do.

The splitting and dividing rivers, some of that we just took a look at but I guess that is going to have to get into each of the rivers to really understand them as we go, I think, looking at it.

Balancing? That is our job.

Let's see. Glue. Is there anything in there that people should be looking at as an indicator of the glue, support, and so forth, that staff members or anybody who has gone through this stuff in the last three months, any insights you could give to this?

But I think the saying is, you know, can we get some more sense of how strongly, you know, these things are put together. Is this just ad hoc or is this something that is really there?

Is there anything, any help on that? Or we may not know.

MS. HOBBS: Well, I think one thing -- certainly, as Jerry said back here are copies of the whole proposals and, you know, some of them have volumes of support letters attached to them.

If, towards the end of the day, as we narrow the field, you want us to do a further analysis and give us some parameters of what to -- you know, how to judge strength and support, we have staff that we can call on to do that and we are happy to do that.

DR. GALLOWAY: But, Karen, I think that the challenge there is not numbers but are the right groups there? Are they working well together? Have we left out some agricultural group? Is there something missing that we do not see but somebody from the local area said, you left these people out, obviously you are going to go nowhere without those people. And that is what we will need some help from as we get closer to it.

MS. HOBBS: And as I said, Jerry, we have step who can help you do that. I think it is just important for you to give us the parameters within which to -- to make those determinations.

DR. GALLOWAY: It is as much who is missing as who is there.

MS. HOBBS: Right.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: And, Jerry, my hope will be, as we get into talking about an individual proposal or something like that, is that we will -- we would look at the details and, hopefully, because of the diversity of the people here at the table is that someone might recognize what is missing.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: On the two others that are here. What is priority, human and in the geographic diversity?

I don't know if you want anybody to add to that. I think that is part of what we are doing but I may not get the full import. There may be some other flavor to those.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I would just like to say, you know, that we have, under the directive that establishes us, the two criteria that the proposals were to address of the four. Two of those we are to weight most of our decisions on.

One being the adequacy of the action plan and its chances of success; and the second being the breadth and depth of the public support for it, on to which is added these things that are -- there are several up there, which are totally -- if the first has a little bit of explicicity to it, the second part is totally subjective which is that as a whole the rivers that we are to recommend to the President need to present a diversity of geography, a diversity of stream types, a diversity of plans.

And, I do not think -- I think that is just something that we are going to have to all keep -- always keep in mind as we are thinking of, not just an individual proposal, but how an individual proposal fits into whatever the ultimate mix is.

So, for instance, my own belief would be that it would not be -- that we are not asked to simply pat -- this is not the sort of a gold medal that is going to be attached as a pats on the back to rivers that -- nominations that are obviously outstanding, but which have a great chance of success on their own with or without being designated by the President.

At the same time, that is a consideration. So that somehow in the mix of rivers we might want to consider having some in which it is essentially saying, you guys have done a wonderful job here, it is well on its way, and we want to recognize that and we suggest that the President recognize that.

On the other hand, there might be ones we say, the simple fact of being designated may make a critical difference in the possibility of success.

And that is just something, again, I think we just -- there are a number of those things we have just got to keep them in play the whole time.

MR. GRASSI: I do not read the Executive Order the same way you do. I do not see anywhere in there that is says our primary criteria, first a plan of action in a community, and so forth, and then comes everything else.

The way I read it is the characteristics of the natural, bla, bla, bla.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay. We need to address that.

MR. GRASSI: Also, the willingness and capability of the community for partnerships are weighted equally in this.

I don't know, maybe you are reading a different document than I am.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: No.

MR. GRASSI: But, to me, and one of my concerns is that the staff ranking is very heavily weighted on Items 2 and 3, as you emphasized, and what we really need to understand is what is going on in any river.

And it is interesting how many letters there are and anybody can generate a letter-writing campaign; and what I really want to know is what is happening to the river in the river, and it is hard to get at that from these.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I am reading from the -- not the Executive Order, I guess, Tony, but from the Federal Register Notice.

A VOICE: Not the reason one, but the...

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: The recent one.

MR. GRASSI: I am reading from the Executive Order that we were provided.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Right.

MR. GRASSI: And which -- which governs here?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: In the Federal Register Notice that the Administration published on September 17th, which is basically saying that the Executive Order had been signed and her are the procedures, it says -- it mentions that -- that the -- it mentions the four different categories: A description of the proposed American Heritage River area.

Number Two, the description of the notable resources qualities in the area;

Three, the description of the community's plan of faction;

Four, illustration of who supports the nomination and plan of action.

And it says the responses to Items 3 and 4 constitute the primary basis for evaluating nominations and will be given equal weight in the scoring process, while Items 1 and 2 will be used to put responses to Items 3 and 4 in context.

And then it has -- and then it goes on to the whole thing about...

(Simultaneous voices.)

MR. GRASSI: So, which is more important, the Federal Register Notice or the Executive Order?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I would defer to Jerry on --

MR. CLARK: Well, we need to find out if there is really an inconsistency, because I am not sure that there really is at this point; but let me take about five minutes --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Sure.

MR. CLARK: -- ... We both look at them side-by-side.

MR. GRASSI: There is another --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I -- I -- Tony, part of what -- part of what I read in that is that -- is that all four of those elements are important but that the -- but --

MR. GRASSI: I understand what you are saying. I want to read it the other way and I think it is important that we understand --

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Right.

MR. GRASSI: -- it. Because, in the end, if you just want to count letters, we can make this a short meeting.

(Laughter.)

MR. GRASSI: But if you want -- and it really does effect, I think, our process from here on.

MR. CLARK: We will come back in five minutes.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Great.

MS. WHITLOCK: It does --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Yes.

MS. WHITLOCK: And it could be a matter of interpretation, too.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Right.

MS. WHITLOCK: But the way I interpret it was human need, environmental need, but community benefit from the government. And what I got from the abstract was more celebrating the heritage.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Mm-huh.

MS. WHITLOCK: The culture, the history...

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: I will add something to Tony -- we were talking, too, and this may or may not be helpful. Priority, when we find out how to read this.

When I was thinking about this and these exercises that people have gone through, 3 and 4 will look at the individual projects...or whatever they are going to do, the Department of Interior. These are contextual, you know, how does it all fit in the mosaic, very different kinds of activities and the challenge here -- one of the challenges in this group was how do you, in judging 3 and 4...then you look at those, what does that picture tell you... --

MR. GRASSI: I understand you need to balance... --

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: In a list of ten it would be different.

MR. GRASSI: I understand that need. That is pretty simple if you are going to use sort of the river qualities to create a balanced list. I understand that.

But within any application, you know, Application A and Application B, you know, same geographical area, you know, eliminate all the other considerations and one is -- is heavy on plan of action and letters of support and the other is heavy on historical, cultural, environmental values, you know, how are we going to weigh those two?

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: I was hearing -- speaking about not only that, but also this Number 2, the criteria of the overall balance in 2.

MR. GRASSI: Clearly there is an overall balance in Number 2.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: So, when you dig into the proposals, is what you are saying --

MR. GRASSI: Yes.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: -- how do you -- how do you figure out.

MR. GRASSI: Right.

MS. WHITLOCK: I guess I sort of interpreted it that that was the reason to have such a variety of backgrounds on this panel was that then, you know, for example, I see enough...to help the federal government learn more about what liberal government do; and, so, if I have three proposals that look very similar, but in one of them I think there is that opportunity, then, my -- then I would -- I would probably like that one over another one., that might accomplish all the same goals except leave that one out or something.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Well, we will get that, a reading -- on the one hand, there is a reading of the interpretation of that; but, broader than that, I think, is a point that Kay makes, which is all of us here bring -- bring to our -- bring to the table our own judgments and our own backgrounds and our own interests, and -- and that is obviously part of your own weighing and judging of things.

At the same -- and we have to have that discretion and, in fact, we are selected to use that discretion.

But we will try to get a feeling of whether I have misstated the -- rating of the rules.

But even under your interpretation, I guess, Tony, what I was going to say is that at a very bear minimum all four of those things are to be taken into consideration, the one is just whether you weight a little more heavily toward the other.

MS. TERAN: Well, I guess it is interpretation, but it is also what is the intention --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Right.

MS. TERAN: -- of it, what is the intention, what are we supposed to prioritize.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Okay. Let me make a suggestion. We have been at this now since...well before that, well before that, so let's -- let's take a 15-minute break quickly; and when we come back I would like to just to look at two -- at least two things.

One, the summary of what -- when you are asked to do the rating that applied but with whatever criteria you used, take a look at that, and there is a map of that. Just to begin thinking about what that says and does not say, with directions that that kind of thing push -- pushes people in. And then we will come back to get some readings of the expression of the criteria.

And one thing I would say about criteria, as an offer, is that in a general way they are prioritized, first, second, or third. There are clearly two conceptual activities going for the panel.

One is how do you figure out the individual projects, whichever way, whether three is first, or second, or two, whatever.

And, then, if you put them all together, what does that add up to?

And those are activities that we are possibly going to have to be moving -- not just balancing, but moving back and forth to. I think you are going to have to do that a few times.

Let's come back in 15 minutes.

(Off the record.)

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: We ended up -- we ended up with some questions on criteria, which we need to try to see if we can get some closure before jump into these -- into the rivers.

MS. WHITLOCK: Oh, no.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Not literally, figuratively.

(Laughter.)

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: But on the criteria, anything that can help?

Yes. I stand corrected in that the -- the -- what the Federal Register was referring specifically to giving precedence in consideration to Items 3 and 4 of the four criteria, it was referring to the staff review that would be presented to us. In other words, that the staff reviews that were going on were to focus on those two things that are more quantifiable, the action plan itself and the level of support.

And the Executive Order is the action that we will follow in which -- and so all four of those things, as they were anyway, were to be considered but we do not need to lean just to one or two of the criteria in those selections.

Although, obviously, a proposal that has no plan of action would be -- it would be considered a weakness, just as a river that --

MR. GRASSi; That might be why, in part, my own priority ranking might look completely different from the staff's.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Exactly, and that gets back to the point I want to constantly reiterate, which is that we are here to make our judgments and our -- our directive is a little different than the staff's was, but also we are different people as well.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Okay, so we got some closure on the criteria issues here.

We have gone through the basic needs, as we see them. Now... as we could to deal with this.

What I think or suggest you do is start jumping into some of the substance...I know this is a little bit of a repeat of before. But on these criteria one of the things I am going to try to do with the group is, as we go in and talk about specific rivers, the different proposals and so forth and, you know, whether they are clarification or why they are not here or whether they should be or whatever, then we will come back and try to see what kind of a mosaic we have and then go back to specific rivers.

But we do have two sets of activities regardless of how we prioritize them. We have got a whole picture and pieces, and we have got to go between pieces and whole and whole and pieces until we feel satisfied. That is part of the difficulty and that is part of it.

So, my suggestion is jump in on this.

You want to start off?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Yes. Well, as you all know here but the -- the people here need to be informed of, in preparation for this meeting, based on the staff reviews that everyone received and the abstracts of individual proposals, all the Committee members were allowed and encouraged, if they desired, to ask for the entire proposals; but we asked the members of the Committee in advance of coming here, based only on what they had before we meet as a group of 12 strangers, to work together, in order to get people to start focusing on the decision-making that we individually and collectively have to do, to look over the nominations, 126 nominations, and to send in at the end of this last week what five they saw particular merit in, that they would list as, in essence, their top five, at least to get things going.

And that was done as a -- as sort of a prod for us to -- to look beyond just looking at 126 and start ranking them in our own minds as a way also to encourage us to start seeing the kind of questions that we have already started to see, about how do we rate them.

And, as I told all of you, and I just want to reiterate here, is not meant to be anything more than that. It is a launching point so that now that we are here at the 11 o'clock we have some discussion points; and as we discuss the results of that, things will change and items will come up and this will be an ongoing process.

But we have the result -- we had the results from everyone, with the exception of two, the two who are not able to join us anyway. So, we have the results from everybody here at the table, and 32 rivers emerge from that exercise.

And we have a map that shows them and the members of the Committee have the list of those, with also a notation of how many times those rivers were -- I'm sorry, do we have an extra copy.

And, so, I will turn it back over to you, Jerry, to have a discussion.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: A suggestion before we go to lunch to dig into some of the substance.

Here is a map of those 32 that -- I think it is 32 that came out. They are on the piece of paper in front of you, also.

Many people are going to come by and say, I don't have any idea why these -- why one of these got so many hits. I know somebody here, so I would like you to just take about just a few minutes just on your own to look at this stuff and, you know, rethink it through a little bit, and then I just want to open it up for discussion and see what is on your minds about this.

And remember, it is not a final prioritization at all, but it is a way of jumping into the substance of...

Let's take about five minutes to review the map, the list that is here, what comes back to your mind, and then we are going to open up and see what we -- see what kind of surprises, issues, questions, that may come up as a result of that. What are we saying here?

(Off the record.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: The name of the rivers that are up on the board. They are the Anacostia, the Bronx, the Chattahoochee, the Chicago Illinois. That is one proposal of the Chicago Illinois Watershed. The Connecticut, the Cuyahoga, the Delaware, the Detroit, the Everglades, the Hanalei, the Hudson, the Lower Neuse, the Mahoning, the Merrimack, the Muskingum.

There are a number of Mississippi -- there are a number of Mississippi nominations, and one of those, called the New Orleans, for purposes of designation, the Lower Mississippi, is -- came out of this process.

Several members thought that we should consider four nominations as a single nomination because of the overlap, that being the Debuke, east -- the section of the northern part of the river, essentially from St. Louis north, one from the quad cities, and one from St. Paul; and one member thought that we should just consider the Mississippi as a single entity and urged us to consider it as such.

The New River, the Ohio. The Ouachita, the section of it in Louisiana, the Arkansas portion of it being, I believe, eliminated because of Congressional opposition.

The Puyallup. Did I pronounce that right?

A VOICE: Puyallup.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Puyallup, sorry.

Rappahannock, the Rio Grande, the Roanoke, San Luis Rey, Santa Clara, Santa Rosa Creek, the South Platte nomination, the Taunton, the Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanne Watershed, and, finally, the Willamette.

Those are the 32 nominations of which at least one member of the Committee sent in based on their review of the -- of the material that they had been sent in advance; and, obviously, there being 32 from that, of each person having five votes, if you will. There are quite a few that had multiple --multiple hits from Committee members.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Let me ask the group for just a few minutes. Any reactions to this, surprises and so forth, and then stop in a few minutes and you can go on with your conversation, but let me just get a quick flavor.

Anybody, got any surprises, questions, what does this say, or is it crazy, or how did we end up with it. Go ahead.

MR. WILSON: I guess my first question would be on the Mississippi, combining nominations. I know in some other proposals there was note taken that there could have been coordination between two different initiatives, I believe, in the Niagara area.

But what kind of a relationship are these four? I have not taken the time. I have read through them all, but I have not compared them to see how they will work together. If it does move forward, I think that is something we will have to consider if we start combining things about have that impacts proposals.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Just to get us going, I am going to take about five or six minutes of reaction.

MS. WHITLOCK: I guess I was struck by the fact that there were two or three that got multiple people putting them on their list. It seemed like it might be instructive to talk about what were the variety of features on those proposals that got them have so many different folks getting them on the list. I mean, you know, I had a couple. Some of those that were on my list. And I would be interested to see if we were all struck by the same things or if there was a variety of concern that got them on the list.

MR. GRASSI: Without turning it back to 126, when do I get to my next five?

(Laughter.)

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: In addition...

MR. GRASSI: Yes; but, I mean, you know, I would have other rivers that are not on this list of 32 that I think bear some discussion.

I don't know when in the process here you want to talk about these 32.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: No, talk about the other five.

MR. GRASSI: I mean, the others on the list and what is the best...

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: What I -- let me clarify what I think; and if this does not satisfy the panel, you know, come back and tell me.

This is a mechanism to try to get us into the substance of the rivers if we can.

After discussions here in whatever form it takes this afternoon, I would ask the group to go back and look at all of the lists and let's take another quick look at five. It could be any five on the list. After a discussion of what is in here and what is not in here the other five you may have and so forth.

Would we rearrange that? Where would we be at the end of the day?

That is what I think would be most productive, somewheres around 2 or 3 o'clock.

MR. GRASSI: Okay, we will come to a second pick.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: But, why don't you throw in the other five that should be there now? Just name them. Throw them out.

MR. GRASSI: I have got the Tennessee, the Beaverkill, the Coosa, the Edisto, the St. Johns, and the Rivers of Steel.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: You have more than five, Tony.

MR. GRASSI: One, two, three, four, five six. You are right.

(Laughter.)

MR. WHITLOCK: What about the other six?

MR. GRASSI: Tennessee, Beaverkill, Coosa, the Edisto, St. Johns, and the Rivers of Steel.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Any other reactions to this?

We have been hearing about maybe we should let the multiple hits. One way to clarify why they are so popular.

What about combinations? Are we looking at combinations?

Stuff that has been left out. Here are five more that perhaps should be in.

Any other reactions to this mosaic.

DR. GALLOWAY: I thought it was very interesting. It appeared to me, as I looked at the Executive Order, which said we ought to recommend selection of rivers that as a group represent small, large, all of those varieties, if we had all gone at it with something of that in mind.

As you see the geographic distribution. You see the small communities. You see those that are just getting started with those that are mature river systems.

So, it appears that as a first cut we moved in the right direction.

Going back to your Number One, combining, that gets to be pretty difficult because you can make partners that may not fit well together, and the partners were carefully chosen in some of these. And the Mississippi, those sorts of combinations represent combinations of different groups, especially in that area. I do not know about other combinations.

MR. GRASSI: Well, from my understanding, they come from Mississippi, for instance, and that there is one proposal that is 56 mayors, everything from St. Louis to the top, then there are a series of sub-proposals that were made.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Right.

MR. GRASSI: By those same people. In case the whole thing lost out, they wanted to get there and make sure their pieces was in. So, I do not know in that case whether there would be an inconsistency necessarily between the pieces.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: But I think that is -- the fundamental issue is whether we -- where there are 56 mayors for one kind of proposals, the others were more focused on their particular community; and in our putting whatever we end up putting in, is it there because it is a small community trying to grow or is it something like the heritage of the 56 communities.

And so I think there is a subtle difference but there is a difference between being a sub-set of a larger group just in terms of the support you get.

MS. TERAN: If I may, the significance of the Mississippi as a whole and the heritage to history, I mean, how can you think of America's rivers without thinking about the Mississippi?

You can take the four applications and group them and make...consortium and share the navigating role; and those areas that ought not to participate may do so.

Isn't that what some of the other rivers are doing anyway?

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: What I think -- I think its -- I think this is definitely something -- well, what struck me is that of this the Mississippi jumps out in the sense of if you start combining everybody --

MS. TERAN: Right.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: -- everybody's hits, there is an awful lot on the Mississippi. There are quite a few different proposals. Some of them do have an overlap.

MS. TERAN: Yes.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: And I think my -- my own thought is that at some point we might want to -- and I do not know if we want to do it now, maybe later after we get more into other things, that we might want to just take some time out to look at the Mississippi as -- as a separate entity in the sense that so many people have designated either a part of it or a whole or have suggested that we make it a whole; and those issues, you know, certainly need to be part of what we think about.

Are we joining groups that do not want to be joined. We are going to need to talk -- we just need to know -- think out how that would work in practicality if we join some together. Or if we consider them separate nominations and we want to have several...

MR. GRASSI: Having been in the Upper Mississippi in the last two days, I will tell you that people there are talking about in on the ground. So, I think they have foreseen this as a possible outcome already and are trying, apparently, to work that out.

MS. WHITLOCK: I would offer that there are a couple of us who have a lot of experience on the Mississippi and are familiar with lots of those communities and the -- the groups may be -- I think it is worth an agenda item and for us to just specifically maybe look at those full proposals and then have a discussion about where they match up and where they do not.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Trying to note it. Handwriting is getting a little sloppy but this says working with Mississippi as a whole.

MR. SAMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we look at any of the rivers that have, say, multiples.

The Anacostia and the Potomac, for example are connected. Why not look at those and see if there's opportunities where they fit logically?

You know, the water does not stop at one county and go to the next without changing, I guess. So I think we need to look at that.

We are talking about rivers and -- and holistically you look at the headwaters to the mouth and I think there are opportunities to do that.

We need to start thinking about that long term.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I think that is something that we are going to need to make sure that we do discuss.

The one thing that I would just say that we have to consider is as the American Heritage Rivers Initiative then takes the step after us and after the President has designated them of whether, if we have joined some, that the administration of that, the river navigator, in effect, rather than helping is has diluted it too much.

And I think there are some that that might work and some perhaps it might not. It is something we should discuss.

MR. KEMMIS: One observation from the map, it probably goes without saying, is that geographic distribution is pretty stark, especially the lack of nominations in the Rocky Mountain West.

The reason is fairly obvious. I mean, the west has done this to itself by unnominating most of the rivers there.

Still, I think in terms of making sure that we have geographic distribution that we do a lot to look hard at that and, in fact, see if there are any other viable nominations of that region that we might keep on the table, because right now we have only got one, the South Platte.

MS. WHITLOCK: And I understand that one has opposition.

MR. KEMMIS: Well that -- I was curious about that. I see on the board here that there is black on the dot but no mention of it on the summary.

What is the status of the South?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Senator Campbell has proposed the nomination of the South Platte.

MR. HOOG: Senator Allard has been silent and the two Congress -- Congressional representatives for that area have been -- have voiced support. So, I do not know where that fits. We need to talk about it. One Senator opposes it, one does not.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Well, it just means that that is something we take into consideration. Under the rules of engagement that the Administration has set forth it does not -- it does not take it off the table for us, certainly.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: I mean there are two here that have outstanding numbers in the group, Bronx and Chicago Illinois. So, obviously there are a lot of people thought that was good. Why was that -- where... I mean, they do stick out compared to the others in terms of numbers.

But at least it is a question of the initial cut that may reveal something about how we are looking at this collectively.

Any comments?

MR. HOOG: One for me in this, you know, I guess, Number 3, partnership commitments. You know, aside from the region, you know, and typically when, you know, things like this are reviewed, I think one of the keys is what kind of partnerships do you have, how strong are they, and who are they with; and, you know, I thought the fact that they had the business -- business community involved, I think, in any project of this nature, public, private partnership, if you do not have good business involved in it, you know, you run the risk of being in trouble down the line.

So, that was one that jumped out to me.