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.

MR. KEMMIS: I think something that was very telling to me was what you are already doing, not what you plan to do as a result of this program. But I take a look at what you were before this program came along.

And I notice the Chicago, Illinois group, they have been doing a lot of things with their river.

MS. TERAN: Environmental issues and the quality of life which would stand to improve tremendously.

MR. GRASSI: For which?

MS. TERAN: For both. We are on the Bronx. Right?

(Simultaneous voices.)

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: I simply said there are two if we get to that. You know, let's find out why as a way of getting into this.

MR. GRASSI: I -- my reaction, I have the Chicago Illinois on my list and not the Bronx, even though I drive by it about every day. In part, because I thought the variety of issues on the Chicago Illinois were much greater and more interesting and had the opportunities because there was this -- you know, you have agricultural and urban sorts of issues.

Whereas, in the Bronx, you are talking sort of a small stretch of river that runs -- it is already, in a sense, the river has already been stopped by a huge dam and, so you are really just running from the dam south; and it just struck me that there were not as many opportunities and I like sort of the match of West Chester, the sort of wealthy West Chester County, and the not so wealthy Bronx, both working on the river, you know, it struck me that was a positive for it.

But I was sort of surprised to see as many people... --

MS. TERAN: Maybe because it also represents -- (Simultaneous voices.) a smaller river and it is not all about big rivers. This initiative is not just about big rivers.

MR. GRASSI: No.

MS. TERAN: We are supposed to concentrate on some smaller rivers who can benefit from it. So, maybe that might have been --

MR. JORDAN: Tony, is that area more urbanized, the stretch that has been nominated?

MS. TERAN: The Bronx.

MR. GRASSI: Yes. I mean, basically, the whole thing is urban and suburban. There are stretches along the parkway that are reasonably sort of greenway kind of protected and there is no -- and I do not think of there being industry along there. What I think of is basically being --

MS. TERAN: Urban.

MR. GRASSI: -- urban and suburban, housing either right on the river or a little further back on the other side of the greenway that straddles the river.

MR. GRAF: Yes, I -- rather than focusing on the process or the administration of both of these rivers, what struck me about them was the nature of the resource itself.

With regard to the Bronx, for example, it seems to me that there is an opportunity here and a will on the part of the local supports to avoid what we see in many European cities, which is a complete loss of the river as a component of the landscape altogether.

And this was one opportunity where perhaps I felt the American heritage program had an opportunity to identify this as a resource that could focus in there.

With regard to the Chicago River and the Illinois, its a quintessential eastern plains river. We do not have many examples of this to talk about.

I agree it is an engineered system, but that is part of the human history and its culture and I thought the nature of the resource brought it to the front just as the Bronx did.

MS. WHITLOCK: On that Chicago and Illinois, I was also -- it is a transportation corridor town and so that conflict should be designated as one of the three ecosystems of priorities for restoration and to know that there is that trade-off and balance that is going to have to happen relative to the transportation corridor.

Also, I was impressed by the amount of public involvement that they had had in getting to this point; and my understanding, from trying to dig into it deeper, is that it actually is -- this proposal started as two separate proposals and was joined. So, the Chicago River originally would have been a separate one from the Illinois and they realized they needed to join.

And I was impressed by the bipartisan support, also, at very high levels.

MR. WILSON: I guess from the point of view on the Chicago Illinois, I will differ with Kay on that.

I am not sure that, one, it has to be a trade-off of the other. I think there can be improvements on the waterway. And I hope we are not trading anything away in the process thereof. I think that there are a lot of good ways that we can work on improving zones and I have seen that done already.

I will be biased and say the Illinois has done quite a bit in initiatives. Their work on water quality, buffer strips and those types of things; and, so, I think that is why the plan did show up as well as it did.

MS. WHITLOCK: And then I have to be honest. The thing that struck me that I could not move away from on the Bronx was that talk about how rare it is to have open space in that region, in that -- you know, as I looked, I just kept thinking back to that aspect of the Bronx.

MR. WILSON: You mean as a positive?

MS. WHITLOCK: As a positive. As a positive towards designating it.

MR. SAMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I do not -- in looking at the rivers, the 32 or however many there are, one suggestion would be to take the -- those that have two or above nominations or those have been identified by two or more Committee members and try to focus our attention on those; and those have to have one, perhaps, unless there are compelling reasons that that individual believes it should be considered more fully and they could perhaps elaborate on that. But as a means to kind of more into more -- more focus, I guess. That is a suggestion.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Is that what --would you all like to just sort of walk through the multiple-hit ones in order of the number of hits; and again this is meant for us to say if there are things we need more information about, things that we find troubling, things that we find particularly good, that would be the chance to do that? And we will see where that takes us before lunch.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Sure, we start --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Unless you think that --

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Well, we started at Chicago and the Bronx. Let me put it up there and we can move on.

MR. SAMPSON: That would cut our list to 16.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: So there are 16 that have multiple hits?

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Yes. But the most prevailing thing here isn't just -- it is about these particular but it also telling each other at times about he we actually look at this data.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Yes, I wanted to say, I do not view this as -- this is not the NCAA play-off system.

So, I just want to say, that this was -- it was informative to me to hear the other people talking about some of the reasons that they -- that -- for which those emerged, but I do not want us to be thinking that -- that silence about something is, therefore -- because a river is not even on this list that was done, based on us individually looking at written material before we even had a chance to meet together.

I do not want to have this in any way being, you know, too much narrowing down too early; and, so, with that caveat, is it the sense of everybody that we would like to discuss those that did get quite a few hits?

DR. GALLOWAY: I do not want to exclude those that did not get quite a few hits just for the reason that you said. I mean, we could start with those that got so many and it may tell us; but, in reality, I think we have put them in niches in our own minds, and maybe there are others that fill that niche just as well that we do not know enough about.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay. Is there -- in that case we have -- we have had some discussion already of the Chicago Illinois, which I should note got the most multiple references by the members of the Committee in the box. But is there more than anyone needs -- would like to talk about either those two concerns or other issues that they think at this stage we ought to be considering?

I am very interested in history, as many of you know, and, to me, particularly the Chicago Illinois, that its role in the history of that region is -- was very compelling to me. And if I have a bias on the rivers, it is I am drawn to the human story of the people who lived along there and the role that they may have played, not only in the life of their region and their community, but in the life of the United States, and certainly that one played a major one, which I thought, again, part and parcel of some of the things we did consider.

But this, again, I would say, then, yes, the next one -- the next two that have so many numbers is the Connecticut and, so, let's start alphabetically.

People who are -- like the Connecticut proposal, are there certain things that you think distinguish it from -- from others, not only of the 126 nominees but even within the group that we have?

Now, I will just say I was -- one thing that impressed me on that one is in terms of the support. That is the only one I know of -- I could stand corrected because I have already shown a propensity to be -- it is the only one that has the support of four governors and the entire Senatorial delegation and most of the -- most of the Congressional delegation; and just in that sense to what weight you want to give that, I do not know, but that is the singularity of it.

I do not know others that have that -- that amount of -- I think whoever put up that proposal took the time to -- to try to get the support of --

MS. TERAN: Where is the human and environmental need, though, in Connecticut?

MR. GRASSI: Couldn't hear you.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: The need of why --

MS. TERAN: Environmental need and --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Does someone have a comment on that?

MR. GRASSI: I could not hear her question but I would be more than glad to lead.

Connecticut was on my list and I guess for a number of reasons. One, is it pristine at both ends, with some major cities along the way, so you have got an interesting mix of the... Connecticut which is an international wetlands designation or something and, of course, Connecticut Lake, which is pristine up at the top, and it is a river that was grossly degraded historically and has drew concerted efforts by all four states.

But, to come back over time, there is -- there are still environmental needs along the river, biological kinds of problems as opposed to chemical; and then there are these four cities.

You know, in the City of Hartford you could not find the river and the cities would be able to spend some money on making the river accessible to the population centers along the river.

And I was also impressed by the -- by the breadth of support for it. And I also like the fact that it is -- that maybe it is one of the few rivers that we can actually designate from the tip to the toe; and, while I -- there is a place for river segments in this exercise, I also think there is, you know, a real opportunity to capture a whole river and have everybody in the whole river really focused on bringing it up and making it a viable resource.

MR. GRAF: I think the Connecticut is -- to partly answer Maria's question, I think it is critical to think about this fragmentation process that is taking place throughout most of the rivers of the United States, chopping them up by dams, chopping them up administratively among the various federal and local agencies; and I think that perhaps the American Heritage Initiative -- River Initiative -- gives us an opportunity to start to try to reverse that fragmentation process.

And I see the Connecticut as a model for doing that because we have -- as Donald has pointed out, we can deal with these problems with a piece at a time in many cases, we have to have that holistic perspective and the Connecticut is interesting to me because we have got the water shed, we have got nearly the whole shooting match, and it means that we have a chance, I think, to address some of the biological, chemical, and physical issues from top to bottom.

So, the fragmentation thing on the -- on the natural resource side I think is important and it is a problem that is addressed by this proposal.

Of equal importance, though, is that if you go about the holistic approach, that means you have to have state governments on board, widely divergent interest groups.

And we see that. It is one of the few places where I thought I saw the fragmentation problem dealt with both administratively and physically.

And so, it was on my list as well for those reasons.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Anybody else with more questions?

There -- there is -- I know in looking through the Connecticut one, there are a number of -- particularly in western Massachusetts, former mill towns that are, partly because the water quality has been improving, are now seeing the river in a --in a new light as part of their own economic revitalization.

Many cities that had once used the river as its, you know, source of power for its mills and other things and, then, in the 1920's and 30's the river got too polluted to be paying much attention to because of that use and other things, and then the mills went, but are now trying to make the improving environmental quality of the river an economic asset in its own right for -- for a part of at least Massachusetts, the western part, which is often neglected, it feels often neglected, by the economic and political powers of Massachusetts.

MR. GRAF: I do not want to see slip by either the consideration for this dream and the possibility of reintroducing Atlantic salmon to the river.

We always think of salmon as being a Pacific northwest issue, but that is not really the case. Henry David Theroe is the first one to write about this problem in New England, and I think it is still there.

This river, because of the magnitude of the proposal and the progress that has already been made, does offer an opportunity here for the reintroduction of salmon.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: By the way, what I am trying to do and I have tried to... putting them up by rivers on the wall so that we will have them up there... (Simultaneous voices.)

MR. SAMPSON: Just one point on this one as well. There is a MOU already amongst the federal agencies which should save us some taxpayer money, if anybody is interested in that, and I agree with everything you said about this having four governors on board with this, one of the most powerful things we can do is to help support them.

So, I ranked it as one of the top ones.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: This goes to the point you were making of the local -- the local communities and the states putting things together that the federal government or perhaps other state governments could...

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Should we try the next one.

(Simultaneous voices.)

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: You know, part of what is coming out here is some criteria to look at and I am putting stars next to the criteria. It is kind of -- you should be able to get a pretty good reading for what is important to us.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: The Puyallup.

MS. WHITLOCK: Exactly the way it is spelled.

A VOICE: That's right.

(Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Does someone want to say a few things about it. We had quite a number of Committee members who were impressed by it.

MR. GRASSI: Well, I was one of the ones that stuck his neck out on it, I guess; and I did so, in part, because of the nature of the State of Washington and its approach to river management and watershed management.

The State of Washington is -- has nationally recognized model programs, bringing people together, particularly for watershed and river management purposes. The significance of it being we are dealing with part of the country where resource extraction has been a major component of the local economy and now there is a need to reassess and potentially shift those emphases and yet sustain the local economy.

And in the State of Washington, including the Puyallup River, we are seeing folks getting together who used to be on opposite ends of the spectrum. Now we have got resource developers, we have got, in this case, timber cutters, alongside people who are interested in restoring fish habitat and simulating recreation...

I think it is a potential model for this sort of mid-size, slightly smaller river and watershed.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Any questions.

MS. WHITLOCK: I had it on my list partly because of the fact that those two independent nations, tribal nations, within the watershed, and then coming down to the bottom I saw that the tribal header governing party was signed on as a supporter. Let's see what else I have.

And then I was also looking at the historical and archeological features that were listed.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: It certainly goes through quite a few changes in the relatively short distance it appears to me.

MR. SAMPSON: I had a couple of comments as well. Again, recognizing three sovereign governments, the Governor of Washington, two tribal leaders and, of course, if the federal government was involved I think is a good opportunity.

I think the other thing is that, again, here we are looking at the entire watershed. We are dealing with natural resources and salmon that are -- go up into the head waters, going through some of the most industrial part of the river, Takoma, being one of the larger ports in North America.

So, it is really a diverse area, I guess; and the economic -- or the physical and health, environmental health, of the river is important to the economic health of that area, Takoma, Seattle-Takoma area.

So, I think there is a very close connection there and you can see, perhaps, where environmental restoration can promote economic sustainability.

That is one of the reasons that I looked at that.

MS. TERAN: I also saw it as a strong candidate because of the native American involvement and the threat to their wilderness, their natural resources, and their fisheries.

MR. HOOG: I had it on my list as well for many of the reasons, not all because I was unaware of some of them, but to add one additional reason is that --

MS. WHITLOCK: ... western...

MR. HOOG: Yes, as one of the biased westerners.

One of the few in the Pacific northwest.

MS. WHITLOCK: Sure.

MR. HOOG: The other -- the only flag that -- that I caught was -- and given the strength of the public support, I am sure that there are actually an adequate and probably involved number of partners.

I would just like to see the full application because in the review they just said no formal partnerships were in place. Not having formal partnerships does not mean that there...

MS. WHITLOCK: Very true.

MR. HOOG: To move on this thing. So I would just like to see this whole application because I am sure it is quite strong.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Anybody else on this river.

(Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: For some reason I have got it in my mind and I have not dislodged it.

We have -- I would say the next two that we would consider, based on the multiple hits, would be the Hudson and the Rio Grande --

A VOICE: And the South Platte.

MS. WHITLOCK: And the South Platte.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I'm sorry. And the South Platte.

So, if anyone wants to jump in on any one of those and start it.

DR. GALLOWAY: I would comment on the Hudson. It suffers in this case because it does not have four states.

(Laughter.)

DR. GALLOWAY: One state. But, certainly, it does have the history of the nation very closely tied to its expiration and it also the history of some of the nation's environmental problems closely tied to it, not only the PCB's on the upper river but the first -- the nation's first major environmental case, the Storm King Power Plant, sprung from there, and then, of course, the restoration work that is taking place on the Hudson for the fisheries, including sturgeon and many of the others, striped base, that have certainly been at the heart of many of the major environmental issues in the city itself.

So, the Hudson combines some of the pristine in the north to perhaps the most urban area we have in a major port in the lower part.

And it seemed to have complete support of communities up and down as well as the Congressional, legislative and state delegations. But, again, it does not have that same spring that the Connecticut has with four different states, but that is geography.

MR. GRASSI: It is, however, similar in size.

DR. GALLOWAY: Oh, yes. You can see that they are very close. A little bit different, though, because the Hudson River estuary is somewhat different than the Connecticut River estuary.

A VOICE: And with the Hudson, we would be getting in the Adirondacks which is really the nation's first designated wilderness area.

DR. GALLOWAY: Right.

MR. GRAF: And it appears to be a very strong partnership of individuals that have been underway for some considerable period of time.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Anyone else have some thoughts about the Hudson?

MR. SAMPSON: I supported the Hudson and I guess wanted to take a look at the -- they identify the entire Hudson River and you go back into those good applications there is one that is for the Sleepy Hollow, I guess. Is that a tributary of the Hudson or a segment of the Hudson?

DR. GALLOWAY: That is just a little place. In my bias, since my son lives in Sleepy Hollow, you -- it is a blink of the eyelash as you float down, but it certainly -- it is the case where one community really wanted to have special attention and it might get into one of the combinations.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: The individual segment nomination is not a secession from the larger.

DR. GALLOWAY: It did not appear to be that.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: It is a thing of saying we also just want, in case you are interested in a -- in just a short segment, consider us, I think.

DR. GALLWOAY: Rip Van Winkle.

MR. SAMPSON: I think the other thing would be that the Governor submitted the nomination, which, in my mind, would marshall the state resources and help support any federal resources; and then, also, there is a good discussion about the mix of economic, environmental, cultural actions.

I would like to look at this one in more detail given an opportunity.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Dan.

MR. KEMMIS: I nominated this partly because of the American heritage that is associated with the Hudson, and I guess this is partly a matter of clarifying how strong a consideration that is to be. But it goes back to that question that was raised before about the national versus local nature of what we might be doing here. But I certainly think of the Hudson as very much part of American heritage.

And, then, I guess part of my reason for doing it as against the Bronx was it did have full senatorial support, whereas the Bronx had only one, one of the New York Senators.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: In the case of the Bronx is there -- it is one support but there is no senatorial opposition.

Anyone else have any other element that we have not really thought about with that?

DR. GALLOWAY: Just one. I was waiting for you to jump in and tell us about the Hudson River school of artists.

(Laughter.)

DR. GALLOWAY: Actually kind of dominate our cultural view of what we think of rivers are supposed to be. There are unique ties with this river between the present and the past.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Right. Including those who went from the Hudson River school to the west and brought it with them.

Sometimes hear stuff later. Sometimes showing the east where the west was instead.

Let's move to, in alphabetical order, Rio Grande. This is the Rio Grande proposal of the length of Texas.

DR. GALLOWAY: Is it less that little segment there between Brownsville --

A VOICE: I think that is a mistake.

DR. GALLOWAY: Is that a mistake?

MS. HOBBS: That is a mistake on the map.

DR. GALLOWAY: Okay. So it is the total length.

MS. HOBBS: ...the USGS had a real problem when we were mapping those readings or understanding what the different segments along the Rio Grande... MS. TERAN: It is an obvious mistake.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Essentially what has been nominated is the length of river from... to Brownsville?

MS. TERAN: Right.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: And then inner mixed in that are --

MS. TERAN: That is my understanding...

(Simultaneous voices.)

MS. TERAN: Right.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: There is only one other -- there is only one segment proposal. Is that right? Which is the Brownsville segment.

(Simultaneous voices.)

MS. TERAN: No, no, no. The entire stretch from El Paso, Texas, to the coast.

(Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: There is a separate Brownsville proposal and I do not know the answer to the question. So, again, I do not know whether that is sort of the Brownsville people want to be considered jointly and separately...

MS. TERAN: I think it -- I am almost sure that it is considered in cooperation. Isn't Brownsville a part of... Yes, it is all one.

(Simultaneous voices.)

MS. HOBBS: It is sort of like the Hudson, where Brownsville...but they were also a part of the bigger application.

MS. TERAN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: What we are -- what -- of the members -- thank you, that solves that problem.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: What the different members who included this on their list were considering was the larger proposal from El Paso to -- to Brownsville.

MS. TERAN: Clayton, may I begin?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Sure.

MS. TERAN: My concern was that the abstract filed to, number one, it says... It says that there is more than 335,000 miles of river from Colorado and, you know, half of which is in the United States and the other half --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Is in Texas.

(Laughter.)

MS. TERAN: In Texas.

(Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: That is usually my interesting Freudian take-off.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Or a very ironic statement by someone.

MS. TERAN: ... It failed to elaborate on the third world conditions... It is so compelling and for those compelling...not to be addressed in the abstract and, then, the part that says that it lacks partnerships, you know, I guess I do not understand what partnerships are because there is huge support and I have a letter from American Rivers and they have commented...nominations and their main comment on the Rio Grande proposal is that it has remarkable support including 20 mayors and numerous other public officials and a demonstration of a broad support for utilizing American heritage river designation to improve one of the nation's most important and troubled rivers.

So, to have that in the abstract, that it lacks -- unless I do not understand the meaning of partnership commitment, I mean, I -- that troubles me and it is -- that was the opinion from the abstract that the rest of the members got, then, it was not a right opinion or it was not fairly represented by this abstract.

MS. WHITLOCK: Because you believe there are partnerships in place.

MS. TERAN: Absolutely.

MS. WHITLOCK: You have knowledge that there are.

MS. TERAN: Yes, absolutely. And if you read the entire package, you will see that.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I just want --

MS. TERAN: Very well organized.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: -- to mention that a number of people have -- have talked about wanting to look at some of these things in -- in greater detail, and we should all be keeping in our -- our own list going of those that perhaps over lunch or at the start of the afternoon but some we might take a little time for people to just do that to answer these kinds of questions.

Doug.

MR. WILSON: I had a question about their plan to use a river navigator in Washington. Part of the criteria is that the river navigators are facilitators only and there is no lobbying for any other purpose, even though I want to look at their plan as well and see what their actual goals are or what they see as a determination of what a navigator really is.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Dan, did you have something?

MR. KEMMIS: Well, part of my interest in the Rio Grande, of course, is that it is an international river; but, I could not tell from the abstract to what extent the proposal is international.

MS. TERAN: Well, surely, a lot of the problem is that the Rio Grande...in that area would take some kind of federal intervention so that international agreement -- it needs to be addressed internationally, also, because the effects from NAFTA have caused the third world condition in our river and around our river, the communities around the river.

So, to solve the problem is going to be monumental and it well needs federal aid to get it done.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Anyone else? Do you have something more, Dan?

MR. KEMMIS: No, just a long note saying lines -- I was just curious about whether the communities on the Mexican side of the river were all involved?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Do you know the answer to that, Maria?

MS. TERAN: I -- I know the answer as far as El Paso and, you know, a lot is the community, and a lot...is, of course, concerned. I mean, they have raw sewage running in the streets from most of the labor force for the American eastern companies...and they need sewage treatment plants, water treatment plants, but they do not have the technology to do so.

I think we need to aid -- you know, there was this side treaty for...I won't get into all of it, but there is supposed to be some things done to prevent these conditions from happening, and I know that the people are interested in having clean water and sewage treatment plants.

The governments are competing. The government in Mexico is computing as far as local and national is concerned; and right now, I cannot really say what the interest or non-interest is, but I do know that there is tremendous need and tremendous support for something to be done on the...

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Tony?

MR. GRASSI: My understanding is that this -- this process specifically excluded discussion of -- of other governments and our intruding on plans of other governments, and it may be sort of a mechanical problem here.

Obviously, you cannot just clean up one side of a river. That does not help. But it strikes me that -- this was on my list, in part because of historical elements, which I think, you know...

(Simultaneous voices.)

MS. TERAN: There have been suggestions where we work cooperatively.

MR. GRASSI: Yes, but I think it strikes me that because this really is a federal government to federal government and if you are ultimately going to fix this having it designated, in fact, as an American heritage river increases the likelihood of that sort of attention. These are problems that cannot entirely be solved, as they clearly can along some other rivers by two states getting together. We have a different set of problems here.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: The highest level of what Kay described earlier which starts with communities along the Rio Grande. In most of these it is communities that finally elevate to attention of the federal government but this would be elevating it to two different countries.

MR. SAMPSON: I have a question. Is there a segment in the upper Rio Grande that is nominated or --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: There was a -- there was a segment. There was a nomination that included a larger -- the upper Rio Grande; but, as you see back there, it was one of the ones in which the Congressional opposition to it was sufficient that it had -- it was taken off of the table of consideration.

MS. WHITLOCK: And that was in New Mexico.

MS. TERAN: That is in New Mexico and they are not affected by...

(Simultaneous voices.)

MS. TERAN: Yes, we are downstream and they are not affected by the raw sewage in the river.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: But, if I can anticipate what you are leading toward, Donald, is the interest of the whole watershed; and in this case it is not -- principally because up in the -- at least the section up -- farther upstream in northern New Mexico was -- had been nominated by different groups but the Congressional opposition disqualified that.

MS. TERAN: And, if I may, going back to the Mississippi issue and, you know, the Rio Grande is an example of that, naming the river for the heritage and for the history of the river as a whole is not a bad idea.

Designating certain areas of it because of need just adds -- I do not think it is a reason for excluding the entire river even though half of it is in Mexico, it is one river.

MR. GRASSI: I think you have hit on an important --

(Simultaneous voices.)

MR. GRASSI: Our decisions turn on different points for different rivers. For example, in this particular case it is a dead duck from the resource standpoint, to be honest with you, because just a short distance upstream we have Elephant Butte Dam that controls most of the hydraulic processes, at least in the upper portion of that reach.

But when I thought about that, I did not exclude it on that basis and I did not exclude it because of the cultural dimensions.

I think that this trans national dimension is something that is absolutely important and it is going to become increasingly important as development occurs all along the boarder.

So, maybe this is one of those examples where we can say global communications have gotten together but having the umbrella of the federal designation as a heritage river will be enough to push this over the edge to success, whereas, if it is lacking, it may fall apart.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I'm sorry. Doug had his hand up.

MR. WILSON: I just want to make a comment. I understand completely about the idea of a holistic approach and watersheds; however, I do want to point out that if you took the Mississippi River, the watershed, you are talking from Idaho to Pennsylvania.

(Laughter.)

MR. WILSON: And I think that we need to look at it in the scope and the size. If it is a small enough area that where the watershed is some of the proposals specifically are that it fine; but I think that if areas of issue are areas of improvement that those individuals areas can be worked then the whole health of the river will be improved as well as economics due to the impacts that individual areas -- because in some cases there is one area is much better or much worse than another portion.

And I think while I understand the process thereof, I think that in the scope of things we need to keep that in mind.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Did you have something else? Did you have another point that you wanted to make?

MS. TERAN: No, just that.

DR. GALLOWAY: Could I ask one question? I do not see the senatorial or the governor involved in this. Is that omission or commission that they --

MS. TERAN: I know that -- I am almost sure that there are many Senators -- I mean, Senators involved. I know that Senator...are both involved and I know that -- that Governor Bush is in favor of it.

But, you know, as far as there being an actual...I would have to find out.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: As a point of information, I just heard that -- I am not sure if it was just in this last round of letters --

A VOICE: Mm-huh.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: In the last round of letters that we received in here, one of them is from Senator K. Bailey Hutchinson in opposition to the river.

MR. CLARK: Governor Bush -- Governor Bush and Senator Grant have been silent, no position one way or the other.

A VOICE: In writing.

MR. CLARK: Right, in writing.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Let's talk for a few minutes about the South Platte and then I am going to suggest that we take our break for lunch; because what that does is it gets us through the multiple ones, aside from those who had a single or a double it. So, the South Platte.

MR. JORDAN: I think this is one of those that I thought that they had done a very good job of bringing all hands on deck.

I am curious to see how they dealt with fears of the fears of the property owners to get them to feel secure enough to go along with it.

Apparently, through some process, they assured them there would be no condemnations. Now, I do not know whether that was enough to bring them on board; but I think if you look at those who have brought into this I think they have done a very commendable job. So, I like that.

And one of the things that I -- and I do not want to add a new criteria to what we are doing, but it has influenced my thinking since I have arrived here, not knowing where this process is going to go, whether this is going to be the last of it.

In the selection of ten rivers, we have got to make sure that we have different models so that if this does not go any farther, that other cities will be able to look to those models that are of like situations and say at least I can deal with the lessons learned here.

Because that has influenced my thinking as I started looking at these. I did not feel that way when I first came but not knowing where this is going to go.

I think this is a model that I would like to see. Any model where you can assure property owners that, hey, there is a role for me to play in making this happen and I can do it with security that I need.

You know, I think we may need a model like that. So, this is one of those, in addition to some others that we will talk about later, that does that for me.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Anyone else on the South Platte?

MR. HOOG: Well, since I am the one from Colorado, I will kind of let everyone else do it first and say their piece before I give, I think, honest yet admittedly biased.

(Laughter.)

MR. HOOG: Well, I mean, one of the things that -- that -- that Charles noted is, it really does have kind of the whole...despite its, you know, relatively short length compared to some of the others we talked about.

I mean, you are winding through -- through downtown, suburban Denver, downtown Denver. The waterfront there and Denver has been a focus for the revitalization of lower downtown and it has been an absolutely fantastic economic development tool for the city, and I think one that has been used very wisely.

As you get out of Denver, you move into agricultural lands and into natural and conservation areas, you know, not only with the -- with what they talk about in the proposal in terms of folks that have donated open space and some of the private partnerships that they have, but also some of the other things going on in the region, like the conversion of Rocky Mountain arsenal to a wildlife preserve.

So, in one very geographically small area, you are able to effect a broad range of activities for the community, leaving aside for the moment some of the historical aspects of it that were probably significant to those of us that grew up in the area certainly not of this scale of the Rio Grande and Hudson.

So, take those as you will from a Denverite but I think it is a very strong proposal and a great model. I mean, the governmental bodies in Colorado, state governments, local governments, county governments, have worked very closely in making this a workable deal and I think it is a positive deal.

MR. GRASSI: What happens on either side of Denver? You know, just it is sort of notable that nothing is in this proposal, other than, it sounds like, central Denver, and I don't know whether -- I mean, how far it goes, I don't have sort of a mental image here. And what happens to the river upstream and downstream? And why do you suppose those other pieces are not involved? Is that a property rights issue or --

MR. HOOG: Upstream it picks up in...but I am not sure why it is not developed. Downstream out of Denver is where you run into the agricultural and it serves as irrigation water source and then also others, some of the conservation areas, which I -- I have not seen or I have only briefly looked at the full proposal. Just from personal knowledge I know what is going on down there is more aimed at the resource preservation, environmental conservation and wilderness preserve.

Denver has more of an economic development focus. I do not know what is going on upstream.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Do I misunderstand --

(Simultaneous voices.) My impression is that this is not -- we have some of which there are just distinct segments of rivers that are a city or municipality or several counties that said we know that this larger nomination is going in, we also want you to consider if you are not considering that us in particular.

There are also some in which because of Congressional opposition nominations have been whittled down.

My impression is and maybe some of the staff could correct me, but my impression is that this one was -- from the very outset was these three counties, fairly urbanized county, although some of it is not -- Adams County is less that way.

It just said we have got a very focused plan for this stretch of our river which -- which we are excited about and -- and think is worthy of -- of designation in its own right.

And as Charles said, I assume, doing it as a model for more or less as a city, municipality and larger metropolitan area, saying this is the way that we want to do it and did not want to complicate it by taking the rest of the South Platte or the rest of the plan.

MR. CLARK: The South Platte, if I might just say, is one of those rivers that -- that went out as far as they had a broad -- a broad community support, and they -- and they brought it in to the extent that they had a clear plan and a clear goal; and, so, they went very much by the criteria that we had laid out.

And, so, what you see with the South Platte is clear plan and you see broad community support for it, although it is short. CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Yes, a small stretch.

MR. GRASSI: What is the quality of the river when it hits these counties? What does the river look like?

MR. HOOG: I am trying to create a mental image here.

In terms of water quality? In terms of --

MR. GRASSI: Just describe the river. Is it biologically degraded? Is its control flow from upstream dams? What is going on?

MR. HOOG: Controlled from Chatfield.

MR. GRASSI: Chatfield is a reservoir?

MR. HOOG: Yes.

MR. GRASSI: Okay.

MR. GRAF: It is a flood control reservoir.

MR. GRASSI: Flood control reservoir.

MR. GRAF: So, there is not a lot of outflow from Chatfield.

MR. HOOG: Right. So, it is very slow-moving, winding, not terribly wide or deep. You have river banks there. It's -- I do not know what the water quality is. I mean, it took a lot of abuse years ago along the railroad, rail yards, and some of the industrial areas down in the downtown area.

MR. GRASSI: That is within these three counties?

MR. HOOG: Right. And that, to a large extent, is, you know, the progress has been made all the way, but I cannot tell you I know how far they are in actually cleaning up and healing the abuses done during that time.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Doug?

MR. WILSON: The questions I would have, are there any water rights issues? Is there a flow agreement, or is -- how is that based; and if it was limited to where there was broad support, did that then opt out some people that may have had opposition downstream that could be infectious.

MR. HOOG: Don't know.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: That's something that we should -- for those of us who are keeping our own lists, we ought to look at.

Your concern is this -- a proposal that actually has impacts on areas outside of its jurisdiction and the reason that they are not represented here is because...

MR. WILSON: If they are looking to maintained a certain depth for marine or recreation within that area and did that raise or lower the flow.

MR. HOOG: Right.

MR. WILSON: And does that impact the above reservoir, which I assume is for water usage, or does it impact the lower end.

MR. HOOG: I do not think that is the case.

MR. GRASSI: I know what I see when I drive by. This is not the Illinois River. The normal depth of flow is ankle, storm water runoff. Chatfield Dam is in place to protect the urban areas that are the subject of the proposal. It is quite common that the river has no water in it at all from upstream areas. The river is not over appropriated as a basin.

MS. TERAN: I think that is the main threat. Excuse me. I mean, just being from the west, we do have scarcity of water.

(Simultaneous voices.)

MR. GRAF: It is a tough row to hoe on this one.

MR. GRASSI: There is something I did not understand. You said sometimes there is no water in the river.

MR. GRAF: That's right.

MR. GRASSI: But, yet, that Chatfield dam was established to provide water for these three counties.

MR. GRAF: No, it is a flood control water. It is a flood control water. It is to prevent flood of areas that are now developed for urban and suburban development.

MR. GRASSI: But flood control and no water are a pretty far distance apart. (Simultaneous voices.)

MR. GRAF: It is a bowl of water behind the flood control work, is appropriate.

MR. GRASSI: Okay, so that is what happens, before it gets to the reservoir it all gets picked up.

MR. GRAF: Except during surprise events when it cannot be diverted.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Kay.

MS. WHITLOCK: This was one proposal that the reason I did not put it on my list because I was very interested in it was because of the senatorial opposition, and I just decided I was not going -- I was going to choose my five without that; but in trying to understand some of it, I called the -- in the urban drainage district because I know they are cheap, and I do not believe that there are any of -- any -- he didn't talk to me about any problems about its putting it together. You know, lower Denver is doing a redevelopment and, you know, the community in that area wanted to nominate this.

So, I think if there had been battle lines drawn somewhere that that would have come out in my conversation with Scott in trying to understand that his agency -- I was concerned because, since we did not have the specific list of who supported it or not, I was concerned that that water agency had supported it or opposed it. And he said that they had done a letter of support for it.

So, I think it is just a factor of being a small segment of a river as a nomination.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I would like to suggest that we now break for lunch. The lunch for the Committee members is going to be next door at 722 Jackson and I think someone will be able to lead us, those that want to go.

If there is -- it will be -- for those who are here observing, we will break for an hour, which means it is 12:30 now and we will come back to this room at 1:30. You are welcome to come back at that point.

For any of you Committee members who wish to at this time -- you don't have to -- you might want to take one of the folders with you --

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: -- to use the lunch time for doing some homework, or you do not have to do that.

(Laughter.)

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the meeting was adjourned for lunch, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.

AFTERNOON SESSION

(1:30 p.m.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I ask --Jerry is going to give a thought about -- I was going to say road map but then I would be one down. Charles is already leading in the river metaphor contest for the day in what I would call the head waters portion of our two-day meeting.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: So, now we are tied.

I am going to have Jerry describe sort of a idea for a plan of action for the rest of the day. But, before he does that, numbers of you during the morning had mentioned about wanting to have -- be able to see copies of the complete plans of particular rivers, and those are here and available to you at any time during the meeting, and I think we have -- I think there are four copies of each one.

MR. STEPHENSON: Yes, and the copies along the rear wall go alphabetical by river and there are copies of the complete plan and there are copies of the applications as well in two different separate sets here.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: But, in addition to that, if there -- if there are proposals that you want to look -- to take tonight to your room, whatever that you feel you need more time with, you can start making that list and even if you think that there is going to be more that you are going to add to it, if you can make that list with your name and say, you know, I want this or this, and give it to Roger early in this part of the afternoon, then, he an have staff people make the copies of it to have it available to your hotel room this evening.

All right. Who are we missing? We are missing Mike. We will pause one moment.

Yes?

MS. TERAN: We were talking about... Should we have like a sign-in sheet (inaudible).

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Roger, some of the Committee members would like to know who is in the audience. Should we pass a sheet around and ask the people who are here watching us -- you are not required to do this, but if you would like to write your name and whatever it is that prompted you to come here. We know it is not for the entertainment.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Just so that we have a sense of who is here. And, again, I encourage those of you here observing, if you have specific comments to put them up on the board.

And I am still filibustering to let Michael get here.

I think we will let Michael come in after we have already pushed off into the stream of the afternoon.

It is two/one now, Charles.

Jerry. Jerry wants to talk to you about a suggestion for the afternoon.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: You can see we were trying to capture the essence of the discussions on the rivers and where certain items appear to come up again I was making little stars. All that is is the emphasis of the conversation, what was happening.

My suggestion would be that -- this by the way took -- we spent about an hour and 15 minutes on it, roughly.

To take the next hour and 15 minutes before the break to do the two's, the ones that have a couple of hits, take a break, then I would come back and ask the question of the group, what about holes, what about things that aren't there. You know, shift gears and take the whole list of a hundred and -- I think it is 112 now, 126, 112, and go through that list and say are there some other _- we have already got five of them up there. So, we spent an hour and 15, hour and a half on the holes. Essentially saying why are they there, what is in -- what is in there that we like.

Take a break. Then after that break come back and try a similar kind of quick sense of the group for prioritization of the whole list, not -- not the 32 or anything else, just the whole -- the whole list again and see what it looks like. That is my plan.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Does that sound good to everybody?

I want to just again reiterate that as part of this is, at least I have found the morning part helpful in the way that to understand other points of view of what is important to people, certainly bringing up things that because of my background or experience were not things that I might have focused on.

So this again would be still in the exercise mode. It is just that we would like to have by the end of the day not necessarily that this the -- a list from -- and the only list from which our recommendations would come but just continually to make us always sifting back through the two challenges that we have got, which is there are more outstanding and wonderful proposals than -- than -- than we have available to recommend and that we not only have to look at that but we are going to have to always be thinking of the mix of them.

And that is where I think the holes -- focusing on are there river proposals or other things that -- or types of things that we simply do not have in the ones that we have discussed so far.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: But even if they -- even if people were to come back in the morning saying this whole list... (Simultaneous voices.) It would still be very useful because it would focus the attention.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Right.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: So that is...

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: So we are going to try and do the remaining ones that had multiple hits of two hits, and I will just take those alphabetically which -- or the first of which is the Chattahoochee.

Does someone have some things that they want to highlight about that one? It is the 434 mile Chattahoochee River extending from the Blue Ridge Mountains to the coastal plain in Georgia and Alabama.

MR. GRAF: Well, this was one of my top five choices and I felt that it was one of the most exemplary extremes we could pick in the southeastern United States in the sense that it has its point of origin in the southern Appalachians and then it extends across the Piedmont into the Gulf area.

I think its major attraction, though, besides its physical characteristics, is that this has been a real war zone among the people who work and live in this watershed.

Previously it was a rural versus urban kind of dichotomy and this initiative, I think, in part, not completely but certainly in part, gave these parties who could not get along very well a reason to get together. And, I mean, I think this is what this thing is all about.

And it was not a solution imposed by the federal government. It was a situation where local people decided to listen to what the other side of the table was talking about and they got together and put together what I thought was an outstanding proposal.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: In other words, it is a case of the -- the -- the fact of the initiative itself helping to spur --

MR. GRAF: I felt it helped.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: -- a head start into something that was --

MR. GRAF: It was not the only force.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Right.

MR. GRAF: But it certainly was one of a few very helpful forces.

MS. WHITLOCK: I was also impressed that the State of Georgia had completed a river basin management plan for the river. I thought that was a good signal for moving towards the steps on this application.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Anyone else?

MS. TERAN: It was not one of my choices but I thought it was a good project because...the environmental needs. I object to any river being used as a sewer.

MR. GRASSI: One of my questions is having had the Olympics in Atlanta it was a great opportunity to solve that problem and the City of Atlanta chose not to. So, is there a will and I cannot -- you know, you have got to look at the data, at the formal application, to get behind what is in there, but -- but I have a question whether there is a will.

MS. TERAN: (Inaudible.)

MR. GRASSI: Well, why didn't they, is my question. I mean, the Olympics were -- it was a classic opportunity. They could have brought all of the attention and focus of the nation to solving the problem and they ducked it, so --

MS. TERAN: Well... the rest of the United States but nobody is paying attention to this.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Is there -- are there other comments about the Chattahoochee? Because these are ones that just have a couple. I am not trying to rush anybody but I do want to make sure that we get through seven of those.

MR. SAMPSON: I did. I thought it was one of the top ten at least because of the support from the Governor and the Senators, representatives, that were there, recognizing that it is one of the most endangered rivers in the U.S., again, as just mentioned about the sewage, Atlanta being one of the major cities in the southeast, I think a lot of the history behind it, it encompasses the entire watershed for the most part, and I think that is important as well.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Doug?

MR. WILSON: I guess I have two questions. One, a quote, one of the most endangered rivers. Tony, is that from -- did that come out of the rivers quote or where did that quote come from?

MR. GRASSI: Yes, that was listed and I cannot remember which year but that river is listed as one of the most endangered.

MR. WILSON: So, is that likely where that quote came from?

MR. GASSI: Yes.

MR. WILSON: The second question would be under the second goal, defined water uses with an emphasis on non-point pollution.

Does anyone have a clarification on what non-point? Is that non-source point or is that --

MR. GRAF: I think that is a reflection of this urban versus rural dichotomy that has developed in the basin. And I think maybe the answer to the question of why didn't the Olympics stimulate more successful approaches here? Was it wrapped up in a lawsuit?

I do not know the details of it but I do know that an agricultural, typical agricultural versus urban interest, and they finally woke up to the fact that they have got to live with each other; and whatever those very severe differences of opinion were they managed to resolve.

I thin, however, to answer your question directly, the non-point was a reference to agriculture.

MR. WILSON: Is that also to agriculture?

MR. GRAF: I think it was.

MR. WILSON: Okay, that would go to the waste management issues under the sewage systems.

MR. GRAF: I'm sorry, I do not know the answer.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: That is certainly, I think, one of the things that we should look into, unless somebody, if one of the staff people have -- already know the answer to that question.

MS. WHITLOCK: So, it seems like maybe one of us needs to take the effort to go through the whole application and see if we can check.

MR. WILSON: You want me to do that?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: We would like -- do you want someone to do that now as we are moving along?

MR OLSEN: There are several other rivers that talk about...pollution as well, so it seems to be a term that has been used throughout.

MR. GRASSI: You never know whether it refers to storm water runoff or --

MR. OLSEN: I assumed it was agricultural runoff.

MR. CLARK: Does the Chairman want --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I was just going to ask. Maybe, Roger, you could have or --

MR. STEPHENSON: I will have the review team --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: You can have them look at the Chattahoochee to answer the question about the non-point and also whether the plan addresses waste water treatment as well.

MR. WILSON: There is a reference to it in the notable resource.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay.

MR. WILSON: That it was designed most endangered river...sewage and runoff from Atlanta.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay.

MR. WILSON: So there the designation is. My question was clarification of what is the second goal really referring to. Is it more than just one or what particularly is it looking at?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Great.

MS. WHITLOCK: I guess Tony's point about Atlanta not grabbing that opportunity to solve the problem, I thought there may be something in -- if there was an obstacle there that we cannot see, maybe there is something in the application.

MR. GRASSI: Mine was really a question.

MS. WHITLOCK: Yes, because it seems like it would have been a good opportunity to focus on solving some of that problem.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Let's move to the next critical river which is the Detroit River.

I will point out that it and Rio Grande are the only two that are also international waters and I think that is of some interest. I guess the Connecticut head waters is right on the Canadian boarder, but this one, it actually serves as a boarder, which is -- I do not know if that is something arguing in its favor or not, but it is an interesting fact of the nominations.

This is a 32-mile -- this would be a 32-miles-long river, so it is under the shorter types and does anyone have anything that jumped out at them from it?

I guess this would obviously be under the more urban rather than rural for the obvious...of reasons.

MS. WHITLOCK: I guess I liked it because it had a partnership between industry, government, and citizens, and it appeared from the notable resource properties that there are a lot of wet lands and marshes and a lot of environmental habitats full of opportunities in a river that one would think of as a pretty urban kind of river. I was surprised to see that biological description be as rich as it looked like it was.

MR. WILSON: Could I ask a point of clarification.

The designation in the proposals as river or water shed, does that encompass, if we are looking at strictly a river, then, is there a boundary or -- and then within a water shed is it a total drainage area.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Right.

MR. WILSON: You see what I am saying? How far reaching? Unless they designate it as a water shed are we looking at it strictly as a river?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Karen.

MS. HOBBS: Yes, that is true, that is right. Applications indicated whether or not they were a water shed or just a river.

MR. WILSON: Okay.

MS. HOBBS: So, unless it says water shed it is just a river.

MR. WILSON: So, a designation and potential usage and directions of federal moneys is limited to within the boundaries of that and so that it could not be leveraged on out. Okay.

MR. JORDAN: Is that true?

MR. WILSON: Yes.

A VOICE: You can talk about a healthy river without looking at the entire water shed?

(Laughter.)

MR. WILSON: No.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I think the answer to that question is no. The answer, more specifically, I think, in terms of this initiative is that just as some of the nominations are for a single part of a river rather than the entire river, it is possible that the plan of action focuses not on any of the tributaries or any other parts of the water shed but on the main stem of the river itself; and, therefore, that is what is -- is being nominated and proposed.

And our jurisdiction is simply to look at the proposals as they made them, I think, rather than either expand their view or extend their reach.

Anybody else with thoughts on the Detroit?

The Lower Neuse?

A VOICE: It cannot be all bad, river friendly farmers.

DR. GALLOWAY: I think North Carolina as gone a long way to wrestle with this issue and the Lower Neuse just appeared to me to be a river in which you have this very unique challenge that they face.

They are facing pollution problems. They are facing dealing with a state in which sometimes the environment is not always grasped with open arms and here is a community, an area -- I do not remember who the sponsoring organization was. But the sponsoring organization really did a lot to gather people together to make this possible, not only from the historical but from the business community. And it appeared, again, one that had history, it has current environmental problems. It is a coastal, very much coastal, and it is, again, unique among those that we are discussing.

And, so, again, it was a niche and it appeared to fit that particular niche.

MR. HOOG: I also had it on my list. Again, it was -- you know, it fit a niche, was coastal; but it also, I thought -- you know, it touched very well, I thought, on all three of the -- the objectives and in support I thought that the -- the commitments of the various partners was significant and fairly broad-ranging.

So, it looked like an opportunity to do what they maybe set out to do was high.

DR. GALLOWAY: As Will said, the river friendly farmers is something that makes it special.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: ...your hand was raised up?

A VOICE: Yes, this is one of the ones that I requested to be proposed earlier, because I wanted to know what a river friendly farmer was.

(Laughter.)

A VOICE: I thought you were going to say all farmers are river friendly.

MR. WILSON: I have a very good comfort level with this because of seeing the involvement with NRCS, a lot of the initiative they are talking about is in forward thinking with some of the nutrient management things that are not in place but probably are coming.

So, knowing exactly where they are going I really appreciate. The ones that bother me more are the ones that are very vague. (Simultaneous voices.) ...their's that are not resolved, this one is on the right track.

The other thing I would ask a question as far as their funding. They were asking for $200 million. Do you know what the status of that is? Has there been -- I know Illinois River just received a grant for -- not grant, that's not the right word, but placement as far as the conservation and reserve enhancement which is an additional to the CRP and what is the status of that?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Is that something that someone could check today?

A VOICE: That is a good supplement to that because that is some initiative for buffer strips and filtration and things.

MR. WILSON: I thought that the strength of this proposal was that things were already happening.

This was one of those examples where the initiative would serve a different purpose than it did in some of the other applications. It would cement some progress together. It would be a place where we could go in a fairly short period of time and say, we saw that this was a winner and we wanted to provide that winner with some additional help.

Now, I did not vote for this as one of my top five because I ran out of top fives.

(Laughter.)

MR. WILSON: It was on my original list and I recognized at truth time here I had not picked any in the west, so I replaced one in the west.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: It certainly again -- to me, it had an interesting history as well that I thought was an interesting element to the -- to part of our consideration of being a heritage river as well as it certainly had some interesting parts to its history.

Anybody else on the Lower Neuse?

(Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Did you have -- does that answer the -- is there more to the question?

MR. WILSON: No. I guess I would ask for clarification on the non-source point because non-source point can be all encompassing.

I was just wondering if there was a single particular or just several directions they were looking for, but it looks like they are looking at anything and everything.

MR. STEPHENSON: Dave, you had a question on the Lower Neuse conservation reserve?

MR. WILSON: Yes, the 200 million that they have applied for under the funding, has that moved forward? I know there are like three that are designated.

MR. STEPHENSON: I just know that North Carolina has applied for the funding... That would include the Lower Neuse, the New River.

MR. WILSON: Okay.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I want to save the Mississippi as a separate discussion at the moment, so let's -- let's move on to the Quachita.

MR. SAMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I supported the Quachita... 605 miles, the Arkansas, the... boarder to the Delta, very large, 25,000 square miles.

One of the opportunities I see here is perhaps not so much the environmental but perhaps economic development opportunities. As it notes, it is one of the most depressed regions in the country, both per capita income and highest percent of poverty. That is one of the considerations that I had with this nomination.

Historically the largest cotton port, as it says there... a river alliance that is in the initiation of being established.

The Governor, at least in Louisiana, Lieutenant Governor, is supportive. I do know that there is some opposition from the Senator in Arkansas. However, I think that it has a merit to at least consider.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I just note, Donald, that because of the opposition from the two representatives in Arkansas as well as the Senator that portion of the -- of the Ouachita, that is removed from our considerations, which is why this map is incorrect because we are only considering that stretch.

MS. WHITLOCK: So, just the Louisiana portion and not the Arkansas?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Right, the Arkansas is removed because of the nature of the Congressional opposition.

Anyone else have some thoughts on the Quachita?

MS WHITLOCK: And all of the opposition was Arkansas?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Yes.

DR. GALLOWAY: I would note that the Quachita is a pooled river. I mean, it is controlled by two locks and dams, so it is a navigation river, with an interesting history.

I am not so sure how natural it is. I mean, it is natural and it now being used for house boats and for fishermen.

And the historically the largest or the best is something that I think we ought to look at and how it is used.

There are small towns along there. I am not sure that it is quite as much of a problem as it appears to be.

It is too bad. If it were the entire river, then, it might be an interesting case; but there has been a lot of controversy over the Ouachita and if there is any split in the lower part, I do not see anything in -- it does not say where the affected land owners are, whether they are in the north or the south.

But it would be interesting. I would like to know more about the Ouachita. It is not a free-flowing river with lots to -- to offer.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Anyone else with thoughts on the Ouachita?

We will move to the Rappahannock.

MR. KEMMIS: The Rappahannock is another historic river...American history on its banks, and I thought that the applicants have done a nice job of combining historic concentrations, especially with regards to Washington's boyhood home restoration and so on, along with wildlife considerations establishment and enhancement of a wildlife refuge.

And then one of the more interesting features of this nomination is the proposal for a dam removal, which is very much a coming issue on -- on American rivers; and, since we cannot get any western rivers...

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I think this is one of the -- I don't know if it is the only, but I think it is one of the few in which part of the action plan does call for breaching the dam. Is that fair to say?

Is there another proposal that anybody knows of? That probably is the only one?

MR. GRASSI: Somebody said that -- was it the South Platte that actually they are talking about removing a dam right in the middle of the river?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Not in the -- not within the section I think that we have got before us.

MR. GRASSI: Somebody mentioned it to me.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Oh really?

MR. GRASSI: On a break, I think it was.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Well, without -- regardless, it is certainly one of the very few that includes that, which you think is -- makes it an interesting -- helps with interest of different approaches to how the communities respond to their river.

MS. WHITLOCK: Right, and helping us all who work in this world have some lessons from that. So, I think --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: How many, just out of my own curiosity is -- that is -- that is a pretty -- that does not happen very often, obviously, river over a dam. I mean, in the last ten years have -- we had one collapse in New Hampshire last year -- (Simultaneous voices.) -- so that was unintended remove of a dam.

MR. CLARK: There is actually one that has recently been approved for removal.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Uh-huh.

MR. OLSEN: The Edwards Dam on Kennebeck Rive.

(Simultaneous voices.)

MR. GRAF: There are several of those structures throughout the northern tier states that have been removed over the lat 30 years, but most of them are smaller than the one that we are dealing with here.

The big deal is in the Pacific Northwest with the...where two structures are to be removed. It is all experimental at this point but I agree it makes this application attractive.

DR. GALLOWAY: But, I -- I -- and this raises an issue. What they are saying in there, there is a vision, it is our vision to remove the dam. And how much do you get credit for vision versus what is the specific plan? I mean, many people can say things.

And it is very right. The dam will restore a major recreational section of white water, help the -- the downstream fishery do a lot of things for shad.

But, again, how much do we take into account what they are going to do, what they can do, and what they would like to do?

MS. WHITLOCK: So, they may have not yet at all confronted the obstacles for the removal of the dam.

DR. GALLOWAY: The lead partner is Friends of the Rappahannock, and there is widespread community support and consensus for finding an economically and environmentally sound method to remove the dam.

That is different than them having --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: They do not have a -- they do not have a -- they do not have a plan in how it is going to do it but they have --

DR. GALLOWAY: That is not what it says.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: -- according to their application reached a consensus that they are going to look for one.

DR. GALLOWAY: With those people that are interested.

MR. JORDAN: But, in all fairness, it may be worthwhile to look at the full proposal, because maybe this federal partnership is what is going to enable them -- the vision to be realized.

DR. GALLOWAY: Right.

MR. JORDAN: Because they get...back here, get over some of their hurdles, maybe they will be able to.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I note that it has that -- that the -- that the nomination did have the support, bi-partisan support, of the two Senators and an additional letter of support from the -- from the Governor of Virginia, and we assumed that they would be at least somewhat aware of what the -- what the plan is.

DR. GALLOWAY: And, apparently, the Corps is working on it.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I'm sorry. We had someone from the staff --

MS. EARGEL: From the proposal they have initiated...study... So they are investigating ways to remove the dam...

MS. WHITLOCK: And... existing year's federal funding or --

MS. TERAN: Well, if it is in a feasibility state, then...

(Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Right, it is not just -- it is not just on the board.

(Simultaneous voices.)

MS. EARGEL: They actually have three goals in the...and to continue education to the public... So, they have actually done a little more than talked about it.

MS. WHITLOCK: But my question was the status of that feasibility study funding, is that FY 99 funding, FY 98.

MR. STEPHENSON: We are calling right now.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay. Doug, you had --

MS. EARGEL: They begun it in August 1997.

MS. WHITLOCK: Oh, okay; it's probably '88-99.

MR. WILSON: My question was going to be the original reason for a dam being in place and what was the original thought to be need of it and why it is no longer thought to be needed? Does anyone know that?

A VOICE: I didn't understand.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: The -- his question is, what was the original purpose of the dam, for instance, flood control, water power, irrigation? I would doubt it was irrigation in Virginia, but --

MS. TERAN: I am kind of confused on that, too. What is the merit? I mean, we are saying that dam removal is high criteria.

MS. WHITLOCK: No, I am not saying that.

MS. TERAN: Why is it important for us to consider this project simply for the dam removal?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Dan, did you want to -- (Simultaneous voices.)

MR. KEMMIS: I certainly would not suggest that we do it simply for that purpose, but at least in my part of the country, the Pacific Northwest, dam removal is becoming a very important issue, especially for restoration for wildlife habitat, and we have to expect that over the next 20 or 30 years many people on many rivers are going to be facing issues of dam removal, so it is going to be a coming issue.

And if we have a community here that is trying to work it out on the basis of consensus, then, giving them some encouragement to find that basis of consensus, is something that many other river communities could learn from.

MS. WHITLOCK: I guess the reason I thought it was valuable was not because I think removing the dam is necessarily valuable but that we hear a lot of talk about removing dams as if there had not been a decision process and a need that God preserved the impoundment built in the first place.

And, so, I thought it might be instructive to watch what goes on, but there are as many issues around taking a dam out as there would be around building one.

MR. WILSON: I will ask one other question and it was partially answered before.

Under the (Simultaneous voices.)...what part of this success or what does that play into the program for the proposal?

MS. EARGEL: Part of this is that the first segment of this application, this nomination, is the tidewater area, which doesn't...commercial fishery interest there. So, as they move to the second phase...will need to be garnished to make a successful implementation.

Also, they propose significant agricultural operations on the project... agriculture can be helpful in implementing...

I hope that answers it.

MR. WILSON: Yes, that is fine.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Any other comments on the Rappahannock?

The next that I see is the San Luis Rey, which had two hits. Kind of the internet vocabularies creep in already. San Luis web site had two hits.

(Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Does anyone have some comments on --.

DR. GALLOWAY: It is a small river that flows into the ocean near -- south of Camp Pendleton, Oceanside, California, and it seemed to fit, again, a niche of a small western river, looking for either the one up in the Nappa Valley or one down in lower California, this one looked pretty good.

I note here in the new letters of opposition the San Luis Rey Municipal Water District is very strong in their opposition and, apparently, there is some other opposition in there.

And I put a hit on it just to surface it but to try and find out how strong was that opposition and, apparently, there is an Indian tribe that is opposed to it. There are some water rights with that.

I was not sure how important that had turned out to be because it did not turn out to be a block on the list up here.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: These are under the new comments that came in?

DR. GALLOWAY: Well, there is one new comment, the San Luis Rey Municipal Water District, but the abstract said there was something else, other people opposing it.

MS. WHITLOCK: I think there was confusion between the abstract and the -- on the summary list, state by state, it had two asterisks which meant it was completely opposed, but then I could not find that in the abstract.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Well, I guess what I would read that and under the weaknesses it mentions opposition letters from two water authorities, including five Native American tribes, a significant portion. I guess they would not show up on asterisks but those only designate the Congressional.

MS. WHITLOCK: So, my sense is that the members of Congress have --

DR. GALLOWAY: No, Barbara Boxer supports it. That is an interesting thing.

MS. WHITLOCK: (Inaudible.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Oh, okay. So, representatives opposed, we are out of the ball game.

MS. WHITLOCK: Right. That is why I --.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay. In that case (Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: The Willamette

MR. SAMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I supported the Willamette River. Two reasons is that the Governor in Oregon nominated the river. He has been instrumental in a number of dealings in the state and particularly with industry, the environment and pulling together all of those differing groups and actually committing money to salmon restoration and environmental clean up and addressing federal regulations, particularly the Endangered Species Act, as it effects species in the Columbia River.

The Columbia, the Luama, tributary for the Columbia is probably North America's largest hydro-electric complex, if not the world's. About 70 percent of the population lives in the Luama Basin, and they have created a number of partnerships there.

They are also applying for the... program. They put together a lot of money from the dams to conduct and implement habitat restoration work

The larger cities in the state are within a Luama Basin.

And those are some of the reasons that I saw it as being a candidate to be considered by the Committee.

MR. JORDAN: If I can add some others. I do come from the urban area and I feel more comfortable with talking about the sections that run through Portland.

Coming from a city whose motto is, if you take care of the environment the business will come, I think is a motto that we would want to see succeed, because I think that is a lesson that we have been trying to teach our young throughout the country that you do not wait until you make the money then clean up your rivers because it may never be possible.

One of the cultural -- cultural heritage of Oregon and one that we value very, very highly is that the people come together around the river.

Just a short 60 years ago we had the dubious pleasure of being designated as one of the filthiest rivers in the country and the people came together, young and old, and cleaned it up; and, once they did, the people once again turned back to the river. They had turned their back on the river; but, once it was clean, it demonstrated that if you take care of your river the people will turn again to the river.

And now we are experiencing unprecedented growth in the basin. Just recently the Willamette was put on the threatened list, the steel head in the Willamette went on the threatened list.

I do not know, and I stand to be corrected, of any other urban area that has been as directly impacted by the Endangered Species Act. And, so, as a result of this I think the nation's eyes will be on Portland and particularly on Oregon in general to see if we are able to get the steel head off of the threatened list and still preserve our economy.

So, I think, again harkening back to my earlier comments, I think we need to have some models here that cities can also learn from.

Also the federal government owns about 41 percent of the land in the Willamette water shed, so you are part of it whether you want to be or not.

So, it would be nice to go on and formalize this because the state has -- and the city, of course, Portland, has made a $700 million commitment to the Willamette River over the next 20 years to clean it up.

So, again harkening back to one of my statements, I want to know what a city is doing now. In other words, you know, that helps me define who you are by what you have already done with your money.

And I think this is one here that merits at least my support and I think all of you know where I am from. I do not think -- that is no secret because I am -- I am intimately involved in the river in Oregon; but not just because it is in oregon but because I love urban settings; I know what rivers mean to urban areas, and it is not just the cultural or the economic, the historical, or the naturalness. It is what it does for people in urban areas and that is where people are settling, in the urban areas.

And it is the connection. That is the reason we have the blue ways and the green ways. And here the Willamette is the blue way and it has a way of connecting people, places and things. It is a unifier. It is a connector.

And I think you have to consider some of the benefits of what we are trying to do with these heritage rivers in terms of what are they going to do to our country as a whole and our state in particular?

And it is bringing people together. Communities are separated and Willamette River is the only common denominator that connects all of those different and diverse communities and it is the only piece -- it is the only facility that has potential to bring people together.

And, so, that is why I think it is a very strong proposal and that is the only reason, believe me.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I hope that if there is a reporter here from Oregon you got that all. If not he has got prepared remarks.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: We will FAX them back to the Portland Oregonian.

Does anyone else have anything else they want to say about the Willamette?

Jerry?

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: I told you...

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Unless I am incorrect, that gets us through the double hit list, except for the Mississippi, and do you want to talk about that now? Is that the appropriate thing?

MS. WHITLOCK: I guess I thought it might be good to look at the proposals before we... I mean, I fee like we need to talk about it but I would like to read all of the proposals.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Let's spend just five minutes talking about it in general and, then, hold off for a larger discussion on it so that whatever the five minutes of discussion might prompt we can direct people if they want to look into the fuller proposals. And then we can either it up immediately after we take a short break or we can do it a little bit later this afternoon.

Tony?

MR. GRASSI: Just for clarification, can somebody show which segments of the Mississippi have not been covered by some proposal?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Do you want to, Karen. If the map is correct, from the head waters of the Minnesota to St. Louis there are four proposals, four nominations.

One is the nomination of that whole stretch. One is the nomination for Minneapolis/St. Paul for a -- for just St. Paul for the stretch of the river going, I forget how many miles, but essentially that portion of it. One is from the area along Dubuque, Iowa; and one is from the quad cities, Davenport, Rocca, Molene, and Davenport.

So that is four proposals, but one of those proposals is the whole length.

MS. WHITLOCK: And that is the one that is called Upper Mississippi?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: That is called -- yes, is the Upper Mississippi.

MR. GRASSI: Mississippi River Missouri is the --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Yes, for some reason it says that but then others it is the -- I think it means to the mouth of the Missouri probably.

MS. HOBBS: And also because it was nominated from the mayors from East St. Louis, Illinois, to Minnesota.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Right. The other nomination is the Mississippi River in the Memphis, Tennessee area.

MR. GRASSI: Okay. So, nothing between St. Louis and Memphis?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: No, that's right. Then there is this gap down to the Memphis area. Then there is another gap that kicks in down here on the lower Mississippi from Baton Rouge to New Orleans.

MR. GRASSI: Okay, so we have another one.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: So, there are six combinations along the Mississippi; and, as I say, one of them encompasses three, and there's two sort of more discrete segments, one being a little shorter than the other.

MS. TERAN: I will go ahead and say what my nomination was and then we can discuss it later after everyone reviews each one of them.

But my nomination is that we take the four because they do -- they would benefit from federal. There is needs -- there is need in these. But, then, that nomination also includes naming the entire...just because of what it means to the United States and the heritage.

Just like the Rio Grande, there are portions that are not...but we are naming the entire Rio Grande. We are not saying this portion or that portion. We are naming the entire Rio Grande, the entire Mississippi. Those areas who do not want to participate may do so and that is something that has been done with the Rio Grande. I do not see what the conflict would be with the Mississippi.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Well, I think that part of that is a term of art. Technically, what we will be recommending to the President and technically he will eventually be selecting are specific nominations, with specific action plans, with specific areas.

Nonetheless, in doing that, the -- I think it would be fair to say that if chose -- even if he just chose the Memphis area of the Mississippi, it would be fair to say that the Mississippi has been named as an American heritage river.

MS. TERAN: Right.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: It is just that in practical terms in relation to now what, after having been designated and then what? But the and then what applies only to those parts of the action plans of the nominations that have been approved.

Because, otherwise, we would, I think, be violating the intent of the nomination which is if there are people who do not want to participate or cannot generate the grass roots support of it, then, we are not imposing it on them.

But, certainly, the Mississippi --

MS. TERAN: The way I see it is you name the Rio Grande but have targeted projects that you want to have them that because of its naming will be accomplished with federal support, but naming the entire river is not a problem with --

MR. CLARK: We may have to do something, though, with this signage ultimately. The practical problem is going to be the signage, that this is the boundaries of --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Right.

MR. CLARK: -- this nomination, this designation.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Doug.

MR. WILSON: The other point being is if you take areas that were not nominated and were not submitted, then, you go to the next step beyond you are no longer taking people that want to participate, whether they have the option to participate or not, and you are then forcing some of the opposition that has surfaced and the fact that we are going ahead and just doing wherever, whatever we please.

That may not be our intent but that could be the -- and I would not take whole bodies, I would take individual areas that actually did come in for consideration only.

MR. JORDAN: And I hear what you are saying and you are right, but that is the technical side of it.

But in the court of public opinion, when people see the Mississippi River they are going to think Mississippi River and that is good, because I do not see how a body like this could talk about heritage and not have the Mississippi River.

But, from a technical standpoint, you are right.

MR. WILSON: But the bottom line is let -- if they want to assume that, let them do that. We got no business doing that.

(Simultaneous voices.)

MR. JORDAN: I hope they assume that because I would hate for us to sit around this table and --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: It is an assumption others might make but we very specifically cannot and the Administration most specifically is not as well in terms of the action plans and in terms of signage.

MR. JORDAN: Let the record show that that is the...

(Laughter.)

DR. GALLOWAY: There really are four different river segments, the upper Mississippi, which is locks and dams, 27 -- 26 locks and dams; the middle Mississippi; and then the lower Mississippi which is free flowing and is with the Ohio; and then you have the last part, the deep water Mississippi from Baton Rouge to the Gulf.

So -- and people there know it. I mean, when you talk about the upper Miss, they are talking about the upper Miss, and there is lots tied up in federal programs, and I -- I -- as much as I love the Mississippi from top to bottom, I think for us to walk out of here letting people think the whole Mississippi has been designated may be a mistake.

So, I am for let's look at it chunks and then if after we are all finished we come to the conclusion of something bigger than that, fine; but I think you have to look at the chunks of those who anted up and filled out the forms and submitted them.

MR. JORDAN: We did not misrepresent ourselves. I am sure Maria and I are together and we agree with that. But we talking the court of public opinion. We are not going to take the time to find out what section of the Mississippi. We are just going to be proud that at least a part of that history, the historical aspect is there.

MS. TERAN: It is understood that the Rio Grande is nominated but everyone in New Mexico and Colorado knows that they are exempted, their portion, but it is still the Rio Grande, and then the Rio Grande also extends into Mexico.

MR. GRASSI: Well the question is --

MS. TERAN: I think it is --

MR. GRASSI: It is really something we will have to come back to again at the end because you are really talking about a drafting matter as much as anything.

What is the actual wording going to be. Are we nominating the Rio Grande in Texas or are we nominating the Rio Grande?

MS. TERAN: Right.

MR. GRASSI: And if the actual drafting says the Rio Grande, then, we are --

MR. JORDAN: You have got a problem.

MR. GRASSI: And so maybe the actually wording will say Rio Grande in Texas or the upper Mississippi.

Now, if the newspapers pick up Mississippi without distinguishing upper, so be it...

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Let me throw out just one thing that I think we want to consider with the Mississippi.

Is this whole thing with the upper stretch? Because there is an application that is the Upper Mississippi that were it approved, the action items -- I'm hoping what I am saying is true and tell me if I am not -- if the action plan of the Upper Mississippi were approved, that would -- that would mean that -- that those were finally implemented, but the individual plans also would be or the things on the individual plans belong to the Upper Mississippi that are different than the Upper Mississippi larger application?

In other words, are there some things that if we decided to, say, we recommend the Upper Mississippi nomination, is there something in the Dubuque plan, in the St. Paul plan, in the quad cities plan, that would then fall out of the cracks and that would be important to know right now.

MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: We have a vocabulary problem. Upper Mississippi as it has been coded is really a small segment. The proposal that encompasses the stretch that you all are talking about is called the Missouri Mississippi. Just in terms of --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Right, okay.

MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: One is Number 077, that is the entire Upper Mississippi and the one that is called the Upper Mississippi but is only really in truth --

MS. WHITLOCK: I think that is Number 21, isn't it?

MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: -- is Number 59.

MS. WHITLOCK: Okay, 59.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay. My question then refers to the Mississippi from the proposal that for reasons that are unclear is called the Mississippi Missouri that stretches from St. Louis to the head waters. Does that plan include the individual plans of the shorter stretches within that plan.

MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: It appears to from the map they submitted. It runs unbroken from...to well down south of St. Louis.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: But do we know whether Dubuque's plan and the quad cities' plan is also a portion of that larger one.

MR. STEPHENSON: Unlike the Chicago Illinois there was no -- little or no effort to combine these plans of action. They are discrete plans of action, so there is no interconnection in this. We are going to drill a little deeper.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay.

MS. WHITLOCK: And that is the kind of thing I think we need to look for and then try to come back to the discussion.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Any other before -- before we break; and if we want, is it everyone's desire that where we want to go to besides more about the Mississippi, if that is what you decide at this point, is after we take our break, but we will come back and deal with holes, if you will. That is if somebody -- Tony has already said there are rivers that he wanted to have brought up for discussion and that would be when we start that section I would ask you to say, to summarize why you think those things -- what is it about those rivers that you think need to be brought up.

Any other kind of concerns that are that way. If you -- if you think that so far in both ones that we have discussed and the other ones in the 32 that we have not discussed, if you already know that there is, for instance, there is no -- if there were no small river that you thought -- if you want to identify a larger type of categorical hole or suggest an individual river or any other specific river.

I am kind of...the single hits right now, simply because everyone at least has had an opportunity to look that -- to look it over. If someone feels very strongly about one of them that they want to - to -- to bring up at this point, they will be able to.

But we are going to take a 15-minute break but when --

MR. CLARK: Before you --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I'm sorry.

MR. CLARK: North Carolina will have submitted the application, their CREF application, by the end of May and it takes a varying amount of time for the Department of Agriculture to take a look at these and it may be a couple of months.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: And before we do break, is it our sense that we want to return to the Mississippi when we reconvene.

A VOICE: Yes.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: We will get started back in. Before we do, I do want to recognize that Congressman Kinjorsky is here from Pennsylvania. As has been our rule we are not soliciting public comments from anyone, but I do want to thank the Congressman for showing his interest in coming here. As I told him, it is nice to have a representative here who supports the initiative.

A VOICE: Where is he?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: From Pennsylvania.

Congressman.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Now, when we left off we were talking about the Mississippi, and Kay had a desire that maybe she wanted to talk about this in greater detail tomorrow when she had had a chance to look in detail at the individual proposals; but I do want to say that if there is anything that people have -- I mean, what do you all think about that? Are there more things that you want to raise right now? Do you -- is it all right with you if we wait an do a larger Mississippi discussion, say, early tomorrow morning?

Tony.

MR. GRASSI: It strikes me that there is sort of a basic research question that maybe we do not all have to do, and that is to understand whether if we approve the full length of the upper Mississippi, whether there are things in the four proposals -- whether that -- whether they could be subsumed into that or not, or whether they are inconsistent, whether --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Right.

MR. GRASSI: -- you know, the quad cities wants higher water levels and someone else wants lower water levels so that they are inherently in conflict... (Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: But you --

MR. GRASSI: But somebody needs to read all of them for that in mind.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: So, shall we -- do you want to -- can we assign that task to a Committee member? Kay?

(Laughter.)

(Simultaneous voices.)

MS. TERAN: I did talk to two of the staff who reviewed those proposals; and, so, between the three of us during break I developed a much better understanding --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay.

MS. TERAN: -- of how they fit together; but that is not based on digging through it.

But of the six proposals, there are three in the Upper Mississippi reach that -- Minneapolis St. Paul, the quad cities, and the Dubuque, Iowa, that are separate proposals and then they are subsumed into the one that is Number 77, which goes from...St. Louis.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay. So --

MS. WHITLOCK: So, they are small parts of that, which is one of the primary questions.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay.

MS. WHITLOCK: And then there are two, then, in the lower Mississippi, the Memphis and Louisiana reaches that are just other segments in the lower Mississippi.

So, that was kind of what I was looking for.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay.

MS. WHITLOCK: We almost could, you know, draw a little chart, and I have got the numbers of the proposals. So 21, 59, and 63 are small parts of 77 and are not inconsistent with it probably.

The problem with 77 is that it does not look at the whole reach. It looks at individual urban stretches along the whole reach. So, I am not sure if approving that it may not have a plan that ties it together well enough to advocate for it. I do not know.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Maria.

MS. TERAN: Dayton, let me just -- if I could just read two sentences from this.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Sure.

MS. TERAN: It is from the Rio Grande nomination, and this might kind of give you an idea of where I am going, but it says: It is our wish that a proclamation be issued recognizing the significance of the entire Rio Grande to America's heritage but limiting implementation activities in Texas to those stretches -- you know, and bla, bla, bla, bla.

That is where I am going. Okay?

MS. WHITLOCK: Yes.

MS. TERAN: That is where I am going. The entire Mississippi, not portions, and limiting those stretches that need the federal intervention or the -- I should not use that word -- the federal aid.

MR. JORDAN: When you say where you are going, you mean in recognition of the heritage --

MS. TERAN: Right.

MR. JORDAN: Not the entire Mississippi but --

MS. TERAN: The entire Mississippi.

MR. JORDAN: -- not the designation of that as a heritage?

MS. TERAN: Right. And these four, in my opinion, need -- have -- you know, show need for federal aid.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: That --

MS. TERAN: And --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I'm sorry.

MS. TERAN: I'm sorry. I just -- this is

(Simultaneous voices.)

MS. TERAN: And it goes a little bit deeper.

MR. WILSON: Maybe Charles will say I am technical here. It goes back to the original point that I made of one area trying to designate another area, whether it be us or whether it be one section to another, they are all co-dependent.

And I understand what your philosophy is and what the purpose is, but it still goes back to -- and I do not know if that is entirely appropriate for that particular nomination to make that designation for the entire region or for the entire river.

MS. TERAN: For the sake of heritage and American history, it is.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Can I make a suggestion? That this is an important issue for us to address, but I think it is premature, in that if, a we get to a point where we have gotten to a recommendation that we want to make, the wording of that is everything is wherever that falls in.

It does effect, Maria, I admit, some people's thoughts of how they -- how they approach this; but -- but I think this larger discussion we should put off for right now as we try to get to the -- to just focus on part of the Mississippi.

My understand of the -- of that, from Jerry, on the Mississippi from St. Louis to... is that it is, they call it a string of pearls. In other words, it is -- there are -- it is a collection of proposals by cities along that way, and is only designating them.

Now there are -- just as if you had a river proposal that got Congressional opposition halfway through it that we might consider the two ends.

In essence that -- that longer stretch from St. Louis to...a continuous line on the map, in fact, the proposal is a series of dots of about 50-some towns, and three of those are also making individual proposals.

Does that summarize it?

MR. GRASSI: Yes, it does. I think that is a serious issue that we are going to have to contend with, maybe not today but it is going to have to be up front tomorrow.

The question is, does that meet the vision that we, as a committee, have for a heritage river? Because in this particular case what we are seeing is a group of those pearls making sure that they do not have to deal with the string in between them, and the string in between them is rural, agricultural, and I have been reading the recent letters that arrived in opposition. There are 12 such letters from the State of Illinois that address the Mississippi River. They are all from farm bureaus and county basis. Three or four of them, in fact, have the same wording, the same paragraphs. So I assume there is a campaign in some part.

But the point is that it seems to me that by designating pearls on a string we are not playing the game at least as I originally saw it. Now, that does not mean that I cannot be convinced otherwise, but I would like to have a serious discussion about whether or not your characterization of this proposal is fair game.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Jerry, did you have --

DR. GALLWOAY: Yes, I was going to suggest that we do, in fact, wait until tomorrow, and I would like to stay tonight and do some homework, too.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay.

DR. GALLOWAY: Just so that we come in we could -- because your point is exactly the one that I was thinking of, is how do we define this and we really need to make sure we are doing justice to these.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: So, can I suggest that -- that Kay and Jerry form a committee of two. If there is someone else that wants to join them, feel free to. And if there are any other questions that anyone has of more detail on these proposals, how they -- how they relate to one another, please give it to them before -- before tonight.

MS. WHITLOCK: And then I would ask if anyone in the audience has any information that you think would be helpful to that, please put it up on a yellow sticky for us and then we will do our homework tonight.

MR. JORDAN: And they will address Tony's question about are there conflicts in --

MS. WHITLOCK: As much as we can.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Right.

A VOICE: If Kay and Jerry can put up with me, I will join them in their efforts.

MS. TERAN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I would like to then -- well, let me -- before we do that, is there anybody that wants to say anything about the other two proposals at the moment, or shall we just sort of hold that off until we talk about the Mississippi in the larger issue?

(Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: In that case, I think -- I'm sorry.

MR. SAMPSON: I have -- one question is, as it pertains to Mississippi, and that is how these proposals discuss flood control and flood issues? Build stuff in the flood plain and just see what happens? So, my question would be do any of them address flood control issue in a manner other than the way the...

MS. TERAN: I saw it in some, but we will give you an answer.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Jerry, shall we turn to...And in this this is a chance for us to discuss -- first of all, we are going to take up Tony's list of rivers and he is going to talk about that he thinks -- he has some points he wants to make about it.

If there are any others that people feel strongly about, this would be a good time for it.

And then I also want us to think in a larger conceptual sense whether between the ones that were the result of the 32 river resulting from our informal sort of top five if they think that have already identified the weakness or a whole in trying to think of the more complex relationship of different issues that we have come up with.

MR. GRAF: I am wondering if it helps to have...

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Do you want to start with that or shall we -- I promised Tony that we would start with his or do you want to use those as part of that discussion?

MR. GRASSI: As much as anything that comes out of my perception of the whole thing.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay. If you do not mind, then, Tony, let's --

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: The question here is it may be very useful in terms of time itself. Let's just get it done and get the names... (Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: We are going to be naming rivers as well as tops. All right?

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Yes, and just, you know, let me record it and then we will delve into the details.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Well, our purpose if it is not -- could we either get Tony's list back or --

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: You want us to reprint it.

(Simultaneous voices.)

MR. GRASSI: St. Johns, Edisto, spelled with an E, but two different rivers, the Beaverkill, the Coosa --

A VOICE: Spell that.

MR. GRASSI: C-o-o-s-a. And the Tennessee and I had the Rivers of Steel as well.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Tennessee or Tennessee River?

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: I had Tennessee River, Tennessee.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Okay.

Do any others have any ideas of either concept of the whole or some rivers that should be...

MR. GRASSI: Let me, just to elaborate, what I see as holes is the need for a coastal...river and ...river, and I am also interested in the subject of diversity and the rivers that represent...when it comes to fresh water species. And when you think about diversity you think about the tropics; well, in fact, there is greater...in the lower 48 United States than there is anywhere in the world.

And it strike me as important that we have some recognition of the...issue in our collection of rivers.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Any other contributions here and then we will come back to that?

MR. GRASSI: And my last category and the reason I had Rivers of Steel on there is somebody else had the Cuyahoga and I thought the come-back kids would be an interesting group to look at and the Rivers of Steel and the Cuyahoga is the same kinds of issues that have come along...

MR. GRAF: I just had one that kind of goes across this way on your diagram.... My one vote for the Muskingum...was that I saw it as the best representative for Appalachia.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Kay?

MS. WHITLOCK: I would like us to put Mill Creek, Ohio on the river list because of the comment that it is the most endangered urban river. I just wanted us to talk about it.

MS. TERAN: The Ohio? Is that what you said?

MS. WHITLOCK: Mill Creek.

MS. TERAN: Oh.

MS. WHITLOCK: I was thinking that maybe someone has more information about that. I was struck by that comment.

MS. TERAN: I would like to add...

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: There are two. Which one of the Ohios?

MS. TERAN: ...

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: There are two proposals.

MS. TERAN: It is the Ohio River, 82.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Did our list have that by mistake on there twice? It is under the very good and under the good. I don't remember if those are two different.

A VOICE: I think they are two separate ones.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: For the Ohio River and Ohio?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Ohio, Number 25.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: But you are suggesting number 82.

MS. TERAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Anyone else have either a specific river or just a thought of type of thing that we want to discuss.

MR. GRASSI: I have got two, the Mahoney and the Ohio is representative of a small town industrial. We have got a lot of major urban areas but Youngstown is reflected in the Mahoney; and, then, for a small western river, since it looks like we are not going to get the one in the south, Santa Rosa Creek in California up in the Nappa, which is, again, a small easily identified and one that you can see the results in.

MS. WHITLOCK: I have that one on my list primarily because it is...

A VOICE: If we are doing...work, I will take the Hanalei, please.

(Laughter.)

(Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: We will have to check with Chuck. He just fainted.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: About travel arrangements for our field trip to the Hanalei.

Anyone else have one that they particularly want to raise in these discussions?

Again, even if you may not have a specific river, if you think of the discussions that we have had today or of the others from our list of 32, which we have not discussed, that you want to throw out.

DR. GALLOWAY: Someone had the Lower Roanoke on their list of 32 and I had to see us pass that by without discussion It did not happen to be me but I assume somebody else would carry that water...

I mean, one of the things that sort of struck me is that 51 percent of the population of Lower Roanoke is African-American and that, in and of itself, got my attention, for some discussion.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I think because, as I said, I have refrained from saying any of my nominations but of the ones that are put up there with the -- with the Rivers of Steel and the Cuyahoga, we want might want to -- was the Cuyahoga put on? It was one of the 32. But it has a certain -- it sounds like there is a certain feel to it that you are implying. And I think maybe the Upper Susquehanna would be appropriate to talk about in that same context because there are certain similarities of river type in the proposal.

Any others?

MR. SAMPSON: The Yellowstone in Montana.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Well, for those of us who love the Yellowstone in Montana, unfortunately, it is -- it was removed from our consideration by the -- the Congress person of Montana and one of the Senators.

There is ten miles of the Yellowstone in North Dakota that has not been eliminated by Congressional opposition.

(Simultaneous voices.)

A VOICE: That is a Class 5 rapid.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: We have several conflicts. Because St. Johns, Beaverkill, Tennessee, Rivers of Steel, Muskingum, Ohio, Santa Rosa, Lower Roanoke, Upper Susquehanna.

The reasons that we have holes and conceptual, coastal plain, pristine rivers, something called come-back kids, Appalachia, endangered urban, and also small town and small western rivers...combination of wholes and rivers.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I will leave it open to someone to start on any of those that we are really stuck.

MR. WILSON: A general comment. When we focus in on the particulars, as that is do we lose our balance? You are looking for something particularly for an area, particularly for an environmental issue, or particularly for an economic, are losing our balance then?

MS. TERAN: That might have...we didn't do it initially.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Well, I think what -- if you are on me, I think it is good for us to discuss this and for -- just done what we did, in the sense that what it helps everyone to know that there are still -- just because we have talked about a particular proposal does not mean that the others are forgotten; and it is interesting to hear from people what it is that caught their eye initially about an individual proposal.

My own belief is that one of the challenges to our Committee is going to -- one of the twin challenges but the second part of that is this whole thing of -- of balance; and we are not at a point yet to -- to --entirely to say, well, what we now need is a industrial river from the midwest, if we ever even get to that point; but I do encourage us to still look at that and think and think of the ones that we have discussed, the ones that were the result of the 32 because we are getting -- at a certain point we are going to ask you to do that whole thing again, to -- to give us a list of five again as just a further way of gauging to see if certain things are starting to pop up based on our discussion.

So, if there are -- I just thought if there is something about any of those rivers that somebody wants to say, either saying what I really like about that, or I am troubled by a particular part of it, this would be a good time to do that.

MR. SAMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the Hanalei is a particularly interesting river because the entire waters that are included, just some points from the detail application, that it is the only river in the State of Hawaii that is ranked as outstanding...cultural and recreational scenic values in Hawaii.

It also is a place where Hawaiian cultural traditions and practices persist where citizens can still experience uncrowded white sand beaches and pristine wilderness areas that are uniquely Hawaiian.

And I think the important part of the plan of action is that they are using a means to -- a planning means which looks at the limits of acceptable change within the --I guess the uniqueness of that water shed, they are going to determine how in the long term they will address economic impact to that water shed, to that river.

And I think it is a very unique situation that I have not seen in any of the other proposals to date. Not only is it unique means to plan for the future, it has got a lot of public support, Senators from Hawaii, but also gives an opportunity to see in the longer run how such a plan would be implemented with one of the most wild rivers that might be included in here.

There is none from Alaska, which is unfortunate, but Hawaii may be the next best thing.

MR. GRASSI: That pristine river issue is -- I mean, the reason I put the Beaverkill in there, I am troubled that we have nothing down here that is anything like a river the way we would all love to see rivers look; and I think the case -- and I would be interested if there -- I may well have missed other nominations of pristine rivers that we ought to be looking at as a group, but the Beaverkill sort of jumped out at me as it is an historic river in terms of cat fishing and is -- is the head waters to the Delaware, the largest -- whatever it says -- I think the largest free-flowing river in the country. The Delaware itself is, of course, an historical river.

And I just think some place in our mix if we end up with all large, degraded rivers, we are transmitting a message to the American public that there is not one that I think we want to be there.

MS. TERAN: I agree.

MR. GRASSI: It is very important that we have some examples of objective, if you will.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I just note that there -- I know that there is one, I guess it was the Beaverkill, that is the last free-flowing river and another proposal said it was the longest -- in the eastern United States -- and another said it was the longest free-flowing river in the United States. And those two are somehow mutually exclusive. If we get to it, we can get to the bottom of it.

MR. KEMMIS: One other holdout which is a small whole is I do not think we have any rivers here that do not eventually end up in the ocean, but there are a number in the west that, of course, were developed that end up in sinks.

I think the only nominated river we have in that category is the Jordan flowing into the...

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: And we have one that is supposed to but, Maria, often doesn't, right? The Rio Grande is supposed to go in the ocean but quite often it doesn't quite make it any longer.

MS. TERAN: (Inaudible.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: But I think, Dennis, that of that group the ones that were nominated were eliminated under the Congressional...

MR. KEMMIS: One is not fully eliminated.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Oh, I see. Right. I'm sorry.

MR. KEMMIS: That would give us at least one other interior west river to deal with in addition to the South Platte.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Let me go back to along -- rather than simply looking for -- for more -- any comments on any of these.

MS. TERAN: I will comment on the Ohio.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Maria.

MS. TERAN: What struck me about this one was that it said river is shared by 24 communities in six states and the federal support here would be very helpful because they do have sewage overflow into the river, and a need for restoration of green space.

I thought that this one was something that was obvious. I find a need, human need, environmental need, the six states involved.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I was -- I was surprised that in that, in the support summary, that there was only -- it spans a number of states and there was the support of only one representative and I do not know if that is indicative of reform support at that level, if it is the kind of proposal -- and some of the proposals the groups are just getting started, as we discussed, and, you know, perhaps have not yet gotten to that point to mobilize that kind of support. But I did, I thought that was notable about that one, that it is crossing a lot of jurisdictional lines and, while it has support from 26 mayors and 25 city or state agencies, that at that next level up that it was remarkable in both the sparsity of support.

DR. GALLOWAY: In fact, we have opposition from one Congressional representative for the Ohio River at Ripley, Ohio.

So, if we agree that the Ohio River includes the Ohio River at Ripley...

MS. TERAN: (Inaudible.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Tony, did you want to talk a little bit of -- in your group where you are talking about the come-back kids, industrial, the Rivers of Steel, and it is not up there, but when you were talking about it you mentioned one of the ones that was mentioned in our first -- first round, the Cuyahoga. Is there anything you want to say about those?

MR. GRASSI: Not particularly. I mean, I think it is -- I just -- I do not feel terribly strongly about any of those, but it struck me that there was -- as we are looking at mix, originally I thought there was kind of an interesting opportunity.

Now, I guess I am a little troubled that a lot of what we have here is kind of pretty heavy urban rivers and, so, I am not sure in terms of mix it is all that important, but -- but -- I mean, I think we probably have that category reasonably well covered.

And so at this point I sort of feel less --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay.

MR. GRASSI: -- sort of driven by that issue than I do by some of the others. The need for some coastal plain rivers or some rivers that represent pretty significant bio-diversity.

If you want, I mean, I will go into that subject.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: No. The bio-diversity?

MR. GRASSI: Yes.

(Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Did you want to say something first...

MR. GRAF: Well, I don't want to scoop Tony there if he wants to continue with his first groupings. If he doesn't, I will talk about the Muskegon.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay. Why don't you talk about the bio-diversity issue?

MR. GRAF: Well, there are a couple of -- there are a couple of rivers I don't -- again, I am working mostly off my reading here. I do not have a lot of information.

The Coosa, for instance, I was struck that they claim the largest diversity...but that is a pretty big statement and then if you look at sort of the rest of the issue around the Coosa, there are some pretty interesting questions about you have got... production and a whole series about industrial base on the river. It struck me that as sort of a combination of interesting questions.

Lower Roanoke was another one where the --where the bio-diversity is an issue. And the Tennessee mentions bio-diversity. And it just seemed to me in that southeastern --I mean, most of the fresh water bio-diversity in this country is in the southeast in those rivers and we do not have any that jump out at me as being representative of that set of issues around how do you manage a river to both fulfill human needs as well as the natural needs. And I would love to see an example of somebody who has sort of got that in their sight line.

And, as I say, I do not know the particular that well, so I am sort of grasping at a series of names in a series of proposals that get to that issue but I do not know them well enough to be able to lead the discussion.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay. You wanted to go on to talk about the Muskegon.

MR. GRASSI: Yes. Actually, this discussion of bio-diversity...discuss the lowest population of the river and pointed out its importance as an indicator of environmental quality. And I actually put the Muskegon high up on my list of potential designees because, first of all, it does represent Appalachia.

The Ohio River does, too, of course, but I felt the opposition to the Ohio River was significant, where the Muskegon here we do not see that opposition. In fact, we see aggressive support from the --one of the Senators from the state. So, bio-diversity was something that attracted me to it.

And, second of all, this is an historically important river as the entry to the old Northwest Territory and its termination point is at Marietta on the Ohio River which was an important part of the transportation history of our country.

I think its economic development potential is especially important because this is a part of Appalachia that is undergoing transition from mining and agriculture to some other alternative base for its economy.

And the proposal, I asked for a copy of the proposal from staff, and had a chance to read it. I think that the people who put forward the proposal recognize their status as kick-starter mechanism for stimulating interest in alternative economic developments. Specifically, of course, as you might expect, recreation and tourism, which is critical in a state that has now grown to something like 12 million people with urban centers that need this as an outlet.

We have talked a lot about scale. The idea that we have got cities and we have got multi-state proposals.

This is one of the few that, in fact, is multi-county. It includes four counties that encompass the entire length of the river, from its starting point to its ending point.

So, this might give us a chance to experiment with a different level of governmental participation.

And, finally, the staff ranked it as outstanding as a proposal from its mechanical standpoint.

So, I think it is a very strong proposal.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Does anyone have anything they want to say about, again, any of these ones that we have -- we have put up there?

As the one who put up the Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna, I just tell you what -- and the Cuyahoga River, the two things that attracted me about both of those, which are actually different.

One is -- the Cuyahoga is, to the extent that everybody remembers, what rivers once were. Meaning not what they once were a long time. What they once were within my lifetime and the strides that certain places have made simply because of the attention they got when it was on fire, as an interesting part of its story, if you will, for the nomination.

And with the Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna, it just seemed to me like that was an interesting proposal for doing a lot of interesting things to restore a river that over -- you know, over the course of years had suffered a lot of degradation and it seemed like they had gotten a lot of people together who agreed on that and that had taken that first step and it just seemed an interesting proposal to me for that case.

MS. TERAN: What was that all about, the statement? I mean...

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Well, on the Cuyahoga, my thought was what is -- what interested me is the notion that as the abstract said it became sort of the poster child river of the 1960's that had helped spur the creation of the Clean Water Act, and it has quite a considerable success since that time; and that one consideration for that would be that w would look at the -- you might look at that as sort of saying that's where, you know, rivers have been pristine and they have also been that. Some of them need to work to --you know, to get back there, and here is a success story that the designation would be more or less patting on the back.

With the Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna, it is sort of different in that I thought that that was one which we talked about before that the designation might help create a success story, that the germs of great success were there, in a region that, you know, would be particularly benefited from it.

MS. TERAN: Good point.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: If we have others? Or did you want to -- I think we are running out of energy.

MS. WHITLOCK: There's not enough cookies.

(Laughter.)

(Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: We have got to do a couple of things. This is the list you are making of the applications. So, this is yours, Donald, right here?

MS. HOBBS: Do you want the entire nomination with the support letters or just the 15-page application.

A VOICE: I just want the 15-page application.

MS. HOBBS: If you want the full packet, please indicate that on the note.

MS. WHITLOCK: And will ask for the Mississippi River one; but, if Jerry and I can stay in this room or come back to it, I do not care if I have my own copy.

MS. TERAN: I would rather leave it to give an unbiased objective.

MS. WHITLOCK: But, I mean, if there is a notebook we could just take with us or something.

A VOICE: Yes, we will make that happen.

MS. WHITLOCK: Rather than make up another copy of it.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: While you are handing those in of requests for the 15-page application things, individual members.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: This is for home work.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Then Jerry is preparing another home work assignment for us.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: We will do this right now.

MS. TERAN: I thought we were going to party after this.

(Simultaneous voices.)

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: I know how much many of you would like to take a coffee break, but before you do --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: He is not going to let us out until...

(Simultaneous voices.)

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: In the serious part of this, I think there are two things we need to do.

One, let's take a reading where we are as a group. This will quick and painless in two quick steps. And, secondly, that reading will show us the mosaic again as opposed to the individual rivers so that we can think about the mosaic in combination with the individual ones. I want to do it in two quick stages.

The first if what we have done before which was go back to the large, big list, because everything is opened, as we said, and we are going to hand out five cards here... And what I want you to do is to look at that list and -- nobody take six -- put one -- obviously, one river on each card. This will help us tabulate.

(Simultaneous voices.)

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: And then take...(Simultaneous voices.)

And we will take ten minutes to copy them. You can hand them to Roger.

MS. TERAN: You are asking us to...(Simultaneous voices.)

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: It is just --

MS. TERAN: Name the top five.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Rename the top five. It could be the same. It could be five totally different ones.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: One on each card.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: One on each card. And, again, this is just to keep us returning on occasion to --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: When we come back, we will take a look at it and I am going to ask you to do one more piece, one more thing, with them, that will take a few minutes after we get through this.

(Off the record.)

I want to make this announcement. Tomorrow our meeting we are going to, after checking with --with all of you, our intention is to keep tomorrow afternoon also open for people here who want to observe the Committee in action, if action is the proper word for it.

I also have said that I think that what is also a possibility is that by the end of tomorrow that w will not necessarily have come to our final conclusion and that what we may be doing is getting as far as we can without coming to that kind of conclusion, but also needing sometimes ourselves to go back and look at proposals in greater detail that we need more time with than others. And I have been advised that -- that it would be possible for us, then, at a later time, after we have had that time to reflect on where we were when we last met, perhaps just to do a, hopefully, quick but some sort of conference call which we would all then reach our final decision of what we are going to recommend to the President.

But I just wanted people here who are -- to know that tomorrow at noon they are welcome to stay after lunch as well.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Will the press be allowed to be in on the conference call? Because I do not see any difference between that conference call...

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I do not know the answer to that. I don't know. And my answer is I do not know the answer to that question right now, but we will certainly --if you talk to Lisa, we can certainly let you know if that is going to be possible.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Any reactions to this -- we are going to get ready to leave, I know. We got the message to go... But any quick reactions.

And I am going to -- as we walk out the door after we finish whatever discussions we need to have, I am going to ask for your...but we will give the results to you at the cocktail party.

MR. GRASSI: As I said, I think you would have gotten a dramatically different result if you had asked for ten from everybody. I find myself playing a game with the rest of the committee.

(Simultaneous voices.)

MR. GRASSI: You know, if I don't, somebody else will, so why should I; and, you know, it should (Simultaneous voices.)

A VOICE: As opposed to another number.

MR. GRASSI: I guess ten is the number we have to --openly everybody, you know --

A VOICE: Is going to give ten.

MR. GRASSI: You have number ten, it seems to me; and so, I would -- because then I would have done my own set of balance and geography and small and large. I did not know whether here I was supposed to be picking the five that were sort of most obvious or am I supposed to be picking five that nobody else was going to pick or was I supposed to be.

MS. WHITLOCK: Right.

MR. GRASSI: And so I find this really pretty meaningless. But I do not know what everybody else picked, so I do not even know how to read...

A VOICE: Other than that, how did you like it?

(Simultaneous voices.)

MS. TERAN: How many considerations do we have? I mean, how many rivers with real consideration, real merits, are, at least from this group, we would have to consider on the wall.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Well, as a result of this, by my count, a quick count, with that exercise that we just did, resulted in 23 nominations plus three different Mississippi combinations.

(Simultaneous voices.)

MS. TERAN: That is what I figured we had. We had around 20, which was the initial intention. Asking us for ten of 20 might be better...

MS. WHITLOCK: Would it be instructive to see if it gave us more...

(Simultaneous voices.)

MS. TERAN: It would be unfair today because I want to read, based on what some of you have brought up, I want to read more of either the nominations or the considerations that you have given me to here and I think it is premature and I agree with Tony, it is kind of not representative of what we would do...but we do have 20.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Well, actually, the first time we did this, you know, the isolated, and you came up with 33 and that is sort of what we are talking about today; and this one we asked for five here. What has happened is we have 23 plus the Mississippi. However you consider this...something on the Mississippi...and I do not know what we are going to do with that exactly.

So, that is -- I mean, there are -- that is what the...Any other reactions about what this -- what about the -- anybody look at what seems to have stayed in here or --

MR. KEMMIS: I think it is a little bit more valuable exercise and I think it shows movement because of our discussion today. I mean, we certainly see some movement up and some down. I think above all we all want to hear you pronounce the finale.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: That became very clear.

MS. TERAN: There were some very convincing arguments here and support for other rivers that I should compare and that is obvious in these numbers.

MS. WHITLOCK: And a move away, we went from 16 rivers with one hit down to ten rivers with one hit. So, obviously, there is some movement away from those isolated. I do not know which ones they are.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: Any other reaction?

MR. GRASSI: Could I ask you just a quick question everybody. I am struck by why hasn't the Potomac been mentioned by anybody?

(Laughter.)

MR. GRASSI: Here we sit in the nation's capitol on the Potomac River and I was really surprised I did not see it on the first list.

The first time I read all of these it was in my top five or six; but then I didn't put it down in my top five, and it turns out nobody else did either. So what is going on here? Why isn't the Potomac at least part of our conversation.

Talk about history. How can you be having a conversation about America's heritage without having the Potomac at least on your list? Sort of bizarre. I do not know why it is. Are we in an anti-Washington mode?

(Laughter.)

DR. GALLOWAY: As the person who has got Washington on his name tag, although my address is Virginia --

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: No, I think that the problem is you have lots of competitors and -- that are -- in each one of those, in looking at it, has come up with some other river that is like the Potomac. It is pertinent to the colonial history of this country, was part of navigation, whatever it might be, and recognizes that you can find the strengths of the Potomac somewhere else. And for a variety of reasons we have just have gravitated in that direction.

I would also offer that I am not as comfortable with -- personally, with the packaging in the Potomac as I might be with the packaging in some of the other rivers, you know, what -- who is involved and what are they doing, and how do you fit the Washington Metropolitan area in with what is going on.

A VOICE: Well, we can talk about that tomorrow. I think that is certainly -- we owe it to the group here to talk about the Potomac.

A VOICE: I agree. That is an agenda item?

A VOICE: I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that we just take a couple of minutes to talk about it.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: I mean, I would just reiterate what we did at the start, which is that what is interesting from this is there are certain ones that -- what have now come back before us with -- with seemingly reappearing on even more people's list, and it is harder to do it with five than it is to do with ten, without question, but I think that has been -- that has been valuable.

At the same time, I just want to remind people that, you know -- which is not any kind of -- this is not a process that is a closed end to process, that now that there are these rivers that no other river can be brought up or considered. But it is just a way to help keep us -- particularly so many of us who flew so many miles to get here late last night are becoming increasing brain dead, to -- to just keep thinking about it and to look at it, not only individually but as a group.

Would it make any sense to try to put them up on the board or is that --

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: We will do that ourselves.

Let me just give a couple of quick comments and then we can get out of here.

On five versus ten and the mechanics and all that which may or may not reflect, a couple of things to think about. Five versus a different kind of dynamic, there is no question because there is less; but part of the dynamic of this group ultimately is trying to whittle it down and, you know, there are very subtle ways in which that can or cannot be done; and we started with five initially, it could have been seven, seven, five, and keep you here long, but it is a process if we move it out too far we are not going to get -- we are going to have trouble getting it down to fewer and fewer.

A VOICE: I don't think that is true. I know that is your theory, but I don't think that is necessarily accurate.

In fact, my theory is that if you ask for ten, you would find much greater unanimity in this list than you have now.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: What I would suggest is if we do this again we will try for ten. It is just the experience of knowing the numbers game is almost -- is almost inevitably -- I mean, there are some exceptions, but, generally speaking when you start asking for larger numbers we don't get...but it doesn't really matter. We try whatever we need to try.

My report back to you will be, though, that the reason for trying five -- I would have probably tried seven, I think, except that we started out with five earlier on. But we -- as we go through it again we will take a look at what is in here compared to what is up there, cause there's some messages suggesting we have got to do the home work tonight. We will come back to this after some discussions, try some more prioritization. And I think we need to do two steps of it.

We will try it with then, if that is still what you want and see what happens. But, then, within whatever we come up with, let's say 1t to 20 or 23, you will probably need to do some other kind of sensing of the group within those what kind of priorities may we have.

I would say tomorrow is the time to get whatever the 20 or 25 are that we are going to deal with as a block out there and within those 20 to 25, if that is the right number, what will we come up with as priorities, and we could use the number 10 if you want.

But my other point about this is, I would -- in reading this, to me, it does show some movements, it does show some learning that is going on. I don't know exactly what but there is some cross-talking and so forth, and that is what we are trying to achieve.

And it also shows, this and the one before and I suspect the next time we do this, there do seem to be some areas where there is agreement coming out of here, some areas; and, so, what we probably need to do is try to -- to -- to understand what they are, really are, to deal with some of the other ones.

MR. JORDAN: Have you thought about redoing the map?

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: This one here?

MR. JORDAN: Yes.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: I was thinking of blue dots with this.

MR. JORDAN: Okay.

MR. DELLIPRISCOLLI: You know, as some of them are...(Simultaneous voices.)

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Any other ideas and notions?

All right. So, we will be reconvening here tomorrow morning. The meeting begins at 9. We have a sub-committee of Mississippi that has some work that it is going to be doing to report back to us probably at the outset, and we also have a map to reflect this. And, again, we will use that as a launching pad for discussion purposes tomorrow.

Does anybody else have anything else they want to say?

MR. GRAF: I have a ridiculous procedural question. Obviously, some of us will pop out of this room tomorrow afternoon and on to an airplane. We are going to have luggage sitting around somewhere. How do you want to handle that?

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Chip, there are a number of Committee members who are going to be leaving from here to an airport tomorrow at 5. Procedurally, is the best thing for them to come here with their luggage?

MR. CLARK: We have arranged for transportation to the airport.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Let me suggest that particularly anybody who is going to be having a tight connection, please, you know, right now see Chip to explain what your situation is. If you are going to be leaving from this meeting to go to an airport, whether it is a tight connection and you want him to help arrange for a ride for you or you just -- you are going to be doing it, our suggestion would be to check out of the hotel tomorrow on your way here, cause I would rather not turn you loose at noontime to go back and do that because I am afraid that that would stretch into too long of a lunch hour, and then Jerry would be angry at me.

A VOICE: So we are going to go to 5 o'clock tomorrow.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Yes, I think so. I mean, I think we should go with that assumption. We are actually knocking off a little early here but we are taking into consideration the fact of how many people got in late last night and are on different time zones.

MS. WHITLOCK: I cannot stay until 5 tomorrow.

CHAIRMAN DUNCAN: Okay.

MS. WHITLOCK: The latest flight I could get was at 6, so, you know, I think I am going to need to leave at 20 to 5 or something.

A VOICE: What airport?

MS. WHITLOCK: National.

(Whereupon at 4:45 p.m., the meeting was adjourned, to reconvene at 9 o'clock a.m., on Tuesday, May 12, 1998.)