The Economic Working Group of the SEG met on Monday, August 27, 2001 @ the USACE 3rd floor conference room @ 2pm.

Some informal discussions were began at the last SEG meeting. Russell Webb spoke with Dr. McGrath, Prof. of Environmental Economics @ AASU. Mr. Webb stated that the USFWS could possibly develop a methodology to value natural resources. His agency has looked at several online resources and will continue the process to develop a methodology. He noted that Dr. McGrath is doing continuing research in this area. Judy Jennings will contact Dr. McGrath in an effort to have him speak to the EWG. Morgan Rees stated that this an area where the EWG could get speakers through the USACE. Terry Stratton agreed on this point with Mr. Rees. Mr. Stratton also noted that he has had no responses (to date) from e-mails sent to UGA, GA State and GA Tech to questions on possible methodologies to value natural resources.

A recap of where the EWG was on the nine assumptions discussed in the July 9th meeting was given by Judy Jennings and Morgan Rees. This was for those in attendance today that were unable to be at the July meeting. Morgan Rees stated that all assumptions and examine items in this paper were drawn by the EWG from a review of Appendix C of the Feasibility Report. All items should be looked at from both sides...ie...(with Sav'h Harbor deepening and without ). This statement answered Will Berson's question..."Were these assumptions assuming that SHD project went forward or not?" Additionally, Mr. Berson asked "Can't the Sav'h Harbor/GPA exist with the current depth because of increased market share, increased growth and increased amounts of cargo?" Mr. Rees stated that within the data amassed so far; All southeastern US ports should be assumed to be competitive, in all areas, with Savannah. Also, Mrs. Jennings noted that if there are any data sources that are not reflected in these papers; please let EWG know asap.

Examine point K= "Railroad congestion": The EWG came to consensus that this point will be adequately addressed within other topics. Therefore, it was unnecessary to keep it as a single examine point.

Examine point L="Railroad mergers": The EWG came to consensus that this point will be adequately addressed with other topics. Therefore, it was unnecessary to keep it as a single examine point.

Examine point M="1996 forecast for 2000 was exceeded in 1998; 592,000 TEU's forecast vs 743,000 TEU's actual": This was agreed on to be a statement of   fact.

Examine point N="More specific statements from port customers": The EWG came to consensus that if interviews are to be part of the economic analysis; the EWG should participate in formulation of the questions.

Examine point O="Trade lane changes as a result of use of larger vessels": The EWG came to consensus that this point was inherent in the existing analysis.

Examine point P="Emergence of mega-regional distribution centers": The EWG came to consensus that this point was inherent in the existing analysis.

Examine point Q="Trade imbalance": The EWG stated that an answer to the following question is needed to assist with resolving the discussion of this point..."What is the status of repository empties?"

Examine point R="Land-side infrastructure capacity": The EWG deferred this to a larger discussion which is needed for specific land-side port expansion. GPA will need to address the following questions....

(a) Does GPA have enough infrastructure to handle increased growth percentage that is forecast?

(b) What happens if these increased projections truly occur? Where does GPA stand on this ? What would they do to accommodate these changes?

Subsequently, the EWG looked over a commodities data paper that was presented by Mr. Stratton. This will be used as a reference for ongoing discussions within the EWG.