Operating Guidelines Committee Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002

Attendees:          Bill Bailey, Donny Browning, Judy Jennings, Larry Keegan, Teri Leffek, Hope Moorer, Doug Plachy,                             Morgan Rees

Note:                  All recommendations proposed in the February and March 2002 minutes were accepted by consensus                             decision by the SEG at its April meeting.

Peer Review

     Doug Plachy responded to Patty McIntosh's question about double-blind studies. Yes, double-blind studies can be used by the Corps however you would have to know this at the beginning of the process. It would be difficult to do this now in the process, especially since the authors of the various reports are known. Morgan recalled the October 26, 2000 discussion of this committee wherein we reviewed the EPA Peer Review Handbook. In this document, the EPA reaches the conclusion that peer review as performed in an academic environment does not work in a government setting. Morgan also commented the draft report on peer review previously prepared noted that peer review would be considered on a case by case basis and those studies whose review through the usual process was not considered sufficient would be considered for peer review.

SEG Role in Mitigation/Impacts Identification

     Morgan wondered if discussing how to maximize the SEG's role was an effective use of the committee's time as the likelihood of any recommendations of the SEG being adopted are high, especially considering all recommendations to date have been adopted. If the situation arises that a recommendation is not approved, then that subject should be discussed and each SEG member will have to decide whether or not to lobby for the recommendation.
     Bill noted there are normally not any incremental documents produced between the studies and the preparation of the EIS. Larry confirmed the SEG will continue to be involved in the communication of information as the EIS is prepared. Morgan noted the cooperating agencies will identify impacts and propose mitigation measures. These agency findings will be discussed with the SEG as is noted in the project schedule. The question then to be answered is whether the SEG participates in the planning process itself or reacts/provides feedback to the information/input provided by the cooperating agencies and the Corps.
     Doug requested that a suite of mitigation options be developed early on by the SEG. Morgan thought we have enough information to begin this process by brainstorming. Because of the start-up time and learning curve involved in mitigation evaluation, the sooner the better to start. Bill proposed someone/entity could solicit mitigation ideas from the SEG for the various resources. Judy agreed this brainstorming process is a good idea but how should it be facilitated? Larry proposed letting the SEG decide the groundrules/guidelines for this process. Judy felt this committee should provide a set of questions to guide the SEG's discussion of groundrules/guidelines. Larry added we should also solicit the opinion of the SEG facilitator Ben Dysart.
     Bill suggested the SEG begin its brainstorming in more generic and broader categories such as the resources (i.e. wetlands, fisheries, dissolved oxygen, etc.) as all issues/concerns should fall within one or more of these categories. Teri requested that the Corps provide a list of resources and note which issues are addressed under the various resource categories.
     Additional questions/rules to be proposed include:

• Is this a one-time or continual process?
• How might it be modified at a later time?
• The participation of an agency does not limit it actions outside of the SEG.
• If an idea/recommendation is made, that does not mean it will be approved later in the process.

     Larry reiterated whatever this committee proposes needs to be clearly stated. Bill clarified that whatever ideas/feedback is provided will be used later in conjunction with the interagency responses during the evaluation of mitigation alternatives. Any input from the SEG will be submitted to GPA who in turn will forward it to the Corps, the process currently utilized.        Larry inquired as to whether this brainstorming process could also serve as a screening mechanism for issues identified by the SEG that require no action/studies. The committee decided to treat this as a separate item. Morgan has no problem with leaving issues on the list for which no action will be taken as these issues will still have to be addressed in the EIS. Larry responded that confirmation of whether these issues are still of concern or not and require any action should be addressed sooner than later to which Morgan agreed.
     Morgan will discuss the topic of cooperating agency reports to the SEG in the upcoming interagency meeting.
     The possibility of committees handling mitigation was discussed. Morgan mentioned a comment made at the April SEG meeting - mitigation is not included in the mission statement of any of the committees. Maybe it is best to consider the role of committees fulfilled when all studies have been identified and completed. Any further actions/decisions, including mitigation, then revert to the SEG membership at large.
       The committee confirmed the SEG should address mitigation but in the capacity of giving input/feedback to status reports, etc. rather than proactively participate in the mitigation planning process. The committee noted reasons the SEG should not develop mitigation include the time, money and technical expertise required as well as affirmation the SEG's role in the project is advisory in nature.
     Attached is the committee's recommendation re: mitigation.

Final Work Product

It was decided this topic is not time sensitive therefore it was tabled.

There are no further meetings scheduled at this time.

Regarding the identification of impacts/mitigation, the Operating Guidelines Committee makes the following two recommendations:

     1. The role of the SEG in the identification of impact and mitigation measures is to provide input/feedback from information provided and produced by cooperating agencies and the Corps. The SEG has neither the time, funds nor technical expertise to identify impacts and develop its own mitigation package. This is in accordance with the advisory nature of the organization.

    2. This committee recommends that to begin the process of providing input/feedback to the Corps that the SEG institute a brainstorming process rather than establish a mitigation committee. Providing mitigation ideas early on in the development of the EIS is helpful especially considering the start-up time and learning curve involved in mitigation planning. This committee proposes the SEG determine the groundrules/guidelines for a brainstorming process. To assist that effort, the following are offered:

     Questions: 

• Will the brainstorming process be a one-time or continual effort?
• How might it be modified at a later point in the development of the EIS?
• Who/what entity should facilitate the brainstorming process?

     Groundrules/Guidelines:

• The participation of any agency or its representatives does not limit its/their actions outside of the SEG.
• Brainstorming consists of the solicitation of any idea for which the individual submitting it should not be ridiculed/penalized in any manner.
• If an idea is offered, that does not mean it will be approved later in the development of the EIS.
• The brainstorming should occur at the level of the SEG at large rather than the committees to achieve the most inclusive participation and begin to develop a "big-picture" perspective.
• Any ideas/input submitted from the SEG will be given to GPA to be forwarded to the Corps, the communication chain currently utilized and established.
• The brainstorming process begin with more generic and broader categories such as wetlands, dissolved oxygen, fisheries, etc. which are the resources involved. The SEG would start with a list provided by the Corps subject to any modifications that SEG wishes to make.The ideas/feedback will be used by the Corps during the preparation of the EIS in conjunction with the information and recommendations provided by the cooperation agencies.