Operating Guidelines Information Exchange

Administration:
This page is established as agreed to in the Operating Guidelines Committee during the meeting of August 12, 2004. This page is intended for committee members to share and exchange their ideas and views about the flow of infromation between the Federal agencies, GPA and the SEG. The contents posted reflect only the views of their authors. They do not represent the opinion(s), position(s), view(s), or consensus of the Georgia Ports Authority; the Stakeholder's Evaluation Group; or the Operating Guidelines Committee.

Content for this page should be submitted to Larry Keegan directly. Information forwarded will be posted as received on this page. The author will be included for information along with the date of posting. New information posting will be announced by the webmaster via email to the OGC members. Interested parties should also check the page contents periodically.

Postings:

Chris Schuberth Aug 18, 2004
 Aug 20, 2004
 Aug 24, 2004 Aug 29, 2004 Aug 30, 2004
Judy Jennings
 Aug 17, 2004
 Aug 19 ,2004
 Aug 24, 2004 Aug 30, 2004
Larry Keegan
 Aug 13, 2004
 Aug 19, 2004
 Aug 24, 2004 Aug 31, 2004
 Sep 7, 2004
Teri Leffek
 Aug 31, 2004






Discussion:
Larry Keegan - Aug 13, 2004

In yesterday's meeting I suggested that we consider recommending a modification to the conduct of the SEG meetings to the SEG as a step in addressing the information flow concerns. Currently, the SEG is largely dependent on reports from Committee Chairs to provide relevant information about the project. The standing committees were established to deal with specific concerns of the SEG, but these concerns do not match the project's range of activities. If the SEG meetings were focused on discussion of the project's activities, more depth of information might be available and increased opportunity for interchange and discussion might result.

I suggest the following changes:
Each focus discussion would include a presentation of the status and activities since the previous SEG meeting by the person leading that area. For instance, the aquifer investigation lead could be Card Smith, agency coordination could be Bill Bailey or Doug Plachy, EFDC and WASP modeling could be Joe Hoke and so on. During the course of the discussion, any SEG committee chair would be able to report their committee's activities and interactions, if any. If there are too many discussion topics to cover in a single SEG meeting, they could be rotated so that two or three are covered in each meeting as time and content permits.

A new agenda might read:
I. Introduction of attendees
II. Facilitator's comments
III. Agenda review and modification/approval
IV. Review and modification/approval of previous meeting transcript
V. Requested briefings or presentations
VI. Discussion topics (some or all of the below - see discussion above.)
A. Agency coordination
B. Economic analysis
C. Modeling
D. Chloride analysis
E. Aquifer investigation
F. Impact analysis
G. Cultural resources
VII. Dicussions carried over from previous meeting
VIII. Next meeting determination

Top

Judy Jennings - August 17, 2004
 
I like the idea of focusing more on the project's activities and coordinating the SEG's discussions to include more of the players. 
 
What I didn't quite get clear on at the OGC meeting on Aug. 12 is how we bring relevant input/feedback from the federal agencies to the SEG.  What did I miss?
 
Larry, I am not exactly sure what you mean when you say  "impacts analysis." 
 
I am reminded that the issue of air emissions has been raised.   Maybe is is not a current project impact/activity, but it will eventually have to be so I assume that somebody, somewhere is doing something about addressing the issue even if it is only thinking about what we will do in the future.  Maybe there are other such impacts that we don't address on a regular basis, but which will be addressed eventually.  Is there someway to work air (and whatever else) into some form of a regular discussion? 

Top

Chris Schuberth - August 18, 2004

I read the first posting by Larry and congratulate him for taking the initiative to get the process started by writing his reflective and thoughtful commentary to the page.  Allow me to comment further.

First.  I do not agree that comments written should first " . . . be submitted to the Chair of the Operating Guidlines Committee, Teri Leffek."  In all due respects to her thorough and conscientuous effort on behalf of the process, I interpret, instead, her serving as a "filter" to what is being written.  Not that she would do so, but the risk is there nevertheless. If I recall correctly, we had a similar method wherein individuals posted technical commentary on the Aquifer page that did not go through me first, as the Chair, but went directly to Larry for posting.  I think, again if I am correct, Larry posted the comments "as is" with grammatical and typographic errors all in place.  So, rather than send comments first to Teri, I recommend that comments go directly to Larry for posting.  He always posted within a matter of hours comments that came to him and some of them were incredibly long and detailed in their discussion.  I think he just scanned them onto the page, where they still reside.

Second.  In Larry's comment about "Inclusion of the following discussion topics in the meeting agenda," I think another "catchall" category needs to be identified.  For instance, beach erosion and the placement of recoverable, beach quality sand onto Tybee Beach continues to be an unresolved (at least in mind) issue that needs a place somewhere in the grouping.  Fisheries is absent also for instance.

Third.  I do not think that the "new agenda" should be as inclusive as Larry is suggesting.  He lists 6 "discussion topics," A through G.  My understanding had been, I think so anyway, is that one or two "burning" topics would constitute the agenda.  Importantly, as Larry so states, the lead researcher (Card Smith for aquifer studies, for instance) would provide the content of the "symposium."  To give him the fullest and undivided attention, no other topic should be included.  In fact, I'm thinking as I write that only one disucssion topic should consistute the agenda rather than two.  The presenter (Card Smith as the example) should be given the fullest and most adequate of time to present his case before the membership.  I have no qualms that a SEG meeting ends early because of the single topic format . . . early as defined as about 10:30 am or so. (Once, I think, SEG concluded about 10:00 am just as I was arriving from class, the earliest ever!).

Fourth and finally.  I think we need to establish some kind of an "alarm bell" that notifies members that a new posting has been made.  I'm not sure how to do this. Maybe Larry can have Cathy Vaughn send "to all" a simple statment that reads something like "Hear Ye! Hear Ye! A new posting is to found on the OGC web page."   All of us are extremely busy . . . and some of us less so.  In the hectic pace of a given day, I will not think of accessing the web page as I did tonight only because, only because, Teri had mentioned in her e-notification of the next OGC meeting that Larry, in addition, got the page up and running.  I said to myself, "Let me check it out."  And lo and behold there was Larry's 13 August discussion in place for me to read . . . and for me to respond. These are my thoughts . . . and I feel sending them first to Teri (with a cc to Larry in this case) subjects me to possible censure for having said this or having said that.  The agreement should be that Larry posts commentary straight "as is."  Some of us may get particularly emotional about a matter, and if all is said in good taste, strong comments should be posted without alteration. Cheers. --
Christopher J. Schuberth

Top

Larry Keegan - August 19, 2004

In response to Chris' suggestions, with Teri's concurrence, I've modified the administration of the page to provide for submission of information for posting to me directly, rather than to Teri for relay to me. As Chris recommends, commentary that is in good taste and on topic will be posted "as is" - without alteration to the content.

With regard to the content of the meeting agenda, my intention was to suggest the range of topics to be included in meetings while allowing that only one or two might be taken up in any given meeting. The discussion topics segment could include any or all of the listed sub-topics. Certainly other topics could be added as desired by the SEG membership.

Chris' suggestion about notification for new postings is a good one. If no one objects, I will send an email when I update the page. The addressees will be: Teri Leffek, Chris Schuberth, Judy Jennings, Bill Bailey, Dave Kyler, Morgan Rees, Bob Scanlon, Doug Plachy, Bill Farmer, Will Berson, and Hope Moorer. Teri, please let me know if any others should be on the distribution list as OGC committee members.

To answer Judy's question about impact analysis. All of the modeling is being done to provide tools to be used by the Interagency Coordination Groups in reaching conclusions about the likely impacts of the project alternatives. Collectively, we've referred to this work as impact analysis.

Top

Judy Jennings - August 19, 2004

Hello OGC:
 
I am having trouble accepting the idea that the SEG agenda can be limited to one or two topics.  For instance, who would determine which topic was most in play or most relevant for any given meeting?  How would the SEG be informed of other topics that were moving forward if we don't address them at all at a meeting?  Since we meet only every two months,  if a topic was moving forward and wasn't discussed at an SEG meeting, large swaths of time could go by without any engagement with/from the SEG.  And, to just add a topic to the agenda at the meeting date wouldn't do much to facilitate communication.  What if the knowledgeable and operative people were not present.
 
It makes sense to me to highlight one or two topics, but I think it is step BACK from good communication to delete any area of interest that is moving forward.  And, if an area is not moving, the SEG needs to know that and know why.
 
Changing topics - wouldn't it be a good idea to include Ben Dysart in this discussion?  After all Ben is the facilitator and I personally think he is a hugely underused resource for the SEG.  He is an accomplished facilitator for diverse industries and a published author and we use him to count "tents"!!!!    Judy J

Top

Chris Schuberth - August 20, 2004

I think that when the language of the summation of the how we reached  this juncture regarding the H&S model is finalized, a stand-alone  "white paper," that is a separate "printing" of this summation, should  be prepared and distributed to all SEG members as well as any others  who might be interested in the contents of the white paper describing  the history in the development of this model.

Why?  First, this "exercise" is an exellent example of how folks coming from different perspectives, with different agendas, and with alternative intentions can, indeed, work together in a climate of  cooperation and honesty conducive to creativity that is a true credit to all parties concerned  . . . governmental, environmental,  industrial, academic, civic, etc.

Second, and perhaps more imortantly, this exercise provides, at least  in my mind, a shift of the wind, a shift in the way we communicate with each other after these many years.  While we have always have been communicating, all too many times this communication may not have led to the kind of productivity that such unproductive communication required. (Make sense?)

Food for thought.
Cheers

Top

Chris Schuberth - August  20, 2004

Hi Friends,
 
 In response to Judy's difficulty in accepting the idea that the SEG agenda be limited to talks concerning one or two specific topics only, I thought we had encouraged our "changing" the SEG format. That is, we would take up one or two "hot-button" topics at the meeting, in depth. I also, personally, had encouraged that the SEG meeting times go back  to being monthly rather than bi-monthly (every 2 months) they are  currently. The single (or double) topic to be discussed follows a formal and comprehensive presentation by the principal investigator.

 Let's continue to use the aquifer issue as an example.  Card Smith would formally be invited (agreed to at a prior SEG meeting) to come to the  next SEG meeting and make a F-U-L-L summative presentation . . . where  we were in the study, where we are now in the study, and where we want  to be in the study.  This discussion might take 2 SEG meetings if not  accomplishable in 1 meeting with its ending time at 12 noon.  I think  Larry and his colleagues, all of us actually,  can readily identify the  "hot-button" items.  Once agreed what they are, an agenda would be  planned for the next 6 or 8 SEG meetings integrating all these  "hot-button" items. These items basically come out of Larry's original  listing herein, identified as A through G, with an added "miscellaneous"  issues such as beach erosion mitigation on Tybee. 
 
 In all due respect to Judy's concern that we must address A through G at  every meeting, this schedule of covering everything defeats our thought  of "revising" the SEG format by addressing, in depth, one or at most two  of the seven A through G topics.  And, again, we return to meeting  monthly.  Remember, it is the Card Smith's who will present at the  regular SEG meeting; it is the lead H&S modeler who would present at the  next SEG meeting; it may be Card Smith who comes back a second time at  the 3rd SEG meeting who would present; it would be the lead person of  the beach erosion study who presents a status report of beach erosion  studies at the 4th SEG meeting; it would the H&S  lead modeler who  returns again to present at the 5th SEG meeting; and so on. 
 
 Am I reading off a different sheet?  I'd like to think not.  But, hey,  this dialogue . . . this dialogue . . .  is what this all about.  Yes,  Ben Dysart, somewhere along the line, once our ducks are in better
 order, must be brought into this discussion.  My suggestion.  Someone .  . . Larry or Teri perhaps . . . informs Ben Dysart that OGC wants to  discuss a revision in the SEG format at our 14 Sep meeting.  That  discussion at the September SEG meeting is obviously based on what we're  all saying herein.  Teri, as Chair, would lead the discussion on 14  September.
 
 What're your thoughts?

Top

Larry Keegan - August 24, 2004

In last week's meeting, I mentioned a timeline of modeling efforts that I was preparing. That is now posted on the website. You can acccess it from the homepage, the modeling page or directly here. Hopefully, it will provide a chronological context for all of what transpired.

As for the discussion about modifying the SEG meeting content, I tend to agree with Chris that trying to cover all major tasks in detail at every meeting might not be practical. There is potential though that the selection of what topics to cover at any given meeting could itself become a difficult thing, depending on levels of interest, amount of activity, etc. The debate over which topic(s) should be at the next meeting could become a topic in itself. That's why I favor having a list of standard topics, aligned with the General Reevaluation Study and EIS work tasks, from which two or three would be chosen for discussion at a given meeting. Special topics can always be added to a meeting agenda

I suggest that we try to develop a list of topics and a rotation plan for recommendation to the SEG during our next meeting.  In advance of that meeting, it wouldn't hurt to invite Ben Dysart review this page. Perhaps Teri could do that?

Top

Judy Jennings - August 24, 2004
I appreciate the dialog the OGC committee page has generated.  I think it is positive and will eventually lead us to an improved process.
 
One of the reasons I readily agreed to a change in the SEG meeting process was that my spontaneous interpretation of the change is that it would, by its nature, force  better communication.   I envisioned greater communication between GPA and pertinent SEG members.  Which would necessitate greater communication with the Corps and the federal agencies.  Then, there could be a determination of what needs more in depth presentations at SEG meetings.  Larry's suggestion of GRR issues as a laundry list seems appropriate (for now, at least).
 
I do NOT think it is important that we talk about every issue at every meeting.  We see what that gets us now with lots of "No report" reports as we go around the table.  But, I think sometimes there is something to report and the SEG committee chair just hasn't done their homework  thoroughly enough to know it.  And, when there isn't a report, I think we should, on a committee level at least, understand why there is no activity.
 
Having said that I do NOT think it is important to talk about every issue at every meeting, I still can't make peace with doing only one or two at bi-monthly meetings since we could conceivably go an ENTIRE year with only six briefings.  Surely more is going on with the project than that.  And the fact the GPA or the Corps knows what is going on doesn't mean that the SEG as a body knows.
 
I like the idea of monthly meetings.  And, this has been floated past GPA on numerous occasions and I have found no support for it from them, as they cite additional costs.  And they are right about that.  The question then becomes, is the money well spent.  I can understand GPA's answer of NO, unless we can add more value to the SEG process.  Value that will protect the environment and determine what project is appropriate and implementable for the SHEP.  I think, if we can show GPA that our changes to the SEG is a value-added process, they might reconsider monthly meetings.  Example - I imagine most of you are familiar with the China Shipping terminal at Long Beach that was completed, but sat idle for 1 1/2 years.  Long Beach has already had to pony up $50 million and China Shipping is still trying to extract more money from the port because of the 1 1/2 years of down-time. All of this happened because they inadequately addressed air quality issues.  I think if GPA compares that scenario to a NEW, improved, constructive, truely collaborative SEG process, they might think monthly meetings are time and money well spent. 
 
Another cost issue on monthly meetings is the federal agencies.   Would they be willing to send someone each month?  Judy 

Top

Chris Schuberth - August 24, 2004

Regarding a revised SEG format, all of us are basically saying the same thing. I don't really care if a report is given A through G as long as there is a "hot-button" report presented by the team leader of the study.  Judy perhaps states matters most clearly and most succinctly.  Using her viewpoint as the template, then, can we put a "straw man" on the table as to how the current OGC viewpoint is to be replace the "old" way SEG conducts its future meetings on the 14 September agenda?  Teri certainly, as Chair, should present the case. A brief summation of where we've been and where we want to go.  As already suggested, Ben Dysart needs to be brought into the loop at some point so that he's aware of how to write the agenda and provide the impetus to appropriately guide the 14 Sep SEG meeting.  I think the 14 Sep SEG meeting should address what we have been hammering at in this dialogue for the past 2 weeks.  Lay the various viewpoints on the table and all of us discuss openly in this public forum.  But we must reach an agreed upon conclusion how the future SEG meetings are to be conducted by Noon, 14 September.

I think also we return to monthly meetings.  One month at the Mighty 8th, the second month at AASU, the third month at Mighty 8th, the fourth month at Civic Center (Bob Scanlon offered).  These two, off-Mighty 8th sites could alternate with each other so a meeting is held only once every 4 meetings either at AASU or Civic Center.  For federal, state, county staffers to continue to attend and the salaries to pay them, now monthly, is that really an issue?  I thought SEG, a bona fide and officially recognized entity holds some kind of priority. No?  It's unfortunate that it took us all this time to find a "better way."  But we did find one.  No?  We're making progress; Bob's bus (I like that, Bob's bus) still is running on all its cylinders (tires are a little bald, but many of us have crossed the Mojave Desert with less than the best tires) so I think it's much too premature for the governmental agencies to pull their staffers and have them attend only once every 2 months..

Cheers

Top

Chris Schuberth - August 29, 2004

The last posted entry on this page as of Sunday, 29 August, is my posting as of 24 August.  In that posting, I made several recommendations as to how to continue to move forward.  The next SEG meeting is around the corner, and I would like to know what other involved participants in this process are thinking as to what to do on 14 September when SEG meets.  Please, let's keep talking and stay engaged.

Cheers

Judy Jennings - August 30, 2004

I assume the OGC is still planning to meet Thursday, Sept. 2 at 1PM.  I further assume that everyone has followed this discussion enough to be able to make recommendations to the SEG.  Is that correct?

Chris Schuberth - August 30, 2004

Thursday, 2 September, is in two days!!!!!!!!!  Thanks for the reminder Judy.  Is this date and time hard and fast???????  Where is the meeting to be held????????  At Lockwood Greene as offered??????  Help!!!  Need  confirming information!!!!!!!

Top

Teri Leffek - August 31, 2004

Everyone:
Just a reminder that we have an Operating Guidelines meeting scheduled this Thursday at 1:00 PM at the offices of Lockwood Greene.  Larry Keegan has directions and a map to their offices if you need that information.  Also, I unfortunately do not have our minutes finalized yet as I am awaiting further input from one of our committee members.  Maybe we can finalize the minutes at the next meeting.

I am not planning on distributing an agenda as I think we have enough with continuing our discussion.  However, if there are other items committee members want to discuss, please let me know.
See you Thursday.
 
Teri Leffek

Top

Larry Keegan - August 31, 2004

Directions to the LGE office are available here. Please park and enter via the front door. The receptionist will contact me or direct you to the conference room.

Larry Keegan - September 7, 2004
At the  September 2, 2004 meeting, I promised to color code the WBS chart to indicate status. I'm planning on assigned a fill color to each box to indicate:
Are there any other thoughts for status color coding that would be helpful? If so, please send me an email with your suggestions. Thanks.