Review Comments

Comments on Review Plans

This page is established as agreed to in the Operating Guidelines Committee during the meeting of May 1, 2003. This page is intended for committee members to share and exchange their ideas and views about the "Type of Review" table provided by the Savannah District.. 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.

From Teri Leffek on 5/19/03:

I think it is apparent from the email traffic last week that we will not have a meeting this week to continue our previous discussion. However, so as to not lose time, I want everyone to comment on what the Corps is proposing (the document Doug distributed at our last meeting) and send these comments to Doug and Larry by the middle of this week (May 21st). Then, I would appreciate it if Doug or Larry would put these comments in electronic format which could be distributed to all committee members for review. It would be ideal if these comments could be distributed by the end of this or the beginning of next week.

I want all committee members to respond so that we cover all bases and make sure no one's comments are not received. If you are happy with the document, just please say so. Again, if you are not happy, we need substantive suggestions rather than just criticism.

I look forward to reading everyone's comments soon and appreciate everyone's input.

Teri Leffek

_____________________________________________

The review as provided in "Tier II EIS GRR Technical Reviews" is fine with me. I hope that as certain elements currently listed as "TBD" as finalized, this information will be communicated to interested parties to ensure they are comfortable with the determination. Thanks.

Teri Leffek

From Donny Browning on 5/20/03:

After listening to the discussions and reviewing the draft Tier II EIS GRR Technical Reviews, I agree with others that non-governmental reviews could be beneficial. However, one thing that I don't think has been discussed in the committee meetings is whether the draft Technical Reviews document follows a standard policy of the Corps. In essence, are we (the committee) asking the Corps to go above and beyond standard policy by asking for non-governmental reviews? I know the Corps has been crtiicised by NAS, but has the review policy changed? If we do decide that our recommendation to the SEG is for non-governmental reviews, who are we asking to cover the costs?

One suggestion is that the yet unnamed reviewers (TBD) be decided as soon as possible.

Donny

From Doug Plachy on 5/20/03:

Thanks for your reply Donny,

I'll try to answer your questions below. If it is not clear, please let me know.

/dHP/

-----Original Message----- From: Donny_Browning@fws.gov [mailto:Donny_Browning@fws.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:37 AM To: Keegan, Larry (LGE-SV); Douglas.H.Plachy@sas02.usace.army.mil Cc: teril@stevensship.com Subject: RE: plan of action

Larry/Doug,

A: Yes, what is currently planned follows current policy and also the additional requirements from the Project Guidance Memorandum that resulted from the meeting in August.

In essence, are we (the committee) asking the Corps to go above and beyond standard policy by asking for non-governmental reviews?

A: Yes; however we are already doing much more review than what is standard policy.

I know the Corps has been crtiicised by NAS, but has the review policy changed?

A: No; I know that there are some things being looked at, but nothing has been received to date.

If we do decide that our recommendation to the SEG is for non-governmental reviews, who are we asking to cover the costs?

A: The Federal Government

One suggestion is that the yet unnamed reviewers (TBD) be decided as soon as possible.

A: Agree, however I'm waiting on guidance from the Institute for Water Resources on the Economics Reviews. The Aquifer reviewers will probably be identified later this summer.

Donny

From Chris Schuberth on 6/16/2003

Hi Fellow Travelers on this Great Adventure,

I am not sure ". . . what comments are to be submitted to Larry Keegan in order to move along this process of ". . . . sufficient external review for the harbor deepening."

I had already e-mailed to following statement on 5 May to Larry, with copy to Doug, Will, Judy, and Teri. Is that what is being asked? Have I followed protocol? Is there any other statement that needs to be expressed? Pls let me know. Btw. I'll be off campus 8 July to early August. So, if any meetings are to be arranged, it would be appreciated between now and then. Also, I beging teaching at 2:00 pm, so an 11:00 am start time would be helpful. Just some comments to help with planning.
======================
Pls be advised that I am currently compiling a list of three groups of "Independent Peer (Technical) Reviewers" in the context of our discussion at the OGC meeting on 1 May. The three studies or recommendations that I'm referencing for which alternative "peer reviewers" are being recommended are: (1) Hydrodynamic and Salinity Model, (2) Beach Erosion Study, and (3) Aquifer Effects Evaluation. I do not feel appropriately qualified to consider recommendations for the other six studies and will leave those recommendations in the hands of my associates.

Also be aware that the Spring Semester has drawn to a close, and many of my colleagues and researchers will be carrying out independent studies, vacations, field trips, or leaves of absence away from their home campuses, including myself. But I will work diligently to achieve the objective in a reasonably short time.

=======================

Cheers, Chris