Economic Working Group(EWG) of the SEG met on Friday, May 4, 2001 @ 11am/US Corps of Engineers Building in Savannah, GA.
Meeting was called to order @ 11:15am by Judy Jennings. EWG members present agreed that minutes of the meeting would be taken by Mr. Shelby. It was also agreed upon, by the members present, that the meeting would adjourn by 2pm. Agenda items for this meeting were placed in order for discussion by agreement of members present. Order was as follows:
Discussion of the selection of the design vessel included topics of length/beam; selection of base year; and timing of the selection of design vessel. There was consensus that the selection of the design vessel would be made in accordance with updated fleet and trade projections.
Tom Wright presented the EWG with a document that could be included with the letter to the agencies. This document is titled "Evaluation of Potential Impacts on Economic Valuation". Consensus was reached and the revised document will be enclosed with the letter. Discussion of the EWG's letter to the agencies included the topics of whether or not to reference the Tier 1 EIS, how mitigation will be referenced, and the addition of the phrase "latest data available." (Click here to read the document)
The following two sentences were also added to the EWG's letter to the agencies: (1) "Please inform us of your preferred methodology for assigning a value to potential project impacts on natural resources within your responsibility. "(2) " Identify anyone else in your agency who has information that would be useful with your purposed methodology."It was also agreed upon by the members that it would be helpful for the agencies to voice all concerns on how valuation of natural resources can be accomplished.
Four points were addressed to EWG from Mr. John Robinette and each was discussed. There was significant discussion of "Should GPA try to exist with smaller draft vessels" . Consensus of EWG was that input to the resolution of this question will come from the final completion of fleet projections.
Other items will be taken back to the agencies and discussed at length if meetings ensue from a response to EWG letter.
Click here to read the letter.
Consensus was reached by EWG to utilize flow chart, drafted by Larry Keegan, as structure to process and/or general guidelines.
Morgan Rees stated that his research assistant has produced approximately 100 pieces of data to date. EWG agreed that Mr. Rees will begin synthesis of data. Review of this synthesis report along with entire amount of data will begin with EWG meeting in July 2001. Mr. Rees's assistant will attend that meeting to help EWG review her research. It will more than likely take several meetings to finish this process.
Consensus was reached by EWG to table this until agency letter had been sent.
Tentative schedule of next EWG meeting is Monday, July 9, 2001 @ 1pm .Meeting was adjourned @ 2:15pm .Respectfully Submitted for Review,John T. Shelby, LWV of Sav/Chatham
Here's a step-by-step process to sort through issues and decide if they should be included in the economic evaluation. .It's important that the issue sponsor has the responsibility to define the issue. It's important to include the other working groups in the process, both to benefit from their experience and to get an initial evaluation of mitigation. It's also important to have a data form, filled out and saved to document the process.
Tom Wright w(912)429-3350 h(912)897-1582
Following data provided by person or agency identifying issue
Following data provided by EWG
Following data provided by Sub-Committee
Following action taken by EWG
Click here to return to the meeting report.
Judy,
If you could bring up a few points for us at the next economics working group meeting it would be greatly appreciated.
1. In the fleet projections table that you handed out at the March SEG meeting ships drafting 42 feet or less are projected to grow by 2,184 vessels from the years 2000 through 2030, and vessels drafting 43 to over 46 feet will grow by 397 vessels during the same period. Why can't GPA continue to operate an economically healthy port by recruiting business from these smaller draft ships, especially considering the growth of the smaller draft ships is over 5.5 times greater than the growth of deeper draft ships?
2. We need information on the economic contribution of sport and commercial fishing in Georgia and South Carolina. The health of these fisheries are directly related to the health of our estuaries. Projects that change the natural function of the estuary systems, such as harbor modifications, should consider impacts to the fisheries resources. These can be high dollar impacts. For example, during the efforts to document the impacts of the tide gate operations, Georgia DNR sighted a creel survey that documented that reservoir fishermen spent 200 million dollars annually, and that half of those fishermen were pursuing striped bass and striped bass white bass hybrids. The brood stock to sustain the striped bass fisheries in these reservoir came from the Savannah River. Thus, the striped bass fishery within the Savannah River was worth 100 million annually, not including what was spent by striped bass fishermen on the Savannah River.
3. The economic impacts from the restoration of commercial and sport fisheries for striped bass, shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon and shellfish should also be quantified.
4. Economic diversity should be as important, if not more important, to the economic stability of our coastal communities. Maintaining economic diversity should carry as much weight as potential dollars generated from port expansion. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge and the Savannah River estuary provide numerous outdoor recreational and environmental educational opportunities. This generates dollars and contributes significantly to the economic base, diversity and stability of our area. Negative impacts to these environments have negative impacts to the economy, especially the economic diversity.
Thanks,
John
Click here to return to the meeting report.