Per your request, I have reviewed SEG actions to date and provide the following progress report for presentation to the SEG.
1. Formation of the SEG. The SEG has reached consensus on a document of Operating Guidelines which all members have agreed to follow. A draft document was provided at the first meeting of the SEG in January 1999. Over a period of several months, every element of the document was discussed at length and ultimately a committee was formed to complete the details. The committee reported back to the SEG at the May 1999 meeting and the guidelines were adopted and agreed to at the May 1999 meeting. The document is characterized as a "living document" in that it is flexible subject to change as necessary. The document includes a consensus agreement on the following points:
a. A description of the mission.
b. Nine specific principles on which to base the activities of the SEG.
c. Deliverables.
d. Definition of the term consensus.
e. Use of committees to assist the SEG.
f. Definition of the term mitigation.
g. A list of issues to be addressed.
2. Participation. Broad participation has been achieved. A list of participating groups and individuals is available on the SEG web site, www.sysconn.com/harbor.
3. Scientific studies. Scientific studies are on schedule. The SEG reached consensus on all scientific studies necessary to be done at this time. All recommended field data collection for model development is complete and data are being analyzed. Data collection studies include:
a. Salinity
b. Dissolved oxygen
c. Chlorides
Studies are approved and underway for shortnose sturgeon impacts and recovery potential. Striped bass studies are being developed at the committee level and are expected to be recommended to the SEG soon. The next step is to develop the model required to predict the potential impacts. Model development task statements have been approved by the SEG. These include:
a. Hydrodynamic/salinity
b. Dissolved oxygen
c. Chlorides
The net effect is that all scientific studies and SEG consensus agreements required for the Tier II EIS to be reached at this time have been reached.
4. Functioning of the SEG. The SEG has served a valuable function in allowing issues to be brought to the table and resolved in a collaborative manner. A list of "concerns" raised at the first several SEG meetings is attached. Examination of the list indicates every one has been addressed and resolved.
5. Issues to be addressed. Also at the first and second meetings of the SEG, a list of issues to be addressed by the SEG was developed. The list has been amended several times. Each of the issues is under active consideration either by a committee of the SEG or an ad hoc group, or is on the matrix of issues to be addressed and will be addressed at the appropriate time during the Tier II EIS process. We are not aware of any issues of concern to SEG members that are not on the agenda of the SEG.
6. Specific committees formed:
a. Modeling Technical Review Group – is dealing with the technical aspects of field data collection and model development to lead to a consensus model, operation of the model and description of results.
b. Beach Erosion Committee – developed to address impacts of the channel deepening project and provide a forum to address broader questions of beach impacts from previous dredging.
c. Operating Guidelines Committee – developed the Operating Guidelines and meets as needed to revise and update the guidelines.
d. Communication Committee – developed standards for information flow, records keeping, and meeting agendas.
e. Economic Working Group – is addressing various economics issues relevant to determination of an economically justified plan.
f. Striped Bass Committee – is examining the status and recovery opportunities for striped bass in the river and is coordinating with the current Corps of Engineers – Georgia DNR Striped Bass recovery effort to ensure the channel deepening does not adversely affect the recovery efforts and to enhance those efforts through potential synergy between the two projects.
g. Fisheries Committee – has been establish to provide a broad overview perspective on all fisheries concerns and will deal with individual issues as they arise. This committee also has the great potential for generating a longer-term perspective leading to estuary fishery improvement efforts to continue even after this project is completed.
h. Dredging and Disposal Committee – has been established to ensure an evaluation of the impacts of disposal and a long-term plan for disposal activities.
7. Some SEG members have commented that the SEG is the first comprehensive and coherent study of the estuary, bringing all stakeholders together to address many issues which are related, but which have not had a forum to address in any comprehensive way.
8. Examples of effectiveness of the SEG to address and deal with issues.
a. Adequately addressed. Some SEG members were concerned about statements in the Feasibility Report and Tier I EIS that certain issues had been "adequately addressed." The SEG provided the opportunity for open discussion of these concerns. GPA provided a comprehensive list of issues addressed in the Feasibility Report and Tier I EIS along with citations of where in the documents each issue was addressed. GPA asked SEG members to raise other issues or to further discuss any of the issues cited. No requests for additional issues or further discussion of issues cited were received.
b. GPA decision criteria. In response to questions from members, the SEG provided a forum for GPA to address how GPA would determine how each of the issues raised would be treated in the Tier II EIS. GPA made a presentation of a decision framework which was very well received and, hopefully, cleared up uncertainties about the process of preparing a Tier II EIS.
c. Potential project effects on specific areas of concern. The SEG has provided a forum to raise, address, and resolve issues which may not be of concern to a broad range of interests. For example, property owners in South Carolina are concerned about erosion of their property. While the SEG may not deal with the issue directly, the issue was raised to the SEG and the interested parties were able to develop a process to address the issue outside the activities of the SEG.
Attachment to Progress Report; List of "concerns" raised at the first SEG meeting.
Definition of consensus
Who holds the "kill switch"
Selection of facilitator
Organizational structure, use of committees
Deliverables
Voting, recording of votes, degree of consensus
Who represents the SEG publicly
SEG Process
Draft scopes of work for field studies
Tiering process
Identification of issues
Scientific data gathering
Should GPA seek authorization at this time
Agenda setting
Communications
Membership
Scope of the SEG
Mission
Clarify the role of GPA