Verbal presentation to the Stakeholders Evaluation Group

By: Georgia Ports Authority

Subject: Shortnose Sturgeon

At the August 3, 1999, meeting of the SEG, several members raised concerns about a statement in GPAs supplemental report to the Assistant Secretary of the Army. The statement in question is, "There is no indication of shortnose sturgeon currently existing in the Savannah River."

A full report of the evaluation of the discussion of shortnose sturgeon in the Feasibility Report and the Environmental Impact Statement is provided for SEG review and consideration. The conclusion of the evaluation is:

GPA disclosed and fully considered all information available about the shortnose sturgeon,

GPA is aware of the existence of shortnose sturgeon habitat in the Savannah River,

GPA is aware that shortnose sturgeon juveniles existed in the Kings Island Turning Basin in 1993,

significant changes have occurred in the river since 1993,

-tide gate was decommissioned

-New Cut was closed

-the channel was dredged from 38 feet to 42 feet

there is no information subsequent to January 1993 to indicate whether or not shortnose sturgeon continue to exist in the project area,

GPA has made an unequivocal commitment to a full, open, and objective evaluation of the shortnose sturgeon (and all other unresolved issues) in a Tier II EIS and through the SEG process and to provide mitigation for any potential impacts.

Concerns expressed during the August 3, 1999, SEG meeting (The entire portion of the August SEG minutes addressing thbis question are attached as part of this report.):

1. Mr. Brewton: "…I would respectfully state to you (Morgan Rees) and to anybody here that if the head official of GPA is making a flat unqualified statement that there are no sturgeon in the Savannah River…"

The statement is not "flat unqualified". The statement is qualified in several ways.

-It is significantly qualified by the remainder of the paragraph in which it appears. The full text of the paragraph is contained in the full report submitted to the SEG.

-It is qualified by virtue of the statement being in response to a Corps of Engineers question regarding how GPA intends to deal with mitigation, not whether shortnose sturgeon exist or not. The context of the answer to the question about mitigation is that even though there is no scientific evidence since January 1993 that shortnose sturgeon exist in the project area, nevertheless, GPA is committed to thorough scientific studies to see if they do exist and to provide mitigation for any potential impacts.

2. Mr. Brewton: "It concerns me what it means to the credibility of the study, yes, because the study is being done by the GPA contractors and GPA personnel.

The study was designed by and is being conducted by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. The principal investigator is Dr. Mark Collins, widely recognized as the foremost expert on shortnose sturgeon in the region. GPA is funding the study, but is otherwise at arms length from the study design and implementation.

3. Mr. Brewton: "…a flat unqualified statement ….calls into question the credibility and integrity and the ultimate validity of the study."

As already noted, the statement in question is not flat nor is it unqualified. GPA understands the concern to be for the credibility, integrity, and validity of the study and not of GPA or any individuals associated with GPA or this project. (Emphasis added.) Thus, if the concerns raised are unfounded, as they appear to be, then GPA concludes that as long as the statement is sufficiently qualified, as it is, and the study is conducted by appropriate qualified scientists, as is being done, there is no impediment to the process.

4. Mr. Brewton: "…is somebody going to notify Secretary Westphal from GPA that the original submission was inaccurate.

The GPA report to the SEG confirms that the statement was not inaccurate but might have been more clearly articulated. Nevertheless, GPA will furnish a copy of this report to the staffs of the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary for clarification of the issue inasmuch as it was raised by members of the SEG and is referred to by the Southern Environmental Law Center in a recent letter to Secretary Westphal.

Report to the Stakeholders Evaluation Group

From: Georgia Ports Authority

Subject: Shortnose Sturgeon

At the August 3, 1999, meeting of the SEG, concerns were raised that GPA may have erred in addressing the shortnose sturgeon in its supplemental report to the Secretary of the Army dated June 9, 1999. The statement in question, taken out of context is, "There is no indication of shortnose sturgeon currently existing in the Savannah River." This is the first sentence of a paragraph which, in context, says in full, "There is no indication of shortnose sturgeon currently existing in the Savannah River. However, there is some historic information that some shortnose sturgeon did reside in the Kings Island Turning Basin at one time. It is believed, but not certain, that the attraction was the depth of 50 feet or greater resulting from advanced maintenance dredging practices of the Corps of Engineers. While there is no indication whether the sturgeon remain in the estuary at this time, additional study will be conducted during the design phase to make that determination. To ensure sufficient funding is available for mitigation should shortnose sturgeon be found, provision has been made to deepen a nearby area to a similar depth as the Kings Island Turning Basin is currently. This is expected to provide alternate habitat for any shortnose sturgeon in the area."

Noting that the purpose of the supplemental report was clearly stated, "…to clarify the August 16, 1998 report…" and not to supercede it in any way, it is helpful to examine what the August 16, 1998 report says about this issue.

Attached are 24 quotes from the Feasibility Report and the Environmental Impact Statement which are consistent with the statement in question and support the conclusions that:

GPA disclosed and fully considered all information available about the shortnose sturgeon,

GPA is aware of the existence of shortnose sturgeon habitat in the Savannah River,

GPA is aware that shortnose sturgeon juveniles existed in the Kings Island Turning basin in 1993,

significant changes have occurred in the river since 1993,

-tide gate was decommissioned

-New Cut was closed

-the channel was dredged from 38 feet to 42 feet

there is no information subsequent to January 1993 to indicate whether or not shortnose sturgeon continue to exist in the project area,

GPA has made an unequivocal commitment to a full, open, and objective evaluation of the shortnose sturgeon (and all other unresolved issues) in a Tier II EIS and through the SEG process and to provide mitigation for any potential impacts.

First, the report to which the statement in question is supplemental states, "This report is the result of an unusual process and approach to a channel deepening study, but one which Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) believes serves the interests of the project proponents while retaining full protection for the interests of other resource uses for the Savannah River estuary." (Emphasis added.) (Overview, Page 1). The statement under discussion was made in response to a question from the Corps of Engineers concerning incremental costs of mitigation. The question from the Corps was based on GPA having used a worst-case assumption in the Feasibility Report that mitigation costs would be the maximum for all channel depth increments. The Corps pointed out, correctly, that in the final analysis, specific incremental costs must be estimated in order to determine the National Economic Development (NED) Plan, i. e., the plan in which the federal government would share the costs. The Corps requested information on GPAs plan to provide the incremental cost information. In response and in that context, GPAs answer was intended to demonstrate that although the existence of shortnose sturgeon in the project area is unknown at this time, nevertheless, GPA is committed to conduct the necessary studies to determine the extent of their existence and to provide appropriate mitigation. The response further shows that the calculation of the NED plan is not affected even if no mitigation is required at one increment of depth and full mitigation is required at the next increment. Thus, it can be concluded that providing mitigation for the SNS would not affect the ultimate calculation of the NED Plan.

In addition, examination of the discussion at the August 3, 1999 SEG meeting may help to put the issue in perspective.

The following quotes are from the August 3, 1999 SEG meeting summary. The full text of the portion of the meeting addressing this question is attached.

Prescott Brownell, NMFS: "There are definitely shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River. We don’t know how many. We don’t know all the areas that are important to them at this point."

Priscilla Wendt, SCDNR: "As far as I know about sturgeon and this portion of the Savannah River is that they – at least prior to the last deepening project, they did occur in the vicinity of the Kings Island Turning Basin. That was served (sic) to be a very important habitat for them. I think the issue is that was prior to the last deepening project. We don’t really know what their status is in that vicinity right now."

Bill Farmer, City of Tybee Island: "So I think the letter is fair and it is to clarify what Morgan says Tier I report. Indicates that the Tier I report says there was sturgeon there whatever. However, it also says this issue will be studied. And that is what is going to happen. So I don’t see the big issue here. Let’s go on."

Priscilla Wendt, SCDNR: I am not really familiar with the letter, but just taken out of context, that one sentence sounds like it might be a little bit biased. But it sounds like there are enough qualifiers following that, that explain that statement." And, "So it is probably most accurate to say that we just do not know whether the sturgeon occur in the vicinity where they have been previously documented."

Teri Leffek, Stevens Shipping: "The Tier I was inadequate." …, "Let’s do a better job the second time around."…, "But it is time to move forward. The bridge is the Tier II EIS."

Bob Scanlon, Manufacturers Council. "…the business community is in complete agreement…"

It seems also relevant to note that the fundamental basis for the concern on this issue may well have been the result of a misinterpretation of the statement in question and a misunderstanding of the studies to be conducted to address the issue.

Again, from the summary of the August 3, 1999, SEG meeting.

Ben Brewton, CEO: "…I would respectfully state to you (Morgan Rees) and to anybody else here that if the head official of GPA is making a flat unqualified statement that there are no sturgeon in the Savannah River…" (Emphasis added). The statement in question was not "flat unqualified" and does not state there are no shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River. In its entirety, it states, "There is no indication of shortnose sturgeon currently existing in the Savannah River. However, there is some historic information that some shortnose sturgeon did reside in the Kings Island Turning Basin at one time. It is believed, but not certain, that the attraction was the depth of 50 feet or greater resulting from advanced maintenance dredging practices of the Corps of Engineers. While there is no indication whether the sturgeon remain in the estuary at this time, additional study will be conducted during the design phase to make that determination. To ensure sufficient funding is available for mitigation should shortnose sturgeon be found, provision has been made to deepen a nearby area to a similar depth as the Kings Island Turning Basin is currently. This is expected to provide alternate habitat for any shortnose sturgeon in the area."

GPA noted at the SEG meeting that the statement might have said "…in the Savannah River channel." rather than, "…in the Savannah River." With that clarification, the clear and incontrovertible meaning of this statement taken in its entirety with the edit suggested at the SEG meeting is that the GPA analysis is accurate and that GPA is unequivocally committed to search for and define the extent of existence of shortnose sturgeon and its habitat and to address and mitigate the potential impacts. Having said all that, it is equally incontrovertible that federal law, the Endangered Species Act, requires that the project must protect the shortnose sturgeon and its habitat, otherwise it cannot be built. Period.

Ben Brewton, CEO: "It concerns me what it means to the credibility of the study, yes, because the study is primarily being done by GPA contractors and GPA personnel." The study was designed by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and is being conducted by them with funds provided by GPA. GPA is at arms length to the substance and conduct of the study.

Summarizing this analysis:

The net result of this evaluation is that GPA did disclose all relevant and available data on the shortnose sturgeon. The sentence in question might have been better said and might have been limited to the project area, although all the experts agree no information is available to establish whether or not shortnose sturgeon are currently using the project area. But even if one assumes the sentence was misleading, it does not change the context or meaning of the report and recommendation. The critical factor in the decision framework with respect to project feasibility is the recognized need for and commitment to developing further information in a Tier II EIS. Because of the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the NEPA process and the functioning of the SEG, the Tier II EIS will not be influenced in any way by what was or was not said in the Tier I EIS or in the GPA Feasibility Report and supplementary information. It is clear from SEG deliberations that the agencies responsible for the shortnose sturgeon have not been mislead by the statement and by virtue of furnishing a copy of this report to the Corps of Engineers headquarters staff and the staff of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, those offices are fully informed of the SEG concerns.

Quotes from the Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Shortnose Sturgeon.

1. Overview, Page 2. "Issues addressed in the Tier I DEIS, which will be addressed further in the Tier II EIS, include…. effects of changes in dissolved oxygen content on shortnose sturgeon."

2. Enclosure a. to the Overview, a letter from Department of Commerce, NMFS, the federal agency responsible under the Endangered Species Act for the shortnose sturgeon, in a comment on formation of the SEG, "Revise the second paragraph, first sentence to read: The scientific analyses will be developed by a stakeholders evaluation group comprised of interested parties and will be designed to determine whether and to what extent to modify the mitigation plan to avoid, minimize, and compensate for changes in salinity and oxygen and associated impacts….on living marine resources including shortnose sturgeon…" GPA agreed to this change and it is incorporated in the charter of the SEG.

3. Page 10 and 11. Paragraph 3.4. Impacts of the Recommended Plan. "Preliminary data indicated six areas that might be affected by implementation of a harbor expansion project:….

‘Changes in shortnose sturgeon nursery habitat."

4. Page 11. Paragraph 3.5. Preliminary Mitigation and Impact Avoidance Plans. ….

"3) Dredging of Port Wentworth Turning Basin by 8 feet to improve habitat for shortnose sturgeon and the conduct of a study of shortnose sturgeon behavior."

5. Page 40. Paragraph 6.3.3 Environmental Impacts. "…the states of Georgia and South Carolina are concerned about the habitat and spawning of striped bass and shortnose sturgeon."

6. Page 73. "The decrease in dissolved oxygen levels within the Kings Island Turning Basin may affect the juvenile shortnose sturgeon and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement recommended a 3-year study that would monitor the recruitment of juveniles."

7. Page 92, Figure 9-3, Recommended Plan, Environmental and Cultural Impacts. "Periodic lower dissolved oxygen at currently believed shortnose sturgeon nursery area. (Shortnose sturgeon life cycle in the Savannah River is not definitely understood.)"

8. Page 93. Paragraph 9.3.3 Natural Resources Mitigation Plan. "Deepening Port Wentworth Turning Basin prior to project construction, and conduct of a multi-year study of sturgeon behavior in the estuary."

9. Page 113. Paragraph 11.1.6.2. Natural Resources Advisory Group (NRAG). "The NRAG was assembled to provide emphasis and expert assistance…on resources of importance and mitigation alternatives. NRAG provided data sources…in relation to…shortnose sturgeon…"

10. Pages 113 and 114. Paragraph 11.2. Review of Feasibility Report and Tier I EIS. This paragraph provides great detail about the interagency review and coordination of issues, including the shortnose sturgeon prior to preparing the draft EIS and Feasibility Report.

11. Page 129. Paragraph 16.1. Provision for the Tier I EIS, ROD and Report of the Chief of Engineers. This section makes it abundantly clear that the Tier II process will, "…through appropriate scientific analysis, identify the depth which results in an acceptable level of environmental impacts, and then identifies mitigation necessary to avoid, minimize, or compensate for those impacts." And, "If channel deepening is environmental(ly) (sic) feasible, the SEG will recommend whether and to what extent to modify the mitigation plan to fully address…the endangered shortnose sturgeon…"

12. Page 11. "The proposed project will take steps to avoid, through mitigation, DO decreases that might cause adverse impacts to shortnose sturgeon…" and, "The project will also include a study of the population dynamics of the shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River;", and, "The EIS presents a habitat extension plan for the shortnose sturgeon…"

13. Page 15. "A study of previous reports and discussions…served to identify 9 major issues of concern. These issues are …. (5) shortnose sturgeon (an endangered species)…"

14. Page 20. Paragraph 2.4.5 Shortnose Sturgeon. "KITB (sic Kings Island Turning Basin), an area that has been identified as a habitat for juvenile fish." And "The lowering of DO is a concern because juvenile populations that remain in the lower Savannah River during the summer months are already subjected to stressful, high temperature and low DO conditions."

15. Page 75. Paragraph 4.2.4 Present Dissolved Oxygen Conditions. This is a lengthy discussion of dissolved oxygen, which gives special attention to DO in the KITB. While not specifically stated, the reason is to ensure proper information about the shortnose sturgeon habitat.

16. Page 85. Paragraph 4.8. Fisheries. The State of Georgia conducted a five-year study from 1980 to 1985 and found no sturgeon. The EIS states, "Though neither species was encountered during the sampling by the state, both Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon are known to inhabit the Savannah River estuary. In fact, shortnose sturgeon fingerlings are periodically released into the system by the SC DNR."

17. Page 98. Paragraph 4.9.3 Threatened and Endangered Species. This section presents a listing of threatened and endangered species, including the shortnose sturgeon, "…potentially occurring in the project area."

18. Pages 105-107 presents a detailed discussion of the shortnose sturgeon including habitat conditions and abundance of stocks. It indicates that shortnose sturgeon habitat exists from the upper reaches of the project area and farther upstream. It notes that stocks have been abundant in the past, but have declined dramatically. The latest information available is from 1991 (sic. 1993.) and the specific conclusion in the EIS is that, "A major weakness…is the absence of…specific baseline data on the shortnose sturgeon population in the Savannah River."

19. Page 109. In 1992, prior to substantial modifications to the channel and prior to decommissioning the tide gate, "The adult population in the Savannah River is thought to be between 300 to 3,000 fish. In 1989, the most statistically accurate method yielded an estimate of 1,003, while in 1990, the estimate was 655. (Kennedy, et. al., 1992)."

20. Page 176. Paragraph 5.3.2.3 Discussion of Results and DO Impacts. Potential DO impacts around the KITB are of special concern regarding the shortnose sturgeon. Therefore, supplemental data points were added to show the predicted bottom impacts across the KITB. A total of 5 supplemental points were added;…"

21. Pages 192-200. Paragraph 5.6.1 Impacts to Shortnose Sturgeon. This section presents a lengthy discussion on the potential impacts. It notes, "It is not known how extensively the channels and turning basins are used as feeding areas.", "…spawning and egg attachment occur at RM (sic river mile) 112 to 119 and from RM 172 to 174 (Hall et. al., 1991) an area well upstream of the project."

22. Page 197-199. Several other cites in this section indicate shortnose sturgeon could be found in the upper reaches of the channel. For example, "The KITB has been shown to be the location that has the highest population of juveniles," Nevertheless, the section concludes that, "Because of the potential impacts on the shortnose sturgeon and the lack of site specific information concerning this species, a study will be performed to monitor the behavior of sturgeon in areas affected by the deepening."

23. Page 200. "Currently, no reliable database of the SNS population in the Savannah River exists."

24. Page 45 of Enclosure H. EPA comment dated July 13, 1998. "Shortnose sturgeon were collected in the Savannah Harbor prior to the most recent harbor expansion activities. Fisheries biologists primarily collected juvenile sturgeon on the turning basin. However, there have not been any substantive surveys since 1991; this is before the latest completed harbor expansion and before the subject expansion was formulated."

25. Page 188 of Enclosure H. NMFS comment dated June 12, 1998. "…basic fishery resource information specific to the Savannah River system, on which to base evaluation of project effects on these species is lacking. What is known about life history, population dynamics, spatial and temporal distribution of life stages, and critical habitat use areas is based on only limited short-term studies. For example, the identification of important shortnose sturgeon habitat in the Kings Island Turning Basin is largely based on a limited study performed prior to the last deepening project and deactivation of the tide gate."

[Meeting resumed before tape was turned on) Shortnose sturgeon report]

P Brownell: (inaudible) … We do have a considerable amount of (inaudible) of shortnose sturgeon. (inaudible) All that has been favorably resolved as I understand it. Off and running.

Priscilla Wendt: That is pretty much my understanding. All the contractual problems have been worked out. The last I talked to Mark, he was in the process of interviewing field personnel.

Bo Ellis: He was hoping to be on the water around now. I haven’t heard that he is yet. He was well underway with hiring staff, ordering equipment.

B Dysart: Priscilla, Pres, Bo, appreciate that.

Rob Mikell: Sometime in the future, can we get a presentation on what he is actually doing? (inaudible)

B Dysart: I think next time that will be a great idea. The next time I request agenda items, why don’t you roll that in, and we will try to do a better job… I will try to do a better job matching things up. Sometimes things come in saying what about so and so. Nobody assumes responsibility to respond on that. If you will put it on me, I will make sure somebody is lined up to speak on that.

Bill Bailey: There is a task statement on the web site that describes what he is supposed to be doing.

R Mikell: I would still like to hear it so I could ask questions.

B Brewton: I have a question, I could defer this to the discussion of the Westphal/Marchand letter if we are going to get that far. If not, I would like to pose the question here. And that is - are there or are there not shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River?

B Dysart: To whom are you addressing that question?

B Brewton: I am addressing that question to anyone who might provide the answer.

B Dysart: Can anyone provide the answer?

P Brownell: There definitely are shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River. We don’t know how many. We don’t know all the areas that are important to them at this point.

B Brewton: I would call the group's attention - maybe if we get here we can discuss it later - to a statement made in a June 9 letter from Doug Marchand to the Corps of Engineers that says there is no evidence of shortnose sturgeon even existing in the Savannah River. But may be will …I guess we are making pretty good progress and we will get to the Westphal letter. So I will defer that until then.

M Rees: I would like to respond. The clarification, if you will, I will take responsibility for having written that particular piece of that particular letter. But the Tier I EIS indicates that there was no evidence of shortnose sturgeon in the channel area. That is the clarification. We were aware there were shortnose sturgeon in the river. We don’t have any evidence they are in the channel vicinity. Let me answer it fully. Because of the absence of knowledge of the shortnose sturgeon being in the channel area, what prompted us in the first place to agree to do whatever studies were necessary to find out what about the habitat, where are they, and how can we help to make sure they recover. There is no, I guess maybe I am being a little defensive, but I would infer from some of the comments that there might be a perception of an effort to downplay some of these issues. I assure this is not the case. In fact, I think if you look at the entire Tier I EIS and everything that has occurred subsequent to that, that there is a genuine active - and we hope more through - effort to deal with that issue with an open and scientific way.

P Wendt: As far as I know, what is known about sturgeon and this portion of the Savannah River is that they – at least prior to the last deepening project - they did occur in the vicinity of the Kings Island Turning Basin. That was served to be a very important habitat for them. I think the issue is that was prior to the last deepening project. We don’t really know what their status is in that vicinity right now.

M Rees: I think that the way we said it is we don’t have evidence that they are there. Again, I will take the responsibility for having characterized it probably imprecisely. But the fundamental bottom line is that we are looking to see if they are there, and we are going to make sure that whatever the project does, complies with whatever is required to comply with in terms of making sure that the sturgeon and its habitat are taken care of.

P Brownell: I think it is incumbent on the committees such as the fisheries committee to at certain times to identify areas in which it might be helpful to brief this entire group so they will have a full understanding of the issues being discussed. I haven’t really thought about that that much. But such things as a presentation, slide show, or something like that talking about sturgeon use of the Savannah River or something or maybe we will talk about this in the committee. Those will be the kind of things that perhaps at the right time we will bring back and may necessitate an afternoon session scheduled.

B Brewton: You are going to get us here all day aren’t you Press.

P Brownell: I’d rather not. That is something we will talk about on the committee. May have some reservation about that, certainly extra work, but it may help everyone understand.

B Brewton: I think that is an excellent idea. Morgan, I would just have one question and I will defer any other ones until later if we discuss that letter. Since you acknowledge that the statement in the letter is not correct as written …

M Rees: Imprecise.

B Brewton: Imprecise? Is that different than - Well anyway, we won’t belabor semantics of that. Has a corrective letter been sent to Sec. Westphal about Mr. Marchand’s noting the error in the letter?

M Rees: No, I just became aware of it recently. In fact, actually by virtue of getting a copy of the letter the SELC sent to Sec. Westphal.

B Brewton: Right. So will a corrective letter be sent acknowledging the mistake?

M Rees: I didn’t say it was a mistake. I am not sure that the Corps people to whom the letter from the SELC was addressed understood it the same way you understood it. I don’t know. If it is a problem, we will address it. But I haven’t heard from them that it is a problem.

B Brewton: My understanding was that the letter said… I read the letter and it said that there currently were well… It says there is no indication of any shortnose sturgeon currently existing in the Savannah River. Based on what you just said, I think it is obvious that (inaudible)

M Rees: I would edit the sentence to say channel. Just add channel before the period.

B Brewton: Okay. Anywhere in the Savannah River Channel is what you say corrects that. Is this statement, is somebody going to notify Sec. Westphal from GPA that the original submission was inaccurate?

M Rees: Ben [Brewton], I would like to point out two things. Number one, I just became aware of this, and we haven’t strategized what to do about it. Number two, I don’t know what this has to do with finding science. I mean we…no matter what that sentence says, we are not going to change the objective of complying fully with the Endangered Species Act and with examining what is in there and what is not in there.

B Brewton: Well, Morgan, I was trying to defer this discussion until later, but I mean I would respectfully state to you and to anybody else here that if the head official of GPA is making a flat unqualified statement that there are no sturgeon in the Savannah River and we are simultaneously embarking upon a study of the shortnose sturgeon but the top GPA official has already made a flat unqualified statement that none exist, that calls to me, it calls for me, it calls into question the credibility and integrity and the ultimate validity of the study. I just, it surprised me that with these studies just commencing that Mr. Marchand would make such a flat statement, that is not the only one in the letter. So therefore, since you somewhat qualified that statement, it would seem to be appropriate for that to be corrected to Sec. Westphal. That was my question. I don’t think it was unreasonable or inappropriate question. I think the SELC letter went out, oh, I don’t know what the date on it is. What is the date on it Neff.

N McIntosh: July 12

B Brewton: July 12.

B Dysart: The study, you said, calls into question the integrity and credibility of "the study." Which study, for the record, are you referring to?

B Brewton: I think that the fact that the top GPA official has made a – what’s that?

Male Voice: (inaudible)

B Brewton: Has made a statement in his supplemental information in support of the feasibility of deepening the Savannah Harbor attached to his June 9 response to Sec. Westphal. The fact that an outcome has already been flatly stated for the study prior to the study commencing …

B Dysart: Are you talking about a past study or about …

B Brewton: I am talking about the study that is being under the auspices of the SEG on the striped bass - sorry - shortnose sturgeon.

B Dysart: So this study you are referring to ...

B Brewton: Is to the proposed study.

B Dysart: (inaudible) integrity and credibility has been called into question that is being conducted by us?

B Brewton: By us, the SEG.

L Rogers: Ten minutes.

M Rees: Do these cards mean anything this week? Maybe I can clarify. The letter to which Ben [Brewton] is beating up on has nothing to do with the SEG. Absolutely nothing to do with the SEG. Was prepared prior to any of the SEG deliberations on the shortnose study. It has to do with questions that were raised by Corps Headquarters with respect to what was said in the Tier I EIS. Period. No more meaning than that. And I just expect much more is trying to be made of this issue than is there.

B Farmer: Is this discussion on the agenda?

B Dysart: This is under the shortnose sturgeon study.

B Farmer: Is the committee chairman reporting this somehow in his study?

B Dysart: I guess what I was trying to pursue was whether we were talking about the credibility and integrity of past studies, current studies, or future studies. I keep encouraging the group to focus on what the Congress has suggested is the mission of this body. Which is consistent to the Operating Guidelines that youall endorsed or prepared: identifying the impacts, the scope of the scientific studies, and then the adequacy. Now I think it is sometime seems premature to declare the results of science or studies to be dead on arrival, inadequate, failed, and so forth before the results come in. There is a time – this body has been asked by the Congress to evaluate the adequacy of the studies that were done. Perhaps it is premature, as I said, to declare the results quite this early. I keep going back to what appears to be the mission which is current and future as opposed to … Is there additional discussions or questions about the shortnose?

M Rees: Maybe I have said all that needs to be said, but the point is we continue to hear a theme of credibility being questioned. I would just like to point out that, in the holistic view of what is going on here, GPA has already agreed to adopt studies recommended by the SEG, studies that are underway that were developed by people other than GPA, and we are doing them. They will address the issue of the shortnose sturgeon. I am not sure that there is any connection between what is happening and what was said in a letter a couple of months ago that was misstated. I just don’t see the connection.

B Brewton: I will be happy to speak to the connect that Morgan asked for. Morgan, I submit this to you in an atmosphere of respect as well as cooperation here. However, since the group has decided to embark on a study and the committees have identified what needs to be done in that study, and the study has not even started or just barely starting, if at all, it concerns me …

B Dysart: Has it started? It has started. So we need not speculate.

B Brewton: It has started. The data collection has begun on that?

P Wendt: (inaudible) the fieldwork has begun.

B Brewton: The fieldwork has begun.

B Dysart: As reported.

B Brewton: That the chief executive officer for the Georgia Ports Authority would jump ahead and make a misstatement of fact, something that would be, you would not expect until you got to the point of drawing a conclusion for that study and use that statement to respond to Sec. Westphal’s letter and the report which assimilates quite a number of concerns that were previously provided. That concerns me. It concerns me what it means to the credibility of the study. Yes, because the study is primarily being done by GPA contractors and GPA personnel.

M Rees: Not so. Absolutely not so. The shortnose sturgeon is being done by South Carolina DNR. Designed by them. And they are doing it. That is why I don’t see the connection (inaudible).

B Brewton: Let me continue here …

M Rees: Let’s continue with facts.

B Brewton: Is any GPA contractor involved? Is it totally SC DNR?

P Wendt: Well, actually GPA is funding it.

M Rees: Well, we are.

B Brewton: GPA is funding it. I am not calling any person or agency - or anybody’s - credibility into question. I am calling the process that the fact that GPA who is paying for the study has already announced a statement of fact that there might be something that one would expect at the end of the study. That concerns me Morgan and if you can’t understand my concern, I don’t know how to say it any clearer.

M Rees: If that was the case, I could understand. But that is not the case. The case is that the statement to which you are referring to, as I said a minute ago, has nothing to do with the shortnose sturgeon and with what happens in the Tier II process. It was responding to a question.

B Brewton: It has nothing to with the shortnose sturgeon?

M Rees: Let me explain. …to the shortnose sturgeon study that is going on now. It has to do simply with responding to a question raised by Corps Headquarters with respect to statements in the Tier I EIS. To that extent, if you add the word "channel" to the end of that sentence, it would be correct. And we would stand by it. And I have apologized for forgetting to put the word "channel" in there.

B Brewton: Well I think it is a major error Morgan.

M Rees: Well, maybe it was. So I’m not perfect. Shoot me.

B Dysart: Let’s take a short break here. Judy, let’s hear some other people. And we can resume the back and forth.

J Jennings: I don’t know how much we can expect GPA to say. Frankly, (inaudible) your response in your letter to Westphal… your response was pathetic. Having said that, it is insignificant. Because the important thing especially to the EIS and subsequent studies is (inaudible) are there shortnose sturgeon. (inaudible)

P Wendt: Just a minor point, but isn’t the turning basin considered part of the channel? Because if it is, I mean there was evidence (inaudible)

M Rees: Prior, prior to the previous deepening.

P Wendt: Right.

M Rees: And the Tier I EIS goes through (inaudible). In 1991, prior to the previous deepening, there were shortnose sturgeon in the turning basin, and the report says that. Subsequent to that, there is no evidence that we have that there are shortnose sturgeon there. That is a true statement.

J Jennings: Whoa.

B Brewton: Say that again Morgan

J Jennings: Wait a minute. I was not a fan for verbatim until now. You can’t say that. You just can’t say that. Give me a break, guys. Don’t push the limits of credibility here. Do not push the limits of credibility.

Voices: (inaudible)

J Jennings: Got to be more (inaudible). Do not eat your words.

M Rees: The Tier I report indicates that there was no evidence in the channel of shortnose sturgeon.

J Jennings: I realize that is what your Tier I says, Morgan. That is why you are doing a Tier II.

M Rees: Exactly, exactly. And that is why I said to Ben [Brewton], the question was in response to a question raised on the Tier I EIS. It has to do with the Tier I EIS and nothing more. It has nothing to do with plan study. It has nothing to do with the Tier II EIS. It was responding to a question of something we had said in the Tier I EIS. (inaudible) in the Tier I EIS.

B Brewton: What was that based on Morgan? Was that based on a study?

M Rees: I don’t know actually.

B Brewton: If you make the statement, it must have been based on something.

B Ellis: The Tier I EIS (inaudible) in great detail. In fact, Mark Collins, who is pretty much the recognized expert in shortnose sturgeon in this area, gave us all the information, all the information about what he had from previous studies, what he knows from the last deepening until now. It is all characterized in the Tier I EIS.

L Rogers: 20 minutes.

B Ellis: The Tier I EIS is very explicit about where they have been found and what evidence they have. And that was a simple statement on trying to characterize several pages of write-up. Tier I is accurate. Mark Collins basically authored it. He is the one conducting the study now with the SC DNR. He is, by no means, being misled by GPA.

N McIntosh: To go back to Morgan’s incredulous response. What concerned us - I say us – there was a number of people who are reading the original questions from Westphal and awaited the responses from GPA – what struck us as odd and when you are reading this stuff you have to take it at face value – here it was – and we had already been to the SEG meetings for two months and we talked about the shortnose sturgeon study getting cranked up – at the same time the, and shortnose study was prior to the response letter from Marchand, from Doug, to have Doug to come out and say there is no shortnose sturgeon in the river seems like a huge incongruous statement given the fact that here we are working on trying to find them. So what it seems to us was, there is a curtain and GPA was responding to the Corps saying there are no shortnose sturgeon. While on the other side they are working with us, behind the scenes so to speak, looking for the shortnose sturgeon. So we would like to make a bridge over that.

J Jennings: The bridge is the Tier II. Can we just agree to that? The bridge is the Tier II.

M Rees: I don’t know what else to say.

J Jennings: The bridge is the Tier II. Right?

M Rees: Right

J Jennings: The bridge is the Tier II. Can we have consensus on that? The Westphal letter – Morgan you might educate us on Corps procedure. The Westphal letter and GPA’s response to it are soon to be a matter of "put it in the file".

M Rees: If Congress acts on WRDA and it gets passed, it is all overtaken by events. What is really going to happen to all the species involved, to whether this project goes forward or not, depends simply on the Tier II process. Anything that happened subsequent to that is not relevant.

J Jennings: However, everything that happens subsequent to that is very relevant.

M Rees: I’m sorry "prior" to that. I misspoke again.

J Jennings: Okay, prior is irrelevant, and I making that point for you. Subsequent is incredibility relevant. And it will be subject to the same NEPA process as everything else. Isn’t that correct? So any comments you make about shortnose sturgeon in the Tier II EIS will be subject to public comment, review, peer review, etc. All via (inaudible) the process.

M Rees: That is correct.

B Farmer: The letter that has been referred to here – there is some interesting further information in it that might clarify. First of all, in the very first paragraph of what Morgan indicated is accurate. It says the questions and answers provided herein clarify the August 16, 1998 report. (inaudible) the letter does. The second part that is very interesting is that although the paragraph entitled shortnose sturgeon starts out there is no indication of shortnose sturgeon currently existing in the Savannah River, there are five or more other sentences in the paragraph. The next one starts out "however" and it goes on - and I guess the key phrase is - "additional study will be conducted during the design phase to make that determination with regards to shortnose sturgeon." So I think the letter is fair, and it is to clarify what Morgan says Tier I report. Indicates that the Tier I report says there was sturgeon there whatever. However, there it also says this issue will be studied. And that is what is going to happen. So, I don’t see the big issue here. Let’s go on.

D Kyler: Don’t know if this is the perfect time in this meeting to try to address this or not. There was a deferred old business item that had to do with this letter. It was important enough to me that I prepared this note – 400-words or so statement about this. I think you can describe this as tough love or something between us who have problems with this kind of statements and GPA. I think it is in the interest of the process that we are trying to conduct here and the organization of GPA that they become far more sensitive than they are now about the credibility issues that (inaudible) about other things they are trying to sponsor to get accountability (inaudible) report. I would be glad to read this or have it later in a discussion today. But there are some obvious implications about the sincerity and objectivity of the process when contradicting statements are made in any form, in relationship to any question. Regardless to whether they are referring to a previous effort or not, they should be informed by the (inaudible) of the writers at the time the response was made. Some of these comments seem to be at odds with the work of this group here.

B Brewton: Why don’t you go ahead and pass those out. I would like to see it.

D Kyler: I just have a few copies. If you would, I could have more run.

P Wendt: I am not really familiar with the letter, but just taken out context, that one sentence sounds like it might be a little biased. But it sounds like there are sufficient enough qualifiers following that, that explains that statement. I would just like to say that we would probably be just as accurate to say that there is no evidence that they currently do not exist. The point is we just don’t know. And that is the whole (inaudible) study. We just haven’t done any research since the last deepening project. So it is probably most accurate to say that we just do not know whether the sturgeon occur in the vicinity where they have previously been documented.

B Dysart: And that the studies are being done.

P McIntosh: How are GPA’s responses to the Westphal letter used by Congress to grant or not grant authorization of this project?

M Rees: As a matter of process, I don’t believe they are used by Congress other than members themselves are aware of them. They have seen…the Corps will use it in their determination of what to recommend to Congress.

B Brewton: One quick follow up to that. This goes to the core of my concern - no pun intended - about the other Corps. But if this is the information that is being used by Sec. Westphal and the Corps of Engineers, I think it is incumbent upon us all to see that it is as accurate as possible. If there are errors in there, then those need to be corrected. I totally appreciate and concur what Priscilla said – if the answer is we don’t know, then that is what we ought to be saying. We don’t know – we are going to conduct a study to find out. But to have an introductory sentence to that paragraph that makes a flat out statement and is apparently questionable about even when you add the channel, if depending on whether the turning basin is or isn’t in there, concerns me greatly. There’s another similar statement about striped bass that says that deepenings have had no effect on the striped bass population or something to that effort. But anyway, maybe we will get to that agenda item in a minute.

B Dysart (?????): If you want that sentence about the striped bass?

B Brewton: Yeah. It says while there is no indication of any direct impact to the striped bass populations from channel deepening…then it goes on to say Ga. DNR is concerned with deepening (inaudible) bla, bla, could interfere with efforts to restore striped bass. But that first phrase – there is no indication of any direct impact to striped bass populations from channel deepening. And then another statement says no information is available on the cause of the declining populations. I questioned some Ga. DNR people about this, and they tell me that these statements just are not correct. Again, I think it is the same sort of statement that in this letter to Sec. Westphal we are saying there’s no problem, there is no indication. Yet concurrently we supposed to be embarking upon the research to answer these questions. I just think it is inappropriate. I think it needs to be corrected. Again I will use the word credibility. It concerns me that we are simultaneously all here agreeing to study something and find out the answers. Yet, on the other side of the curtain as Neff described, letters are being sent that speak these things as if they were concluded facts. Thank you.

B Dysart: Do you have a final comment on the shortnose sturgeon issue?

D Schaller: Just a question of Mr. Brewton - of whether he has a suspicion that the DNR will manipulate the results of the study that is going on?

B Brewton: I don’t have any suspicion of anything, Dave. My concern is that the old cart before the horse – that we are drawing conclusions before the studies have been completed.

D Schaller: We were commenting on the Tier I submittal.

B Brewton: I don’t see where that makes any difference. You are making a statement.

D Schaller: (inaudible)

B Brewton: You are making a statement of fact in June 1999 that is going to be used by the Assistant Secretary of the Army to make a decision on the feasibility or recommending authorization of this project.

B Dysart: August 1999 this body is trying to move ahead in dealing with potential impacts - which youall have identified and trying to specify what scientific studies are needed so hopefully they can be done so you can then move on to the next box of the diagram of determining at that of whether they were adequate. Now you know, cart before the horse. Perhaps you have got to figure out where is the cart and where is the horse. Your focus - that I keep suggesting - is that would you please focus on designing and specifying the science that is need and perhaps not declare it dead on arrival, failed, or incredible before it is done.

B Brewton: I am not declaring that dead on arrival. What I am questioning that may be dead on arrival is GPA’s use of the outcome of the studies since they are making flat statements of fact and conclusion prior to the studies. Just to clarify what I was saying. So you won’t have to paraphrase or misinterpret it.

B Dysart: Perhaps the record should capture the thought that you do not trust GPA to get consensus (inaudible)

B Brewton: Ben [Dysart], I would like to say that once again you have taken my comment and rephrased it into something that I did not say and I take exception to that. It is inappropriate and you are out of place too.

T Leffek: I make a motion, if I could make such a motion, that we move on with the minutes with this meeting. We looked at Judy’s recommendation, Bill’s recommendation, what Ben Dysart said, what Morgan has said, what David has said. Stick with the response to what was on the table at the time. Maybe there are some statements in there that some us take exception to. It is in the past. It is over and done with. We are here to move forward. (inaudible) which is the Tier II EIS. That is what we are all here to try and come up with. We are trying to get space (?????) at the table to answer these questions. The Tier I was inadequate. I don’t think any of us would disagree with that. It was inadequate and needs to be fleshed out more fully. Let’s do that now. Let’s be proactive and say okay we don’t agree with what was said and we don’t necessarily think that all the information was accurate. Let’s do a better job the second time around. Let’s be proactive and say what holes are there in that report. What holes are there that are going to need to be answered. Let’s tackle that mission. And I put that as a motion on the table that we move forward. Not to denigrate the discussion. I think there are some valid concerns that they brought up. There are some statements in there that some of us take exception with. But it is time to move forward. The bridge is the Tier II EIS. That is what we need to focus on. We need to be proactive. Get the answers so we can all look at the science and make an accurate determination. Whether it is GPA, CEO, ATM, or Stevens Shipping - or anyone else. Let’s get the answers. (inaudible)

B Scanlon: I just want to say that I would like the record to reflect that the business community is in 100% agreement with the Sierra Club.

D Schaller: Maybe as a final thought. Communications, correspondence with the Secretary, is not the exclusive domain of the GPA. Mr. Brewton and anyone who has a concern may correspond directly with Dr. Westphal, and point out to him issues and areas where they think there is some problem. So, feel free.

L Rogers: We have been on this 35 minutes.

B Dysart: Larry says it is 11:30, and we will move on to - how about beach erosion committee? Bill Farmer: