APPROVED BY THE SEG AT THE March 1999 MEETING

Summary of January 12, 1999, Stakeholders Evaluation Group Meeting

The meeting began at 9:00 AM with introductory remarks by Charles Griffen.

Mr. Griffen read a letter from Mr. Doug Marchand, Executive Director,

Georgia Ports Authority. Copies of the letter were furnished to all

participants and the letter is included as part of these minutes.

The Facilitator made some introductory remarks including the intention to

tape record the proceedings. He then discussed the agenda briefly

indicating the intent to first recognize GPA for a formal presentation of

the Total Tier II Study Process and how the work of the SEG fits into that

process. Following that, the SEG as a group would be asked to review and

amend the agenda and discuss the priority with which the group wished to

address the agenda items.

GPA made its presentation, including its recommendation for SEG priority

consideration of three field study efforts. GPA agreed to furnish SEG

participants with a schedule of the Tier II Process. Discussion ensued

with several technical questions regarding the proposed studies and

responses from GPA. Issues questioned were:

There was a question from the floor regarding the definition of mitigation.

It was understood that mitigation includes avoidance, minimization, and

compensation, not simply compensation. It also includes the possibility

that no suitable mitigation may be found.

There was some discussion of the study process to date, especially the Tier I

EIS and GPA responses to comments on the Tier I EIS. GPA agreed to

provide at the next SEG meeting its response to each of the issues raised

in comments on the Tier I EIS, especially as the responses indicated that

the particular issues had been adequately addressed. There was a

suggestion that the SEG could make a determination whether a particular

issue had been adequately addressed, but no conclusion was reached on this

point. (Note: At the February 2, 1999, meeting, the SEG agreed not to ask

GPA for this information as it is included in the Tier I EIS.)

A suggestion was made to set a time limit on discussions and presentations.

The SEG decided not to set time limits.

There was a question from the floor whether the SEG would determine the

issues to be dealt with. The Facilitator assured the group that the SEG

would determine the issues to be addressed within the context of the

standard Corps of Engineers study parameters.

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service reiterated a request made on previous

occasions that additional model runs are needed to identify the impacts of

incremental channel depths.

A comment was made that GPA should not seek Congressional authorization at

this time. The Facilitator indicated that issue is beyond the scope of the

SEG.

In response to a question regarding the non-government membership listed in

the draft Operating Guidelines, the facilitator stated the list in the

draft Operating Guidelines is an old list and all participants are welcome.

Discussion turned to the suggested agenda items. The following suggestions

for the agenda were made and recorded by the Facilitator.

Discussion of the agenda items:

The group agreed to address the definition

of "consensus" first. The Savannah Manufacturers Council suggested a

definition as follows, "Consensus is the mutual feeling that all concerns

have been addressed. Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity or 100

percent agreement on everything by everybody. Consensus is not

conformity." The group agreed to this definition with a proviso that it is

understood that in the event of a dispute over whether consensus had been

reached on a particular issue, the group would reconsider the definition.

Representatives of state and federal regulatory agencies also emphasized

that they could not make commitments for their respective agencies.

It was also noted that the SEG would have to be advisory to GPA and the

regulatory agencies unless specific procedures of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act are followed.

The next agenda item to be addressed was the Draft Operating Guidelines.

The Savannah Manufacturers Council had provided a marked up version of the

GPA draft and discussion began with the first paragraph. It was agreed

that GPA would revise the Guidelines based on the discussion and apparent

consensus and resubmit the Guidelines to the next SEG meeting.

There were concerns expressed about the second sentence of the first

paragraph.

It was agreed to include specific indication that the outcome of the SEG

process may result in a determination by the SEG that there is no feasible

mitigation plan.

The second paragraph was modified to provide for a "minority view" of the

consensus outcome if a participant wishes.

The third paragraph deals with the selection of the facilitator. GPA

indicated that as the responsible government agency for the project, it has

the responsibility to select the facilitator. The Savannah Manufacturers

Council recommended the SEG select its own facilitator. The facilitator

indicated he could not "facilitate" his role in the process. The group

agreed that the Savannah Manufacturers Council would form a delegation to

meet with GPA leadership to discuss selection of a facilitator. In the

meanwhile, the facilitator would continue in the role. Further discussion

of the third paragraph was tabled.

After completing agreement on revisions to the Introduction Section of the

draft Guidelines, a suggestion was made to shift the agenda to the

discussion of the field studies because of the time remaining in the day

and the importance of addressing the need for field studies to be conducted

this Summer.

GPA recommended that a committee be formed to review the remaining sections

of the draft Operating Guidelines and submit a revised version to the next

SEG meeting. An alternative suggestion was made for the participants to

furnish written comments on the Operating Guidelines to the facilitator who

in turn would furnish copies of all comments to the entire SEG for

discussion at the next meeting. The group decided to provide comments to

the facilitator for distribution rather than establish a committee to

revise the Guidelines.

GPA then presented the proposed scope of studies for field work this

summer. The SEG agreed to form a group of experts to review the study

proposal and report back to the SEG with recommendations. It was also

agreed that all SEG participants would be notified of any meeting of the

expert group and be welcome to participate or be represented.

Particular concern was raised by several participants about the proposed

schedule for the studies. It was understood that in making its

recommendations to the SEG, the group of experts would make its own

judgments about the content and schedule for the field work.

The SEG decided to convene the next meeting at 9:00 AM on February 2, 1999.

The location is to be determined, but it will be in Savannah. The

facilitator offered to suggest a draft agenda for the next meeting.

Subsequent to the close of the meeting, GADNR asked that the outline of its

Savannah Inlet and Estuarine Process Study be distributed. It will be

included with distribution of comments on the Operating Guidelines.

Sincerely,

Morgan R. Rees, Facilitator