July 13, 1999

Coastal Georgia Center, Savannah, Ga.

SEG meeting facilitator (Ben Dysart) sent out e-mail about today's agenda.

Dysart: I'm committed to SEG’s mission. There are things on behalf of the environment - making good responsible tradeoffs - that aren’t going to be done or can’t be done as well, unless this group, the SEG, is successful in meeting its defined mission. You have the prerogative of focusing things wherever you want to – on the mission as stated in your Operating Guidelines, or you can focus it somewhere else. It is your - SEG's - call.

I hear from a lot of you – seems to be a lot of interest in getting the job done. The job defined as the mission as laid out for and by you. If you don’t want me to try to move forward on your mission, let me know what it is you, collectively, want to do. It's your Stakeholder Evaluation Group.

There has been some speculation about to whom I was speaking in the e-mail that you got recently concerning the agenda inputs for this meeting. If you read carefully, you will see that I was addressing everyone who sits or stands around the SEG table. Talking to every one of you, talking to myself. All of us have choices that can help either move things forward or make things more difficult.

Would you like to move things around? Some have stated they would like committee work, deliberations, etc. to come on the front end of the meeting. Any comments, suggestions?

B Brewton: Corresponded with facilitator on one item that he requested be added, but when downloaded the draft agenda, it was still missing. Is it on the one handed out here?

Dysart: Look at page 4 of the agenda handout, question concerning the Assistant Secretary’s letter – yes it's there.

Dysart: Without objection, we'll move forward with the agenda.

Dysart: First item, redone summary of the May SEG meeting. Give us whatever feedback you want. Has not changed since it was posted.

Brewton: One item under cumulative impacts and economics – (point 1-a-2 of SEG operating guidelines). Second bullet point – other half of thought was the documents or proposals right now only addresses it for 20 years, although the impacts continue on.

P McIntosh: (page 5) Wants to review her comments to see if there was a response to it (cumulative impacts).

Dysart: Consensus for adoption with two changes made to satisfaction of the two Members who raised the comments.

Dysart: June meeting summary

S Stevens: There are a few things left out. In II, some discussion he brought up about "essential fish habitat" that he thought was a critical issue before this committee and this project. He believed since that meeting there has been a letter written by ___[who?]___ to the Corps related to essential fish habitat - did not see any mention of it in this section.

Dysart: We will resurrect that, draft something, and run it by you for your concurrence as we will do with the others.

D Kyler: Number VII a (1) had to do with discussion on possibility of establishing a mitigation plan. His name was listed as one of those not favoring. Believe said that he gave it conditional support because of the idea of having so much redundancy in mitigation efforts of various committees that it might make sense to try to cover a lot of it with one effort. There may be other ways of handling redundancy in mitigation efforts.

Dysart: We will redraft that bullet and run it by those listed in that bullet to make sure it is acceptable or reflects their views.

R Mikell: On that one - timing was a problem – mitigation decisions were being considered before the studies were done.

P McIntosh: II.A (g-4) should have names attributed to it (as the comments before this number have names).

Dysart: Missed names on that. If those of you who expressed that view, please indicate so we may get your names on it.

S Stevens: He was one of those.

R Mikell also indicated he was one of the others.

N McIntosh: (9:35) Seems most of Item II on June 8 draft summary is not exactly how that went down. It appears to be skewed – discussion was tense at the time. Record does not appear to be fair – looks as if B Brewton is being picked on. On II A (4), she does not recall that at all. II A g(4) refutes that someone. There was other support for discussion of the web site comments. Wanted to raise objection to this.

Dysart: We will go back into the tapes and take another look at that sequence.

B Brewton: Has some problems with that section. Seems to be quite a bit of what he said that was left out. Including some clarification and corrections he made of some of the facilitator’s comments. It followed the facilitator’s rebuttal to his comments – whole section left out there. The summary says within 5 minutes of his phone request, facilitator sent the information he requested by e-mail. He pointed out in his follow-up to that it only occurred after 4 e-mails over the previous 2 days to various GPA officials including the facilitator. [Note: The SEG meeting facilitator is not a "GPA official."] No one had responded to those e-mails. The facilitator’s e-mail to him only came after his personal telephone call to the facilitator. He did feel that there was some substantial editing that has gone on with the comments here and would like to find a way to correct it and see if we can have some agreement about how that reads. Perhaps we need to bring it back to the group at the next meeting.

Dysart: (9:40) Is sure that there are others around the table who have been as much as 24 hours behind in reading their e-mail. There is a lot going on in life. He apologized for whenever he does not respond immediately to Members' e-mail. As soon as he was aware that Brewton wanted that, he said it was coming.

B Brewton: The fact is that he had made an explanation of that and the explanation is not in the minutes.

Dysart: Motion is to revise or take another shot at section II in the June SEG summary, repost it, and bring it back to SEG next month.

S Edleman: By what method are the attendees' comments being recorded? Are they being recorded verbatim?

Dysart: They are being taped. What we are focusing on are the bullets that get captured on the flip charts in the meeting. The tapes were sometimes difficult to hear. More practical to put on flip charts. SEG Members are to make sure that anything they thought important got captured on the charts.

J Jennings: Some of these issues may be covered in the SEG Communications Committee report.

B Brewton: Had some other areas of the minutes he wanted to clarify - don’t have to take up the time today. Not just that one section. Who actually did these minutes?

Dysart: Came from my word processor.

C Vaughn: Typed up the flip chart notes and sent them to facilitator.

Dysart: Will re-post minutes.

B Brewton: L Keegan will be gone for two weeks, how will this be handled?

Dysart: We will figure out a way.

Dysart: Committee reports.

M Rees: (9:45) Criteria for handling SEG recommendations.

Several people asked for GPA to try to express the criteria they would use for accepting or not accepting recommendations from the SEG. The request was made in a constructive way. People were truly interested in how they were going to be able to input into the GPA federal navigation project. GPA is equally interested in a constructive approach in how to lay out what their thoughts are. These are not cast in stone, not locked in, effort at open discussion on how GPA would deal with SEG recommendations.

The presentation may appear pretty straight forward, but it is not. There are a lot of gray areas, involve a lot of judgement about things. Bottom line – good faith effort to share with the SEG GPA’s thought patterns. When SEG recommendations are made, they will be taken in a constructive way and dealt with as seriously and objectively as we can.

Nine-page handout was distributed to SEG Members. Three major parts: Glossary, discussion of Mandatory Requirements, and then actual Decision Guidelines.

B Brewton: "Potential project impact" – does that include all those impacts including cumulative impacts as defined? Secondly, who makes the determination of "significance"?

Rees: Legally, the bottom line is "the responsible federal official." In this case, it will ultimately be the Secretary of the Army. The Record of Decision that will go along with the final Tier II EIS will probably be signed by the Secretary of the Army. "Probably" because there are some other external factors that may influence the timing of things. Sometimes the Chief of Engineers signs the Record of Decision.

B Brewton: So ultimately the person signing the Record of Decision is the one who makes the determination about what is "significant."

Rees: The person who finally signs off – like the staff does a lot of work, presents decision documents to the deciding official. The GPA hopes that we prepare all the documents properly, correctly, and do all things needed to be done and when we submit them like the Tier I EIS last August, that it will be sufficient. If it is found not sufficient, they will not sign the Record of Decision.

B Brewton: Is GPA currently seeking that Record of Decision approval?

Rees: Not at the Tier II level. The documents are in Washington. That is part of that process for the Tier I documents.

B Holman (SELC): In handout, it says under 404b(1) in order to demonstrate compliance with that you have to get either a Corps permit or Congressional authorization.

Rees: All that means is that, in a Corps project, they don’t give themselves a permit.

B Holman: That will be case here? Does EPA have veto?

Rees: We hope that will be the case, and yes EPA has a veto. The reason it is in there is that Section 204 under WRDA 86 that allows the sponsor to build the project, if it came to that, there may be a Corps permit required.

B Holman: Is there a Section 404 permit required for a Section 203 submission, or is it just when it gets to the 204 stage that you need 404 permit?

Rees: Just when it gets to the construction phase.

B Holman: That would be the Tier II phase?

Rees: That is only if GPA builds the project under Section 204. But if it is authorized by Congress, they don’t need it. Congressional authorization overrides the need for a Corps permit.

B Holman: Would authorization also mean there wouldn’t have to be a consistency determination by the states?

Rees: No, the authorization does not override the Coastal Zone Management Act or Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

B Holman: So Congress couldn’t authorize it if one of the states found it was inconsistent, or they would have to specifically override?

Rees: We are getting into a little bit of complexity here. Unless the authorization specifically says that the Coastal Zone Management Act requirements do not apply, then they will still apply.

S Stevens: It seems like EPA is a valuable stakeholder in this. Were they offered an opportunity to participate?

Rees: They have been coming to SEG meetings. They are here sometimes and not others. They said if they ever see a critical need in terms of a substantive issue that might come up, they will attend. They monitor pretty closely, and we talk to them occasionally.

B Farmer: Can the required mitigation from this project include bad predictions from the prior projects? (He cited an allegation made at a County Commission meeting last year.)

Rees: The answer is go through the decision process. It probably would not be part of the deepening project, but the solution of the problem is something this group could deal with, and GPA would participate in that. There is an assumption in the question that there was a mis-prediction - not sure that is true - needs to be looked at.

N McIntosh: Are there any definitive results that would speak to the lack of the accuracy of the prediction of the prior dredging projects or any unpredicted consequences on the DO or salinity in the prior deepening project? Wanted to know who raised the question Bill Farmer spoke of from the County Commission meeting.

B Farmer: Rather not say.

N McIntosh: How did it turn out. Were there unpredicted impacts?

B Ellis: We have reviewed all those project documents, and both salinity and dissolved oxygen are addressed in the old EIS. Salinity much more than dissolved oxygen. There were a number of studies being done by EPA, EPD, Harbor Committee. All those were referenced in the EIS (for previous deepening). It is not a simple answer.

S Stevens: Suggests that we learn from past mistakes.

P Brownell: (9:55) There is another mandatory legal requirement for a piece of legislation. It is the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act and the consultation process federal agencies must follow for projects that may effect essential fish habitat. There are fishery management plans for most commercial and recreational fisheries.

Rees: Did not have his notes updated with that information.

R Mikell: In the past deepening project, everybody was satisfied with the mitigation. That resulted in the tide gate's being taken out of operation the first time (first step to restoring the harbor). There are still studies being done by the US Fish & Wildlife Service in the Refuge to determine whether the marsh is actually coming back, being restored. All these past models have inaccurately predicted the impact the tide gate would have.

Rees: Marsh succession. As you know the F&WS has opted out of this forum, but we still work with them. In the past week or so, we have worked up a proposal to do marsh studies that will be incorporated in the Tier II EIS.

R Mikell: The stripped bass study Ga. DNR is doing came out of the last deepening mitigation.

B Brewton: Several people have said that the agencies found that the mitigation on the past project to be acceptable. Acceptable as proposed or implemented or as the result?

R Mikell: As proposed.

Rees: It is an area of sensitivity that goes back to the "trust" issue. We will see the mitigation of the past project characterized as "the past project was not mitigated." The past project had mitigation features in it that were explicitly evaluated and agreed to by everybody. The fact that they didn’t work is not mentioned in that same phrase. The impression left is that the Corps or the GPA did something bad in the past and did not do anything about it. That is not really the right characterization.

B Brewton: When you look at the decision tree [in the Rees handout], you have unpredicted impacts, cumulative impacts, there are impacts that the harbor has on the environment. They come not just from deepening, but from maintenance, and other things. When there are impacts that come from the harbor and harbor-related activities that are damaging to the environment that have not been properly/fully/predicted or unpredicted – does GPA recognize and willing to come to the table to try correct those impacts, if they come from the harbor activity operation and projects, whether they were unexpected and unpredicted, whether they are cumulative impacts rather than incremental impacts or whether they were the results of predictions that were inadequate? If everyone agrees to a potential problem, GPA says we will do this to correct that, the agencies sign off on it, and then it doesn’t work. Are we then bound to accept that impact, or can we go back and address that problem?

Rees: The answer is yes.

S Stevens: The decision tree appears to be that this is an entirely GPA process. Hopes GPA will come back to the SEG to make sure they understand which of those boxes they [SEG recommendations] fall in.

Rees: Any of the outcomes will be joint outcomes reached through consensus. There may be some scenario where somebody could hypothesize where we won’t be able to come to consensus closure with the SEG. Some will be directly, clearly within the scope of the project. GPA will take it on, fund it, whatever. Those that fall outside, we will find a way working with the SEG to solve it – that will be with the SEG.

P Brownell: (10:07) Probably should not consider this project as a one-shot project planning effort and as a one-shot mitigation effort because the system is so complex. May be a continuing need to adjust the system, and deal with new on-going impacts.

Rees: This is fundamentally a federal project, and we are doing the study under federal law and by federal authorization. If it works right, if we do come out with a project, the federal government will embrace the project, and it will be a federal channel. GPA has a keen interest in the project and the estuary, but that does not relieve the Corps of Engineers of any of its responsibilities in dealing with these issues as well. GPA does not look at this like it is a GPA only project. It is a federal project. GPA is the non-federal sponsor, and the Corps at some time will do what it thinks is the right thing to do.

B Brewton: (10:10) About EPA’s role, they wrote a letter clarifying what their role would be here.

Rees: They said essentially that they support the SEG process, would not attend all the meetings, but would attend when their issues were on the agenda.

B Brewton: Think they clarified their role as being an observer and consultant as opposed to a participant.

Rees: Don’t recall that.

S Stevens: Would like copy of letter.

Dysart: Anyone wanting copy of the EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator's letter, contact Morgan.

Dysart: (11:00) Next Fisheries – two areas. One is the SEG Striped Bass Committee and other is a report back of formation of overall SEG Fisheries Committee. At last meeting, we said there was a Back River Restoration Committee that was renamed the SEG Striped Bass Committee.

Also there was a footnote in the agenda for today about committee chairs reporting on committee’s views. The first time this was brought up several meetings ago, the facilitator got confused as to whether he [Bo Ellis] was speaking as a committee chair, as a GPA contractor, or what kind of hat he was wearing. The assumption is from now on that, whenever presentations are made, you as a committee chair are presenting things on behalf of the full SEG committee.

Next is the Striped Bass Committee formerly known as the Back River Restoration Committee.

C Hall: This committee was never formerly known as the Back River Restoration Committee. There might have been an add-in. We have had the Back River Restoration – section 1135 joint project between Ga. DNR and the Corps of Engineers - and we are trying to tie these two together. This is the Striped Bass Committee.

T Meronek: Continue working on contract details on scope of work. Most of those details were worked out between Larry Keegan and the Corps of Engineers project manager, Terry Stratton. The Corps is funding a portion, and GPA will be funding a portion of the scope of work. There may have been a minor adjustment made in the scope of work. Mainly deals with the portion of the work the Corps will pay for. Believe there will be less model runs, and there will only be runs at one discharge and one run may be done at 12,000-cfs discharge. The scope of work had included model runs for two different discharges, but Corps portion of funding is limited. Not a big adjustment. Timeline for that project – when that work will be started by ATM.

B Ellis: No timeline has been established.

C Hall: The striped bass tasks involve a lot of model runs. Trying to determine in the Back River what is still the problem of reproduction which was not the case before the tide gate and how the deepening project may potentially further impact the Back River or further impact any potential restoration. Problem is the 1135 project (joint partnership between Ga. DNR and Corps) really determines what the physical problems in the Back River carried over from the tide gate era may still be occurring and how to rectify them. The Corps has extended their funding for another year. We want to utilize GPA’s model to do some preliminary, not final, runs to chart the course, to help us determine what sort of problems are there from past actions. Thinks Larry Keegan’s concern is that the 1135 project is going to come out with a recommendation, with a report, ahead of time and maybe supersede the final SEG task report. May be confusing.

B Brewton: What is the benefit of running this preliminary model?

C Hall: It is going to fit in to some other work we are trying to do there.

B Bailey: (11:20) For the 1135 study, doing the runs now, basically gets the information a year ahead of time. That information will be useful for the 1135 effort to see what is possible for restoration.

C Hall: The Corps has already agreed to pay for the model runs.

L Keegan: Back in March, met with 1135 study group. We were trying to figure out how to fit these together. At that point, he was concerned about the possibility of making choices, reaching conclusions, using a version of a model that would be revised in what we are doing in this forum, and we could result in having some very different outcomes. At that time, we talked about doing a couple of preliminary modeling efforts. It would be used to further the study. The scope of work included having the Port Authority pay to set up some additional grids for modeling runs. The Corps was going to pay GPA to run the model runs. They were asking the Port Authority to set up the grids. He had not seen it, and when he did had no problem with doing the grids, not all that expensive. That is not the issue. Corps study manager gave milestones that said they were going to have a completed study report and pick the right alternative in September of next year, of 2000. The question is, if their alternative is going to be picked in September 2000 about the configuration of the Back River, what do we use for the "without project" condition? Do we use what is there now, do we use what those conclusions are going to be, and everything we are doing now is wasted? Where is the study going, when do the conclusions get made, what is preliminary, and how can we fit it together?

B Brewton: Encourage they move ahead, do models, get information they need to start working with it. Make sure it is clearly labeled such that it doesn’t get used for something that it is not intended to be used for. Seems the more information the better. Do we need any kind of action from SEG to endorse or recommend?

C Hall: The Committee has already approved the Striped Bass Committee task two months ago.

P Brownell: Would it not be helpful to have some early model runs just to give us a good idea of how the model as it is currently being set up is working?

M Rees: Would like to convene a Striped Bass Committee meeting at 1:05 pm today. We can maybe work through this.

B Brewton: Read from unapproved June meeting summary about Striped Bass Committee.

S Stevens: (11:35) If information is there and the money is there, then share the information and move forward.

C Hall: Originally wanted to have 1135 project on the ground 2 years ago, before harbor deepening ever came up. Just can’t solve every question with one stab. This preliminary information will never be used as a detriment to the project

N McIntosh: Would recommend that the SEG by consensus encourage Larry’s group to go along with Carl and Tom’s motion on putting the 1135 in place now, and doing the GPA study later.

C Hall: Thought GPA study was approved.

T Meronek: This is not something we just thought up a couple of months ago. This issue was brought up about doing a baseline model run two years ago. Feel we are fully committed to going ahead with all the model runs.

M Rees: Think this is resolvable in committee.

B Dysart: Then the SEG would like the parties to get together and bring back a recommendation. There's modest consensus on this.

P Brownell: Update of Fisheries Committee. Discussed with the other fishery management agencies the idea of establishing a "Fisheries & Aquatic Resources Committee" as part of the SEG. There seems to be a good deal of consensus [within these agencies] that we should establish this committee. Potential role would be to facilitate discussion of broader fishery issue and help inform other members of the SEG who might not be expert in fishery matters. Also help GPA and Corps to address the project effects and develop a mitigation or management plan on into the future. The Fishery Committee probably (1) should not assume responsibility for the design or conduct of the necessary studies, and (2) should not relieve GPA or Corps from their own responsibility for preparing their fully adequate EIS and compliance with all applicable laws. It should be more of a communication/assistance function. Chairmanship should be GPA or Corps – should be responsible that committee takes place. Most of the agencies represented on this committee would not have time to do much beyond reviewing the information and providing some information, opinions, and determinations. Would try to get input from all the fishery management or related entities, but not limited to those. Agencies such as Ga. DNR, SC DNR, US F&WS, NMFS, SC (???) Fishery Management Council, Ga. & SC CZM – as a starting point, and any others who want to participate. Lifetime of committee – perhaps duration of [harbor deepening] project study, but there is an ongoing port management activity – may be open end to this committee. The state and federal fishery management agencies do have a loosely knit committee to deal with Savannah River fishery resource issues. Not a committee specifically set up to deal with the port. There are many other fishery issues to deal with on the Savannah River. May want to solicit input from that group. Propose the establishment of the Fishery & Aquatic Resource Committee.

B Ellis: Request that US EPA be on that committee.

P Brownell: Yes. Tasks will be to assist GPA in developing information needs in order to do all those other studies and planning mandates. Advisory role to the GPA and Corps, but not a role that would be undertaking responsibilities.

M Rees: No problem with recommendation of forming that new committee. Would like to talk about chairmanship and responsibility for the functioning of the committee. We noticed that, where a GPA representative is a committee chairman, people don’t always understand which "hat" they have on. We have talked internally about the advisability of - within the SEG - the level of involvement of GPA and would things be seen as GPA initiatives vs. SEG initiatives. The other reason is every one of the GPA staff members has full plates, and we would like some consideration of some other leadership for the committee. We would serve on the committee. I don’t know if the Corps wants to do it, if they have the funding for it.

P Brownell: Speaking for the state and federal agencies - are not set up to be able to fulfill that type of role. If did so on ever project they are involved in, would never get anywhere. At least GPA more or less has the capacity to appoint an appropriate consultant.

M Rees: Suggest the committee convene and have them deal with issue of administration and logistics for committee purposes as the first order of business.

P Brownell: That would be a good way to do it.

B Bailey: On one of Press Brownell’s comments, said he didn’t think the committee should judge on the adequacy of technical studies. That was the reason the SEG was established. To look to a group of experts who knew that subject to say these are the studies needed and this is how they should be conducted.

P Brownell: Said he may have misstated that point. Trying to use committees to make sure information is adequate, but would not take responsibility if the information was inadequate. Committee should not be in the position to be sued.

B Dysart: On the table is a recommendation for the establishment of a [SEG Fisheries & Aquatic Resources] committee and a recommendation that the interested parties convene between now and next SEG meeting and consider how leadership might be provided. Is there a consensus?

P Brownell: Someone still has to convene that meeting.

B Bailey: The Corps will call the first meeting.

B Dysart: Presume there's SEG consensus for forming a SEG Fisheries & Aquatic Resources Committee provided a good report comes from the preliminary meeting called by the Corps.

P Brownell: Would like to add - the shortnose sturgeon work up and running. Should have some new things to report in the future.

J Jennings: Who is paying for the shortnose sturgeon study?

P Brownell: Georgia Ports Authority

B Dysart: Would someone like to speak about overall channel effects of channel deepening on fish?

T Meronek: Would like to defer overview of fish impacts from harbor projects.

B Dysart: Next report is the Beach Erosion Committee.

B Farmer: BEC had a meeting this month. At the last SEG meeting, a study proposal was provided to the GPA for accomplishment. Shortly after the meeting, Corps put out a document that had 13 technical comments pertaining to the proposed study. There was an introductory paragraph that said these comments should be addressed by the Corps - for the statement of work to be technically adequate. That raised a little alarm in the committee as to whether or not the proposed study needed to be revised. The impression was that the proposed study would get a cost and a schedule and some contract language attached to it and the Corps would accomplish it. Turns out there is another document that is to be developed called a task statement. That task statement then has contract language, costs, and schedule attached to it. The Ports Authority will take the proposed study to be approved here and incorporate the Corps comments and some other information into a task statement, and then that task statement will be contracted to be accomplished. Bottom line is beach erosion effort is underway. Ball is in the Ports Authority’s hands right now to develop the documentation, contracts awarded, whatever needs to be done.

D Parrott: You said you were going to package it up and give it to the Corps to execute or the GPA to execute?

B Farmer: For the GPA. This is the sequence: we develop a study and it goes to the Ports Authority, they develop a task statement, and that becomes part of the contracting documents. Is that the process to be used?

L Keegan: The answer is yes, maybe. If what’s recommended is complete and has all the things so we can use it directly, we will use it directly. If it is more general and needs to be fleshed out, that is what we will do. But still with the intent and content of what was recommended to be done.

B Farmer: So, if it is incomplete, you all will make it complete, and it comes back to the SEG for concurrence again, or does it go ahead and do it?

D Schaller: We are not there yet. Don’t know the answer.

M Rees: Say, if there is any thought to change what is in the recommendation, we would certainly come back to the SEG and work that out.

B Farmer: For instance, heard today the striped bass study is being implemented. They developed a study outline and gave it to GPA, and they have reported that it is being implemented. In the case of the beach erosion study, there was a study outline developed, given to GPA, and this new thing called a task statement has been identified as the next step to be developed prior to implementation. Guess that was necessary because the study was not complete.

B Ellis: In the Beach Erosion Committee, that technical approach was supposed to be a generic approach. There were no details, no specific models prescribed. It was not a detailed work plan. GPA needs a detailed work plan before they can contract.

M Rees: Requested that GPA comes back to SEG with an explicit direct answer to the question.

B Farmer: Just trying to clarify the process.

S Stevens: We had two proposals submitted to the BEC at the request of the committee from individuals that are coastal engineering professionals. We took those two proposals and said, let's generate a third comprehensive proposal. So the first two professionals were critiquing proposal number three and coming up with ideas of what proposal number four look like. In the BEC minutes, there are some things we believe to be missing from proposal #3 by ATM. We want to make sure we have a chance to look at – that it really does address all the items.

B Brewton: Chris Schuberth handed me a document that he had received, just gave it to Ben Dysart [facilitator]. Chris is out of town. Think Chis wanted it read in relation to the Beach Erosion Committee discussion.

Dysart: When do you want it read? I just received this.

B Farmer: Thinks the issue is what is the process after the SEG recommends to the Ports Authority that a certain study gets done.

B Brewton: Chris’ comments relate to the process. He brought up some concerns about that development process at the [Chatham Environmental Forum] meeting last night (before Dysart arrived at that meeting).

Dysart: Have not read this. Would feel more comfortable having this copied, and pass it out today or refer it to the Beach Erosion Committee. Chris wanted this made available to the SEG Members, and I will be happy to make it available. As far as my reading it on the record … (B Brewton started talking on top of Dysart).

B Brewton: Chris asked that it be presented at the [SEG] meeting [today]. If you [the facilitator] are uncomfortable in reading it, he (Brewton) will be glad to read it. Have seen a copy of what is there. Chris gave him a copy of it as well. Thinks it is very relevant to this discussion and relates to the process. It outlines some things that could affect the credibility of this whole SEG.

Dysart: Note that the e-mail is addressed to you (B Brewton) and would feel more comfortable if you read this. [Facilitator's note: First line of email message was "From Chuck Watson (7/12/99)." Second line was "To: Ben Brewton." Third line was "CC: Chris Schuberth." Fourth line was "Mail*Linkâ SMTP" and at center of page "SEG Beach Impact Study Process." Fifth line was "Dear Prof. Schuberth:." With no advance notice, the facilitator was unable to examine in detail the 4-page document he had just been provided and asked to present to SEG. He considered that "To: Ben Brewton" indicated that it was sent to Mr. Brewton. In any event, since Mr. Brewton was familiar with it, it seemed more appropriate than the facilitator's introducing it into the record.]

Brewton: Oh.

B Farmer: Don’t know what you are going to read there. There is a question on the table as to what the process is after the committee puts a recommendation to the Ports Authority.

N McIntosh: They haven’t come up with an answer. Think you deferred on it. Would like to raise the issue that the recommendation that the SEG as a group approved was a scope of work and study by two independent contractors, not GPA (don’t recall names).

B Farmer: That is not quite accurate. There was a generic scope of work that just said the historic stuff, the incremental stuff, get all this data together and model it.

B Brewton: The package did include two or three proposals last time.

B Farmer: Within the package [from the Beach Erosion Committee presented to SEG] was a proposed study that did get approved by the SEG for the GPA to accomplish. After that proposal was approved and submitted, the Corps had some comments that needed to be addressed, the Ports Authority said they would address them by taking the study, comments, etc. and make a task statement. That is the thing that will be contracted. His question is – Is that the standard process that will be followed on all these things as they come through the SEG and forwarded to the GPA? It is confusing that the striped bass was just a study.

C Hall: We have a GPA striped bass study and a Corps of Engineers striped bass study.

B Farmer: On the striped bass study, the study proposal was sufficiently clear and complete, and you just went ahead and started doing it, right?

D Schaller: From a layman’s perspective, that is a correct answer. The experts pieced it together, and the SEG endorsed it, and then go to contract. This one is not that way. It is not clear in terms of task statement, deliverables, and objectives, so it needs additional work. Generally has the endorsement of the SEG, correct?

B Farmer & others: Yes.

D Schaller: So we have got to get to the specific task statement work, correct?

Voice: Yes.

B Farmer: Then the task statement comes back to the SEG.

D Schaller: In a perfect world, that would be a correct answer. For example, if you said dig a hole six feet deep and we had to contract that to be done, we could accomplish that. If it is a hole six feet deep with two tunnels, then that is a little more complicated; and we will have to figure out how to do that. But we might start digging the hole before we get to the task statement about the tunnels.

N McIntosh: Who is digging the tunnels? When he gave his consensus, it was two different contractors doing the work, and now GPA is doing the work? Who is doing the work?

B Dysart: The facilitator's understanding was that contracting [in general] is done by GPA. As far as their detailed procedures on contracting, the facilitator had no idea.

M Rees: His understanding of the SEG recommendation was it did not recommend who would do the work.

B Farmer: That is correct.

M Rees: The recommendation was for the substance of the work, not for the people who would do the work.

N McIntosh: That would not be keeping in the faith if GPA ended up doing the work themselves, because they weren’t a proposer.

M Rees: The BEC dealt with that issue, made the recommendation, and SEG approved it. The recommendation as it came to GPA was to do certain work, not to hire anyone in particular. Believe that issue was explicitly addressed by the committee, and the explicit committee recommendation was that the committee would not recommend who would do the work. That would be at the discretion of the GPA.

B Farmer: Correct. Is was not the place of the committee or SEG to say who does the work – only what work would be done. What is the process after the SEG gives it to the GPA?

D Schaller: Still trying to sort out the answer.

B Farmer: Take away question – put on the agenda for next time.

S Stevens: GPA representatives at the BEC, according to BEC meeting minutes, did commit they would bring back to the committee any scope of work or task statement. Would like a chance to look at it to make sure that it really does address all of the things the BEC came up with.

D Schaller: No question, we will get back to you. Question becomes one of procedure. Maybe issues of timing that will be made known to the SEG.

J Jennings: BEC is a landmark. It [beach erosion] was an issue that the SEG originally did not intend to address. Needs to be addressed to the ultimate satisfaction of the parties involved.

B Brewton: GPA did not intend to do it.

M Rees: Protests that statement. Somebody is characterizing GPA's intentions. GPA has made it very clear from the beginning that whatever issues the SEG wanted to deal with, we would deal with them.

B Brewton: Not on list of studies that GPA proposed.

M Rees: There was another item on the list that said anything else that wants to come.

B Brewton: Agree.

P McIntosh: Confused why two different consultants presented. Thought one of those two would be selected to do the work.

B Farmer: (12:20) When the BEC was addressing the issues, they asked for help and received two proposals from two experts. Reviewed those and decided that neither one was complete. A third proposal was developed that would be complete, and that is what came to the SEG and went to the GPA. The final results includes many of the things that were in the other initial proposals from the two experts. Decision by the GPA as to whether these two experts do any of the work.

B Brewton: (12:25) Think it would be appropriate to introduce Chris’ letter at this time. It addresses this very issue. Chris is a BEC Member, and there is some correspondence that was sent to Chris (B Brewton copied – blanks filled in wrong at the top of e-mail). Cuts to the very issue of the SEG’s credibility in soliciting proposals – what those consultants' understanding was, what some of the committee Members' understanding was, and some subsequent meetings that perhaps not everyone attended on the committee. Chris asked it be given to the facilitator and request he read it, if he did not want to do, he (B Brewton) would be glad to do it.

Dysart: Have asked that copies be made and will pass it out. (Copies provided for all SEG personnel.)

B Brewton: Has a copy of the letter and will go ahead and read it. These are Chris Schuberth words and a letter from Chuck Watson of Watson Consulting. They are not his (Brewton’s) words. (He read the letter.)

B Brewton: (12:34) [Also has] letter from Olsen Associates – read highlights. Wants these included in the minutes. As an SEG Member, the credibility, ethics, process, and ultimately the science disturbs him (B Brewton) greatly.

J Jennings (12:36) We are waiting on the science. Takes exception to questioning the ethics.

J Jennings or T Leffek (could not tell when one stopped talking and the other started): Pretty inflammatory remarks about GPA position. Cannot imagine that ATM would be so unprofessional that they are not going to conduct a study in the proper manner. Look forward to the science as required, and expect GPA will handle it in a responsible manner, and also expect it to be ethical – have no reason to think it won’t be.

D Schaller: The GPA does not control the actions of the SEG or the BEC or any other SEG committee. All the information read by Ben Brewton was new. Nothing unethical or improper going on as far as the GPA is concerned.

N McIntosh: Those comments were made by two private independent contractors who were requested by the BEC to submit a fairly formal and lengthy proposal to do a fair amount of work. Believe there were prices quoted. If someone called his (Neff's) company and said they wanted him to give them a proposal and price for performing some work and he thought they were requesting same thing from other vendors, he would be horrified if they shared his proposal with anyone else before telling him if he had or did not have the job. And it would be unethical of them to do so. It is not about unethical actions by GPA, it is about how the bidding process, award process, or the contracting process has been and will be carried out.

T Leffek: Not talking about bidding process, talking about some remarks about GPA and unethical [conduct].

B Brewton: We are all part of this process. His concern is that they all maintain their credibility and ethics, if that is in question. He's concerned about the science, ethics, process, and the credibility - that we all collectively maintain that credibility, and it has just been called into question from two completely different directions. These competitors – the words they use disturb him.

B Ellis: As a member of the BEC, there is a lot of misunderstanding. Those proposals were not requested from the whole committee. They were requested from individuals in the committee and brought to the committee for our consideration. Maybe to avoid misunderstandings in the future - make it a lot clearer in our committees when we are requesting a scope of work, how the process will work.

B Brewton: After that was brought to the committee as a whole, then requested ATM make a proposal?

B Ellis: No. The committee met with both proposals, found neither one covered the issue comprehensively enough, and decided a third scope of work needed to be put together. It would be a generic scope of work. Could be handled by anybody. ATM did draft something and sent it out to the rest of the committee to comment on. Bill brought the recommendations of the committee to the SEG. There was not a third proposal.

B Brewton: ATM is now being asked to do the work?

B Ellis: Asked to develop a proposal.

B Brewton: Not saying you (Bo) are doing anything wrong personally, but the appearance that two outside people are asked to give proposals, and then someone on the committee is asked to do a proposal…

B Ellis: It was not the activity of the committee – did not put out an RFP, did not make the request.

B Brewton: Who asked for the ATM proposal?

B Ellis: GPA.

B Brewton: The committee never asked for ATM’s proposal. GPA has asked. The value of the data is in the perception of what credibility it has – very important. Believes as this process is developed, may be some stumbles, but do not need something starting out where we see one scope of work and, after that is approved, then another scope of work is created by different entity, and ultimately that is the one who does the job. That sort does need to come back to be re-approved by the committee and then recommended back to this group [SEG] for approval. Otherwise, we have given our sanction to something that takes on a life of its own, and we don’t know what it ends up being.

M Rees: This is all a real surprise to those of us who have been overseeing this project. Would like the opportunity to get to the bottom of why these two very respected and reputable individuals and Chris Schuberth (respect and admiration of his intellect) why they feel that way. Must be substantial difference of understanding of the facts. Need to resolve.

B Brewton: Suggest Olsen and Watson are invited to the next SEG meeting.

Voice: Is this something that could be handled in subcommittee?

B Dysart: Would you like them to come and re-state what was read into the record? What do they need to do?

B Brewton: Don’t know. We need to get to the bottom of it. Think the SEG’s credibility they are calling into question. Term "SEG" was used in there [the memos he presented] many times along with GPA and BEC. Ask them to come here and explain what their concerns are, respond to any questions.

B Dysart: Seems to be more appropriate that either a committee or otherwise [deal with this initially], don’t see any sense in creating a circus.

B Brewton: Seems that the complaint is that the committee process didn’t work here. At least by the people that were involved. Offer as a proposal.

M Rees: We do have a Beach Erosion Committee. Some allegations have been made against the BEC for not handling things properly. Not everybody the shares same knowledge. We need to work through this first before we decide to invite somebody who is obviously, and maybe legitimately, upset to come and talk about things. Need to find the facts first. Ask the BEC to work to find what the real facts are and sort out. This has got to be 100% credible when we get done with it.

N McIntosh: Both Olsen and Watson speak to the issue of the process as evolved to where it is now. They feel that the result will lack credibility.

M Rees: We need to find why that is and whether they reached that conclusion based on facts that other people understand or a different set of facts. What prompted them to say that kind of thing? These people are highly reputable.

B Dysart: Their testimony has already been brought to the group, unless you want them to come in to repeat their allegations.

B Brewton: Not saying they can’t talk and meet in the meantime.

B Dysart: Who is "they"?

B Brewton: GPA, BEC, SEG, whatever - with Olsen and Watson.

M Rees: Would hope that you (Brewton) and Neff McIntosh and others would join us. Hope it does not wait until the next SEG meeting.

S Stevens: Agree. Meet to find out why they feel this way. Critical to resolving this. Also had not seen or heard of Watson e-mail until today, but he is offering a solution that he suggests that David, Larry, and Morgan may want to think about as they develop how the process works, the recommendations and development of task statements. Would you consider including - once you develop a task statement - putting out an RFP rather than just hiring someone to do? That is what Watson was suggesting.

B Dysart: Has respect for Chris, but feels awkward that the letter that was handed to him at 12:05 today was dated yesterday. He saw Chris last night and stayed [at CEF meeting] until most everybody was gone. Would have felt more comfortable reading testimony of this nature into the record had he who signed the cover letter dated yesterday mentioned this during the hour or so at the meeting last night. Glad someone else was available to read it in. His reluctance to read this testimony into the record does not reflect on Chris, just he would have felt if Chris had discussed it with him when the opportunity was available the night before, as opposed to something being handed to him and being asked to read it without any knowledge whatsoever. Stuart Stevens comment about RFP and so forth, could be a good idea. Perhaps have a problem here with individuals requesting priced proposals or otherwise without apparently the authority to do contracting and would recommend that this body [SEG] not get too far ahead directing people about how they need to do things. May be there has been some of that. We have gone a little far on that already. Has not heard anybody refute the comment that the [SEG Beach Erosion] committee did not seek proposals and have not heard anybody say that GPA requested proposals from the two individuals whose testimony has been read into the record today. It seems that the desire is to try to figure what the nature of the situation is and bring something back to this body [SEG] next time. Good science and credibility [of science and whole process] are critical.

B Brewton: Appreciate work Bill Farmer and the BEC have done, and don’t look at this as an indictment. None of those words were mine, just reading those two memos into the record.

B Ellis: (12:55) Modeling overview presentation – move to next SEG meeting.

MTRG report - passed out hard copies. Report recommended three task statements for model development be approved and included six specific actions to the SEG. Full context of the task statements [have been posted] on MTRG website. Internal status reports and summary of all comments are also on the MTRG website. Report contains a summary of the review activities.

B Brewton: The comments that have been received, do you feel that most of the substantive ones have been incorporated into the task statements?

B Ellis: All the comments have been dealt with. Bill Bailey and Brittany Robinson have been involved in all the meetings.

B Brewton: So you have pretty well managed to satisfy the person making those comments. Like the ones received by Skidaway Institute, Corps, or Harbor Committee?

B Ellis: As far as I know, depends on a lot of coordination.

B Brewton: At last [SEG] meeting, he requested copies of the comments that had been submitted [to MTRG] by the various reviewers on the task statements. Was told by David Schaller that, to assemble those approximately 40 comments (60-70 pages), GPA had expended - primarily to ATM - $2,600 worth of man hours to make copies of these 40 comments. He (B Brewton) would assume when you (Bo) receive the comments, they are kept in a file specific to this project and, with a copy machine, it doesn’t seem like it would take more than 3 or 4 minutes for someone to put these in a high speed copy machine and reproduce these comments. If they are not being kept in an orderly manner, such that it takes almost $3,000 worth of labor to get the comments together assume they were used in this and if they were they had to be in one place, if it really takes that much labor, then we need to remind anyone, particularly any private contractors that might be doing work, both of the Georgia Open Records Law and of the SEG adopted operating guidelines that all work product, output of the committees done under the SEG, are to be construed as public records. It does not seem appropriate for someone to just come up with 40 comments that they received on the same issue to have to charge GPA $2,600 to produce copies of those public records. Maybe there is something not quite clear. Whatever it is, we need to insist that the people doing this work maintain such records that when anyone needs it, it can be accessed in a reasonable manner.

B Dysart: Would you like Bo to bring back a report on his [ATM's] document control system?

M Rees: There are a couple of issues here that are very important to the SEG. Bo is serving as chairman of the MTRG. We talked earlier about people understanding whether in that context Bo is representing GPA or the MTRG. In this case, he is clearly representing the MTRG. When Ben [Brewton] asked about this information [last month], a big deal was made about the time it took for GPA to agree to provide the information; and we explained that the MTRG had decided that they would not keep records like that. That was an MTRG decision. They would talk informally, share thoughts, then Bo as chairman, would put all those together and provide them back to the MTRG which was the way that process was managed. So when the request came from Ben [Brewton] we said we don’t have that information. GPA was not the keeper that information. To the extent that the information is available, if at all, it is held individually by members of the MTRG. So after GPA's being accused of stonewalling, this was information not part of the GPA record keeping system. It was information that was being held by the MTRG with the explicit decision of the MTRG Members that they wouldn’t keep very good records. So the only reason it cost so much to recover the information was that ATM had to go out and search for it. GPA spent that trying to be open, trying to be helpful, trying to be supportive of the request of the SEG. Little bit bothered by getting criticized for spending too much money for it.

B Dysart: If there was interest in how the documents were managed, it would seem to be appropriate to ask, as opposed to spending several minutes speculating upon how it might be since we had somebody [at the table] who was knowledgeable as to how it was done.

B Brewton: Thinks point about his comment was missed, which was not to fuss at ATM, but to say that, looking forward, we need to keep records in a manner, records of this SEG work, where they are available and accessible.

B Ellis: We, the committee, decided early on that we would do that over the website. That would be the holding area to summarize all the comments. But the collaboration between MTRG Members - passing back and forth discussions of comments - would not be tracked. The MTRG Members who made those comments didn’t foresee or give approval that those would be passed on. The record of our work, all the comments, should be on that MTRG website. That is where we agreed that it would be accessible to everybody. Bill, Brittany (Robinson) – that’s what we decided.

B Robinson: All the comments are compiled in those status reports.

B Dysart: You, Bo, as chair of the MTRG, have made the recommendation for adoption or approval by SEG of these recommendations. Is there further discussions on the MTRG recommendations? What is the sense of the body? There are six recommendations and three task statements.

B Farmer: Appears to be no objections to the recommendations, so I would assume they are accepted.

B Dysart: Is there a consensus to approve the six recommendations and the three task statements? No objections – approved.

B Dysart: What do you want to roll forward from the agenda today?

B Brewton: Roll it all ahead.

B Dysart: If there is no objection, will assume there is a consensus that we adjourn for the day.

Next meeting will be Tuesday, August 3^rd, at 9:00 am Location to be announced.

The July SEG meeting adjourned shortly after 1:00 pm.