1 2 3 4 5 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6 7 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 8 9 NOVEMBER 13, 2001 10 9:00 A.M. 11 MIGHTY 8TH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 12 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 5 I N D E X 6 7 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3 8 9 10 BEACH EROSION --------------------------------- 45 11 DREDGING AND DISPOSAL ------------------------- 46 12 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES --------------- 46 13 MTRG ------------------------------------------ 48 14 STRIPED BASS ---------------------------------- 49 15 ECONOMIC WORKINGS GROUP ----------------------- 50 16 OPERATING GUIDELINES -------------------------- 53 17 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 60 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 MR. DYSART: If everybody will have a seat, 3 we'll get started. Anybody sitting against the 4 wall that would like to come to the table, where 5 you can put a name tag out and everything, 6 everybody will know who you are, it would be 7 appreciated. 8 Call the meeting of the Stakeholders' 9 Evaluation Group to order. We'll start off -- the 10 agenda is coming around, presumably it is moving 11 around, and the first order of business is that 12 we'll introduce ourselves. I'm Ben Dysart, the SEG 13 Facilitator. The random number generator will go 14 this way. Bill. 15 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey with the Corps of 16 Engineers. 17 MR. PARKER: Jim Parker, Corps of Engineers. 18 MR. TOLLISON: Trip Tollison, Savannah 19 Chamber. 20 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports. 21 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant to Georgia 22 Ports. 23 MR. ELLIS: Bo Ellis, Applied Technology 24 Management. 25 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, Lockwood Greene 4 1 2 Engineering. 3 MR. KYLER: Dave Kyler, Center for Sustainable 4 Coast. 5 MR. BERSON: Wil Berson, The Georgia 6 Conservancy. 7 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 8 Authority. 9 MR. PLACHY: Doug Plachy, Savannah District 10 Corps of Engineers. 11 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo. 12 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, South Carolina 13 DNR. 14 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 15 Service. 16 MR. GRABILL: Bill Grabill, Fish and Wildlife 17 Service. 18 MR. FLOCK: Allan Flock, Fish and Wildlife 19 Service. 20 MS. BOUCHARD: Pat Bouchard, Tybee Island 21 resident. 22 MS. RUTHERFORD: Freda Rutherford, Tybee 23 Island Beach Task Force. 24 MR. WALTER PARKER: Walter Parker, City of 25 Tybee Island. 5 1 2 MR. FOLKER: Julia Folker, concerned citizen. 3 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Island. 4 MR. WRIGHT: Tom Wright, citizen. 5 MR. CANNON: Robert Cannon, Savannah River 6 resident. 7 MR. WILL: Ted Will, Georgia DNR Wildlife 8 Resources Division. 9 MR. BROWNELL: Press Brownell, National Marine 10 Fisheries Service. 11 MR. SHELBY: John T. Shelby, League of Women 12 Voters. 13 MS. LEFFEK: Teri Leffek with Fife and 14 Clydesdale Plantations. 15 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, City of Tybee 16 Island. 17 MR. DONALDSON: David Donaldson, Savannah 18 Morning News. 19 MS. KRUEGER: Gail Krueger, Savannah Morning 20 News. 21 MR. DYSART: Thank you. We all are familiar 22 with the mission of the SEG, so we'll skip over 23 item two. Item three, you have the draft agenda 24 that has been put together based on input from the 25 SEG members, and are there any additions that 6 1 2 anyone would like to propose to go on the agenda? 3 Is there any preference, any desire to change 4 the order of business or what not? Okay. I've 5 been told that the first major item, the GPA 6 overview, probably will last at least half an hour, 7 half an hour or so for questions and answers. 8 As is the group's custom when it is a major 9 presentation, we take all the discussion and 10 questions, that's kind of the highlight of the 11 meeting; sharing, learning what's going on and so 12 forth. 13 So it looks like we ought to be able to finish 14 up, at least, by scheduled adjournment time, so we 15 don't have to go through the process of deciding 16 how long we want to stay into the afternoon. 17 Is there general agreement that the agenda as 18 proposed is acceptable to the group? Okay. Then 19 the next item of business would be action on the 20 September transcript or the record -- meeting 21 record -- that was posted on the website. 22 Everybody has had an opportunity to look at 23 that. Any questions or comments concerning that? 24 Then, I presume, that that is acceptable, no 25 objections, so forth. Okay. Next item, Larry. 7 1 2 Moving right along, that's right. 3 MR. KEEGAN: Bear with me for just a minute 4 while my projector wakes up. It takes a minute or 5 so for the lamp to come on, if it will come on. 6 What I would like to do this morning is just 7 go through an overview of where things are. There 8 have been a number of developments, organizational 9 changes, that sort of thing. 10 So, for the first part, I just want to cover 11 some background I think will be familiar to most 12 people. Then I want to go in and talk, basically, 13 about the pieces that are identified so far that 14 make up what has to be done. 15 If you have questions or anything, we can take 16 them during the presentation or we can do it 17 afterwards. 18 Just by way of background, here's status of 19 where we are now. One of the big areas that is 20 affecting what has to be done is this cooperating 21 agencies and how they will work together, and I may 22 talk to that just a little bit later, a little bit 23 more status. 24 Project delivery team is a new term. That 25 comes from the Corps of Engineers business process. 8 1 2 That talks about how they deliver a new project and 3 who participants in it, and then what sorts of work 4 is going on. 5 This finalizing scope of work is important. I 6 am not going to talk to the schedule today, so if 7 anyone is expecting to see dates and times of when 8 things are going to be done, I just can't do it 9 yet. 10 Until that's done, and the cooperating and 11 lead agencies have an opportunity to work through 12 that, and all come to an agreement on what the 13 content and how long it will take, but we have 14 started a good bit of work. 15 As you know -- well, I think everything that's 16 been recommended through this body is well 17 underway and some has already been completed. 18 This is just an attempt to make clear what 19 we're trying to do. We're doing two things. We're 20 doing a Tier II EIS that builds on the Tier I. 21 We're doing a revaluation planning study for the 22 Corps of Engineers' decision-making process, and 23 here's the why. 24 I'm going to touch on those requirements. 25 Many of them will be familiar to you. If there are 9 1 2 any new ones, I'll be happy to try and answer your 3 questions. 4 The first thing that provided requirements for 5 what has to be done was the authorization and WRDA 6 99. I'm going to touch on the major requirements. 7 WRDA 99 had some more requirements. If anyone 8 needs review what WRDA '99 says, I have that 9 available. 10 In addition to that, there are requirements 11 that were contained in the chief of engineers' 12 report reporting the project to Congress, and this 13 is a summary of those major requirements. Again, 14 shouldn't be any real surprises there. 15 Now, in addition the National Environmental 16 Policy Act imposes some requirements on this 17 process. This isn't unique to this sort of study. 18 It's the same regulations that are imposed on any 19 other study requiring an environmental impact 20 station -- environmental impact statement. 21 Those regulations provide for scoping, both 22 with the public, public input, and within the 23 federal agencies, and other agencies, and all of 24 the things here. 25 You'll here in the next slide, I'll talk about 10 1 2 cooperating agencies. Provisions for that sort of 3 organization are contained in the CEQ regulations. 4 We can talk about that if anybody wants some 5 clarification. 6 It's important to note that these are the same 7 sequence of events that are going to go on. In 8 other words, there will be disclosure. There will 9 public review of the draft EIS, and a full comment 10 and resolution period, from both the public and 11 from agencies before a final EIS is put together, 12 same as any other. 13 Lead and cooperating agencies is a bit new. 14 As I said these are provided for in CEQ 15 regulations. Lead agency is the Army Corps of 16 Engineers, and these are their -- that's their 17 major responsibilities, a little bit of 18 paraphrasing, and then cooperating agencies are 19 provided for. 20 Cooperating agencies, in this project, are the 21 Port Authority, Fish and Wildlife Service, National 22 Marine Fisheries Service, and the Environmental 23 Protection Agency. 24 They have been invited by the Corps of 25 Engineers, and as I understand it, all have 11 1 2 accepted; is that correct, Doug? 3 MR. PLACHY: I've got acceptance in writing 4 from all but EPA. My understanding is there's a 5 letter out there from EPA. 6 MR. KEEGAN: Just haven't seen the letter? 7 MR. PLACHY: Correct. 8 MR. KEEGAN: And they'll be participants, 9 certainly in the scoping process, and depending 10 upon how the lead agency decides things, will 11 participate in all the analysis and 12 decision-making. 13 Now, in addition to those sorts of unique 14 things, we have other legal requirements, and this 15 should be familiar to you. Morgan talked about 16 this several months ago. These things have been 17 identified and been on the website for a long time. 18 These are the major acts, I guess I could say, 19 legal requirements that have to be met by this or 20 any other EIS work. 21 There's probably many, many more that could 22 come into play, but it depends on circumstances. 23 Okay. There aren't any questions. That's good. 24 General reevaluation study, that's a term of 25 the Corps of Engineers. It is a planning study 12 1 2 that provides for reanalysis of a completed study, 3 for whatever reason, circumstances have changed, 4 whatever it may be. 5 It applies to the current planning criteria 6 and policies, and what it can do is either affirm 7 what you have already decided, you can modify it, 8 reformulate it, or you could find nothing is 9 justified at this point. 10 The conditions and the method of doing this is 11 prescribed in Corps of Engineers' regulations. I 12 believe it's the planning guidance notebook is the 13 primary reference for how this is done -- very 14 familiar to a feasibility study, very similar sort 15 of content. 16 It will start from the feasibility study that 17 formed the basis of the approval already. Then 18 there's a process prescribed for planning studies. 19 Again, this is from Corps of Engineers' 20 regulations, and just a quick summary of the big 21 steps that have to have happen in planning process, 22 and all of these will go through in doing the 23 general reevaluation study as well. 24 No questions. Okay. Reevaluation principles, 25 these are the foundation on which the work will be 13 1 2 done. There's several of them here. 3 It's important, I think, to point out to you 4 that in doing the Tier I EIS and the feasibility 5 study, there were some conscious choices made to 6 defer doing some things until this period. And 7 of course, every one of those deferred items will 8 now be done in its full and complete requirement 9 during this period of time. 10 I'm talking about things like ship simulation, 11 design of various alternatives. What we didn't do 12 the first time was design a price separately 13 mitigation cost for each alternative. We prorated 14 what we thought would be the maximum cost, and some 15 other things you can see here. 16 This is by no means all of them, but just 17 illustrating. We will have to reverify the 18 selection of the National Economic Development Plan 19 with those mitigation costs included, and whatever 20 else goes into the economic reevaluation. 21 Clearly, we have to meet the Corps of 22 Engineers' requirements for this work. We can't 23 shortcut, avoid, or change the requirements and 24 there's no attempt to do that. 25 The Corps intended, I'm told, and I think 14 1 2 we'll probably settle how this will work that the 3 cooperating agencies will be part of that project 4 delivery team. And as I mentioned, the foundation 5 of where we start from is that feasibility study in 6 the Tier I EIS. 7 There are, obviously, some issues to be 8 addressed. Again, these are not all of the issues, 9 but they're just illustrative of the ones that have 10 received some attention. 11 All of the issues that have been identified 12 will be included. These are some. We're not sure 13 of the answers on what we'll do with them yet. 14 Definition of project alternatives, we'll go 15 through and reformulate those. Dredge material, I 16 know Bill has been very active working through the 17 Beach Erosion Committee with that. 18 Modeling, of course, has taken a lot of 19 effort. And Floridan Aquifer impacts, as you know, 20 that's still being worked. It is not settled yet. 21 Bank stability, both channel bank and river 22 bank stability are issues that will be addressed; 23 how that potential development in Jasper County 24 will fit in is something that we will come to grips 25 with -- impact evaluation. 15 1 2 Clearly, all of that judgment has to be made 3 on these natural resources, and then we have to 4 convert all of the model predictions and the 5 technical and scientific information into judgments 6 about impacts, and then try to balance what we can 7 in terms of mitigation; avoidance, minimization, 8 compensation, whatever. 9 Some other things to deal with in parallel 10 with this is a water quality standard revision 11 that's ongoing and working in EPA. Essential fish 12 habitat consultation is a requirement that has 13 become effective since the Tier I study was done, 14 so naturally that's included now. 15 And again, depending upon where we go, 16 cultural and historic sites. Where do we get all 17 the issues from? I'm sure this group knows well. 18 They had a lot of help in telling us what things we 19 needed to be concerned about and what scope. That 20 is still going on. 21 We, GPA, did a whole day scoping meeting. We 22 have all of those comments, every single one which 23 we will forward formally for inclusion in the 24 general reevaluation in Tier II. 25 There will a scoping meeting that the Corps of 16 1 2 Engineers will have, so those are all the things. 3 If anyone wants, I can show the list of suggestions 4 that the SEG has made, or issues that they have 5 identified, just to reassure you that every one of 6 those will be included and dealt with 7 appropriately. 8 I don't see any hands, so I'm going to go on. 9 So there's two elements, as I've said, to what 10 we're going to do; this reevaluation study and this 11 Tier II EIS coordination. 12 They're not separate. They're interwoven. 13 They overlap. One influences the other. What you 14 see under this first heading is by way of grouping 15 the items of work that have to be done, broad 16 categories, and I'll talk to each of those to 17 whatever level of detail I can or you desire a 18 little bit later on. 19 The last one, preliminary construction plan. 20 I don't want anyone to get excited about this, but 21 if things move forward, then there's a point in 22 time where some of that effort has to start in 23 order to minimize what could be one to two years of 24 dead time, while things are put in place. 25 I'm talking about things like a cooperation 17 1 2 agreement for how to do the construction and those 3 sorts of things. That will not start for quite a 4 while, and not until it's pretty clear that it 5 should start. 6 To break things down a little bit more, 7 graphically, this is what those two pieces look 8 like. The two pieces there at the second level and 9 then here are all the components that will make up 10 the subcategories. 11 This comes from the work breakdown structure 12 that we're working on now, and there's a lot of 13 detail behind each one of those boxes. I'll talk 14 to most of those, as I say. 15 Anytime we want to go back to that, we can. 16 Here are the major categories again. Here's that 17 first -- first piece of the tree, agency and NEPA 18 coordination. Corps of Engineers and the Georgia 19 Ports Authority had quite a bit coordination to 20 work out. 21 That resulted in a memorandum of understanding 22 for how the two agencies will work together, and 23 what the Port Authority's responsibilities and 24 requirements will be to be a coordinating agency, 25 and what the Corps of Engineers' responsibilities 18 1 2 and requirements are. 3 Included in that is project planning. That's 4 where we are now. That also includes bringing in 5 all the other cooperating agencies to participate 6 in this planning process, all of the content, which 7 is moving along, and plan formulation. 8 That's where we really sit down and work 9 through all of the requirements, and make the 10 decisions about what these various alternatives 11 plans should like, and which one, if any, meet the 12 NED selection. 13 So, again, that was this leg right here. 14 Scientific analysis and evaluation, this should 15 look familiar to many people. This is comprised of 16 most of the things we've been talking about in this 17 forum; salinity, chloride, dissolved oxygen, 18 distribution, what will happen to that, what will 19 result from what we project will happen. 20 Modeling is wrapped in that. Freshwater marsh 21 secession evaluation, the work that's going on 22 between the Port Authority -- actually, ATM, and 23 Fish and Wildlife Service with Dr. Kitchens, along 24 with tidal wetland study, beach erosion study. 25 I know it's near and dear to people here from 19 1 2 Tybee. That's moving along. It's actually in a 3 review cycle now. 4 Fisheries resource investigations, this is 5 part of the consultation that we expect to have to 6 do on essential fish habitat. All of those things 7 that say fisheries resources or fish 8 characterization -- fish characterization actually, 9 there's nothing ongoing right now. 10 That was a few studies that were requested by 11 the Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Committee which 12 were done and they used those. 13 Hurricane surge evaluation, we have to deal 14 with that and finalize it, and aquifer effects 15 evaluation which, as I said, is still developing 16 through the aquifer working group and Aquifer 17 Committee. 18 Impact evaluation, mitigation, matrix 19 development; here are the components of it. That 20 first one, translation of model effects to impacts 21 promises to be challenging. 22 There is no put in the values, turn the crank, 23 answer comes out at the other end. It's judgment. 24 It's knowledge. It's really a difficult thing to 25 deal with, and one that will not be done lightly or 20 1 2 quickly. 3 Many of those kinds of decisions have to be 4 reached with the advice and the counsel and 5 participation of the other cooperating agencies. 6 Now, that presumes -- doing that presumes we 7 have modeled the basic alternatives, whatever they 8 may be, and said here's the kind of changes that 9 are predicted to occur. 10 When those are -- this is how we think it is 11 going to work. When those are translated to 12 impacts to natural resources, then we have to start 13 to deal with, as I said, mitigation. What can we 14 avoid? What can we minimize -- all of those kinds 15 of things. 16 We anticipate we will have to go back and use 17 the model and take each of those alternatives that 18 seem to be a viable alternative to look at and 19 model what it will cause in the way of effects, and 20 translate that into impacts, and put that in the 21 judgment along with all the other things. 22 So it's not -- none of this can be done in 23 isolation. When you consider mitigation for a 24 particular impact, you have to look at what that 25 causes to some other impact -- challenging. 21 1 2 We expect that's going to come out with some 3 sort of matrix of effects that will have to be used 4 to try and reach some selection of what the 5 mitigation plan should be comprised of, and of 6 course, the SEG has a part in that. 7 We will keep you informed of where that is, 8 and how that's going, and listen to your 9 recommendation. 10 This is really difficult to predict how long 11 this will take. Nobody really knows. I can say 12 that it will be done thoroughly and completely. 13 Engineering analysis, this title, don't get too 14 wrapped up in the title, encompasses many things. 15 River hydraulics, this is what's going to lead 16 to -- where's Fred? Fred this is what's going to 17 eventually lead to looking at what the 18 sedimentation partners should do and that sort of 19 thing. 20 Advance maintenance features, as talked about 21 in here, there is some provision in the current 22 channel design for some advance maintenance, and 23 that enables the maintenance of the channel on an 24 annual basis. 25 We need to relook at that. We need to see 22 1 2 what, how much, where those things may be required 3 in this deeper channel and account for them. 4 Engineering, I'm going to talk about that 5 category, engineering, in just a second. 6 Environmental support tasks, these are things like 7 the sediment quality analysis that have to be done. 8 I lied. Sediment quality determination is listed 9 separately. 10 Environmental support tasks includes the HTRW, 11 hazardous toxic radioactive waste analysis that 12 have to be done by the Corps. 13 Real estate, obviously, depending upon what's 14 designed, what effects there might be, we need to 15 figure out what the real estate is that might be 16 needed, then, of course, the economic reevaluation 17 which has been working its way through the Economic 18 Working Group since the start of this SEG. 19 Engineering has got some subcomponents, ship 20 simulation study, that has been initiated for Wes 21 to do. We expect people here in December I believe 22 -- Doug, is that right -- 23 MR. PLACHY: Yes. 24 MR. KEEGAN: -- to look at the channel, ride a 25 ship, and start doing that. That will involve, as 23 1 2 well, the pilots for their input and their review. 3 Design support, when we come up with a 4 possible mitigation scheme, somebody has to design 5 that. Somebody has to figure out how to do it. So 6 that's what that is. 7 Evaluation of dredge material disposal, this 8 is the piece of what we promised Tybee we would do, 9 and what we've been working in the Beach Erosion 10 Committee to work on to complement some other 11 things the Corps is doing. 12 Bank stability evaluation, geotechnical 13 evaluation of the property along the river -- is 14 anybody going to be affected, what will that 15 effect likely be, and of course cost estimate. 16 We have to do a cost estimate of what it will 17 take to build all these things, as part of the 18 NED evaluation. 19 MR. BERSON: Larry, what ship are you going to 20 simulate? 21 MR. KEEGAN: The choice out of the Economic 22 Working Group which is? 23 MR. BERSON: Beats me. 24 MR. REES: When we get the Economic Working 25 Group Committee report, we can deal with that, but 24 1 2 the bottom line is we met a month ago, whatever the 3 date was, and reached a consensus with the 4 exception of the Georgia Conservancy, who 5 wasn't there, and the Economic Working Group will 6 report when it is time for their report today that 7 the recommended design vessel is 1,138 feet long, 8 and 140 feet beam width, and 47 feet draft. 9 That's equal to several ships that are 10 currently in service, Maersk vessels, and the 11 caveat of that recommendation is subject to further 12 coordination of the Georgia Conservancy. You 13 haven't gotten my e-mails, obviously. 14 MR. BERSON: So it's not Regina Maersk? 15 MR. REES: Correct, it's bigger than that. 16 MR. KEEGAN: Does that answer your question, 17 Wil? 18 MR. BERSON: Yes. 19 MR. KEEGAN: Cultural resources, requirements 20 are many and varied. Without going to enormous 21 detail, we have to look at the areas that were 22 identified in Tier I; are there any cultural or 23 historical resources in those areas? 24 We'll have to look at newly identified areas 25 that come out of this reevaluation study and see 25 1 2 what they see there. 3 Any mitigation features, we'll have to look at 4 those, and certainly CSS Georgia is a given through 5 all this. We just cannot avoid dealing with 6 Georgia appropriate -- and that's no different 7 than what was said -- none of this is different 8 than what we said in the Tier I. 9 Compliance documents, these are the decision 10 documents, the general reevaluation study report 11 which y'all see abbreviated GRR, Tier II EIS. 12 Obviously, they have to be written. 13 They will go through an independent technical 14 review, in accordance with the Corps of Engineers 15 requirements, and then a draft document will be 16 produced, advertised, solicited, input, comments, 17 feedback on it. 18 There are some accompanying documents that are 19 required to go with a reevaluation study. They are 20 things like certification that the sponsor can pay 21 the costs, and I think a very detailed construction 22 cost estimate of the selected for NED plan, things 23 like that. 24 There are other state, federal compliance 25 actions. You saw some of them earlier on legal 26 1 2 requirements. They are water quality 3 certifications, coastal zone consistency 4 certifications, essential fish habitat, a number of 5 those things. 6 There may be some other supporting documents, 7 depending on the nature of what we come up with, 8 and a preliminary cooperation agreement to deal 9 with the next step, if that's appropriate. 10 MS. FOLKER: Young man. 11 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, ma'am, thank so much for 12 calling me that. 13 MS. FOLKER: When you get my age, everybody is 14 young. Could you give me some idea of what all 15 this is costing and exactly who is picking up the 16 tab on all of it -- all the studies that I'm 17 looking at here? 18 MR. KEEGAN: I don't know yet the final cost 19 because that's dependent upon the makeup of all the 20 scope of what has to be done. 21 We're projecting, right now, based on what we 22 know that the final for this plus the Tier I work 23 will come out in the range of 19 to $20,000,000. 24 Of that, about 4.5 was done in the feasibility 25 study. The remainder is now, and that will be 27 1 2 shared, I think, roughly on a 50/50 basis between 3 the State of Georgia through the Georgia Port 4 Authority and the federal government. 5 I said roughly because there are some things 6 that may adjust, which items are funded entirely by 7 the federal government or entirely by the Port 8 Authority, and that is not settled yet. Does that 9 help? 10 MS. FOLKER: Yes. Thank you very much. 11 MR. KEEGAN: Anybody else? 12 MR. BERSON: Could you discuss the independent 13 technical review? 14 MR. KEEGAN: Excuse me. 15 MR. BERSON: Can you discuss how the 16 independent technical review will be conducted? 17 MR. KEEGAN: I can talk in general, but I 18 really should defer to Doug. In fact, I'd like to 19 defer to Doug since it is a Corps requirement. 20 MR. PARKER: Doug's going to defer to me. Our 21 regulations require, on any kind of major 22 environmental or feasibility study, we conduct an 23 independent technical review. 24 In other words, there is another -- it can be 25 a variety of things. This has not been chosen. It 28 1 2 can be another Corps of Engineers' district. It 3 can be a university setting. It can be another 4 government agency that would review all of the work 5 that was done on, in this case, the Tier II 6 Environmental Impact Statement and the GRR, to be 7 sure that the work that's been done is accurate. 8 So we look for someone who has no ax to grind, 9 does not have any perceived vested interest in the 10 outcome one way or the other of the study or the 11 report. And that's given complete -- completely 12 independent technical review, and that becomes part 13 of the final product. 14 MR. KEEGAN: The outcome of that review, the 15 resolution of things, the manner in which it was 16 conducted are one of those accompanying documents 17 or other supporting documents -- I have forgotten 18 which one we called it -- but an entire report of 19 how things were done, how things were dealt with 20 has to go forward with the GRR. 21 MR. BERSON: In the interest of playing nicely 22 at the table, being a good sand box players with 23 others, I think that that's an important point, and 24 how that review is done is worthy of future 25 discussion. 29 1 2 I don't think it does right now, but I think 3 it's a very important point. I just want to say 4 that very clearly. 5 MR. KEEGAN: Any others? 6 MR. TOLLISON: Larry, on the cost, is it safe 7 to say that GPA is paying $15,000,000 in study 8 work? 9 MR. KEEGAN: No, I don't think it's safe to 10 say that. 11 MR. TOLLISON: If you're at $20,000,000 and 12 4.5 is split between GPA and the federal 13 government, the remaining balance, who is paying 14 that? 15 MR. KEEGAN: That would eventually be split 16 between the Corps of Engineers and the state 17 through GPA. I think it's going to come out to be 18 50/50 or very close to it. 19 As I said, based on some things will be paid 20 in entirety by one or the other. So it may shift a 21 little bit. There are some things to interpret 22 about what should be done, what has been done, 23 what's oversight, what's integral to the study, 24 those sort of things. 25 That comes out to roughly seven and a half, I 30 1 2 think, does that computer? 3 MR. TOLLISON: Yeah. 4 MR. KEEGAN: Okay. Other questions? Okay. 5 And then final decision documents, once this is all 6 said and done, the final EIS or final general 7 reevaluation study, all the accompanying documents 8 go forward to the headquarters of the Corps of 9 Engineers' chief of engineers, eventually to the 10 Secretaries of the Army, Interior, Commerce and 11 the Administrator of the EPA for their decision. 12 Those are the documents that get carried 13 forward. And finally, the last comment, I just 14 want to emphasize this is not -- this is not a 15 crank and grind exercise. 16 There is no magic box. You say, I want this, 17 you turn the crank and the answer comes out. 18 There's a great deal of judgment and analysis and 19 study that has to go on. 20 You have to look at things in a balanced 21 manner. That concludes what I have to say. Yes, 22 sir. 23 MR. OFF: Is there an organization that has 24 a final say for conflict resolution? You just 25 mentioned a number of secretaries, but where does 31 1 2 it go, through a legal system, or does it go 3 through somebody in the government? 4 MR. KEEGAN: Gee, that's a good question. 5 It's a little difficult for me to answer. In a 6 minute, I'm going to ask Jim to address it. 7 I think it would most likely, if that need 8 comes up, go to CEQ, Council of Environmental 9 Quality? 10 MR. BROWNELL: That's correct. That's the 11 President's Council. It's a cabinet-level 12 decision-making body. 13 MR. KEEGAN: Jim, can you shed some light on 14 that? 15 MR. PARKER: We would hope that by the time it 16 would reach the secretary level, conflicts would 17 have been resolved through the study process, 18 through the comment period. 19 Environmental impact statements are an interim 20 process. That's why we have drafts, receive 21 comments, have an independent, technical review. 22 Part of that ITR is to point up areas that 23 could be a potential conflict, and for us to 24 resolve. So we would hope by the time it reached 25 the secretary level, any major conflicts that might 32 1 2 be -- might have arisen during the study process 3 would have been resolved. 4 The four secretaries and their, or the 5 administrator, all cabinet-level folks, they and 6 their staffs would ultimately reach resolution. 7 They have to reach resolution in order for the 8 project to move forward. 9 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 10 MR. REES: If I may I guess, the last point 11 that Jim made, I just want to remind everybody of. 12 This is a unique process, based on the 13 authorization language in the Water Resource 14 Development Act of 1999, in that each of the 15 federal resource agencies, essentially, has a veto. 16 So we do hope, and we frankly expect, that 17 there will be no such conflict at the end of the 18 process. 19 That's why we're doing this kind of exercise. 20 That's why we're working so hard with everybody, to 21 make sure we address all the issues and get them 22 resolved, before we get to the end. 23 But the technical answer to your question is 24 that if we get to the end, and any one of the 25 agencies is dissatisfied with the outcome, each of 33 1 2 the federal agencies has a veto power. 3 In addition, the State of Georgia and the 4 State of South Carolina have vetoes on the overall 5 project, based on certain aspects of either the 6 Clean Water Act or the Coastal Zone Management Act. 7 So there are a whole series of vetoes involved 8 that we hope to avoid any circumstance where 9 anybody would be inclined to exercise that veto. 10 MR. DYSART: David Kyler. 11 MR. KYLER: Yeah. There's an awful lot of 12 information up there. I may have missed something. 13 Is there anything you have shown or commented on, 14 throughout all this integrated process of impact 15 study and reevaluation, that sets forth a 16 monitoring assessment program should the project 17 go forward; to reevaluate, once again, what the 18 actual, physical impacts are compared to those 19 predicted, and the consequences of the project in 20 reality, which would lead forward to identify 21 further compensation and mitigation efforts beyond 22 what had been set forth? 23 MR. KEEGAN: David, are you talking about the 24 circumstance if it goes to construction? 25 MR. KYLER: Yes. 34 1 2 MR. KEEGAN: To see how closely the 3 predictions hold up? 4 MR. KYLER: Yes, and to enhance the model for 5 further purposes. 6 MR. KEEGAN: That's not settle yet. Some of 7 that was his included in our Tier I mitigation 8 plan, and it would not surprise me if some of those 9 things come up and are included as part of the 10 mitigation plan, if you will, as a result of this 11 exercise. That's not settled yet one way or the 12 other, that I know of. 13 MR. KYLER: Again, I would like to flag that 14 and will flag the other thing on the independent 15 review as a very important part of what this body 16 should scrutinize and recommend. 17 MR. KEEGAN: Okay. 18 MR. DYSART: Bill and -- 19 MR. FARMER: The role of the Stakeholders 20 Evaluation Group -- 21 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. 22 MR. FARMER: -- when do we sort of end, and is 23 there sort of a final report of some kind, where 24 does that fit in with all the other reports that go 25 someplace? 35 1 2 MR. KEEGAN: You expect me to answer that, 3 Bill? Thank you for your confidence, but I don't 4 think I can predict that. 5 I think that's, in a large part, up to this 6 group, and some of the things like the final 7 report, I think, are still subject to discussion 8 here. I don't know when the SEG involvement will 9 no longer occur. I just can't predict. 10 MR. FARMER: Our main role is to recommend 11 scientific studies that are needed to be done. 12 Once we recommend them, they go off to GPA and they 13 do them. 14 And then the final reports are made and 15 engineering analyzes -- all that. I'm wondering if 16 the SEG comes back into play somewhere towards the 17 end of the study writing or whatever. 18 MR. KEEGAN: Solomon, I'm not. I just don't 19 know. I think that's something this group is going 20 to have to discuss and come to some conclusion 21 about. 22 MR. DYSART: I believe the original wording 23 was that this body identifies issues, identifies 24 studies and scopes of scientific investigations 25 that need to be done, and then evaluates or looks 36 1 2 at the result and forms some impression. Jim then 3 Morgan. 4 MR. PARKER: Responding to the earlier comment 5 on the potential monitoring and addition 6 mitigation, it is not unusual either in a Corps' 7 study or in a Section 44 process where we issue 8 wetlands permit, for there to be requirements in 9 the mitigation plan for monitoring of that plan, 10 and adjustments as necessary. 11 So that's not -- certainly too early to say 12 what those would be, but that's not an unusual 13 occurrence in this. It occurs more often than not. 14 MR. REES: If I made add to the discussion on 15 the SEG final report, in the Tier I EIS, the 16 process that was described for the SEG was -- was a 17 two-step process. 18 Number one, the scope of studies that need to 19 be done; and then number two, reach a consensus on 20 a mitigation plan based on those studies. 21 However, if there -- if consensus is not 22 reached, then there would be reports furnished on 23 dissenting views, minority opinions, whatever. 24 Having said that, you may recall, Bill, that 25 several times in the SEG over the past year or so, 37 1 2 we've had some discussion about what would the 3 nature be of this kind of report. 4 We were unable to reach consensus on how to 5 approach that question. So we haven't done 6 anything about it. So what Larry said is exactly 7 right. 8 GPA nor the Corps can answer the question of 9 what's going to be the conclusion of this group, 10 because this group hasn't, themselves, dealt with 11 that directly. Maybe it's time to think about that 12 again. 13 MR. FARMER: It's getting closer all the time. 14 Did I read you right in that the Operating 15 Guidelines Committee is going to develop a 16 recommendation first on that issue, and then come 17 back to the SEG? 18 MR. REES: The Operating Guidelines Committee 19 has not addressed it because we were unable to 20 reach consensus about whether to address it. 21 MR. DYSART: Excuse me. For those of you -- 22 MR. REES: Again, it may be time to revisit 23 that issue. 24 MR. DYSART: Those of you who have not been 25 here on a regular basis for the last number of 38 1 2 months, the working notion for what a consensus is, 3 I believe it was in October of '99, there was an 4 agreement by this body that it would be something 5 that everybody could live with. 6 Since then, it has become -- sometimes that 7 basically means if any one person announces they 8 cannot live with something, then that stops things. 9 So I think that's a matter that cannot be 10 agreed what can be considered, that does pose a 11 barrier to moving ahead. So anyway... 12 MR. TOLLISON: When will the model be ready? 13 MR. KEEGAN: Answer your question with a 14 question, which model? There are -- 15 MR. TOLLISON: I have -- 16 MR. KEEGAN: Let me -- I'm not trying to be 17 flippant. There are basically five different kinds 18 of models, I think. 19 We have a hydrodynamic and salinity model 20 which is the foundation on which dissolved oxygen 21 modeling and chloride modeling will be built, but 22 those last two are, in essence, separate 23 adaptations of that hydrodynamic and salinity 24 model. 25 There is then, on top of the hydrodynamic 39 1 2 salinity model, a sedimentation adaptation of it. 3 Bo, correct me if use the wrong word, don't hold me 4 exactly to your words. There is a freshwater marsh 5 secession model being developed. That's why I said 6 there are five. 7 The first one we expect to be ready for use, 8 we're working with the MTRG and a group of federal 9 agencies to get to that point, is the hydrodynamic 10 and salinity model. 11 And there was just a meeting of that -- those 12 two groups here last Thursday and Friday. I don't 13 even know what conclusion they came to. 14 What I'm going to say is my opinion, subject 15 to possible modification here later this week, but 16 I think it could be ready, hydrodynamic and 17 salinity model could be ready by -- by March/April, 18 maybe a bit earlier. 19 It's a little difficult for me to say. I hope 20 a good bit earlier, but I can't absolutely say. 21 Does that answer your question, Trip? 22 MR. TOLLISON: Yes. Thank you. 23 MR. DYSART: John Robinette. 24 MR. ROBINETTE: Yeah. Larry, you were talking 25 about you're considering the effects of the Jasper 40 1 2 County port? 3 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. 4 MR. ROBINETTE: Are you also considering the 5 effects of a potential offshore port? 6 MR. KEEGAN: I think probably that's 7 open-ended. That's part of one of the alternatives 8 that have to be formulated, and taken through the 9 whole process of screening and evaluation. 10 I don't know if we have an offshore port 11 currently identified right now or not. I don't 12 think we do. That's not to say we won't. 13 I'm not doing a tap dance now. I'm trying to 14 be real straight. We haven't even come to grips 15 with what are all the alternatives yet. 16 MR. ROBINETTE: But it hasn't been thrown out? 17 MR. KEEGAN: No. Nothing has been rejected 18 yet. 19 MR. REES: If I may add to Larry's response, 20 the Economic Working Group is meeting Thursday at 21 9:00 o'clock. One of the items, on the agenda of 22 the Economic Working Group, is a presentation by a 23 group that has what they claim is a viable 24 offshore port proposal. 25 So we're going to be listening to that on 41 1 2 Thursday. That will be -- by its very nature, the 3 Economic Working Group being part of this process, 4 we'll get forward into the process. 5 MR. DYSART: Press. 6 MR. BROWNELL: I decided to hold my comment 7 until later. 8 MR. DYSART: Further comments or questions of 9 Larry? Anything else you want to add? 10 MR. KEEGAN: No, sir. 11 MR. BERSON: I just had one question. How 12 long, and this is really just because I know it's 13 been going on a long time, if the hydrodynamic and 14 salinity models are ready by March/April, that 15 represents a year, year and a half investment in 16 terms of work. 17 MR. ELLIS: That will be about two years. 18 MR. BERSON: I was just going to say, just to 19 put 36 months of meeting in some context -- two 20 years to do a model, it's a lot of work. 21 MR. KEEGAN: That model development has been 22 going on as long as this group's existence -- 35 23 months. 24 MR. ELLIS: We started data collection, but 25 that was all leading up to it. 42 1 2 MR. REES: If I may add a little to that 3 question or comment, we've been concerned, as I'm 4 sure a lot of you have, about the investment of 5 time and energy into this process. 6 Everybody has a lot of other things to do. 7 It's not a trivial amount of time and not a trivial 8 expense. 9 So we actually looked at a number of other 10 similar projects, in terms of scope of different 11 issues, and complexities, and environmental 12 controversies, and so forth, and found that the 13 time and money we're spending on this is probably 14 less than what is spent generally. 15 I don't mean to say that we should spend more, 16 but to put it into context, I think by bringing 17 this group together the way we did, it has been 18 able to focus on what the real concerns are, rather 19 than just to keep stumbling along and trying to 20 deal with one issue in isolation of all the other 21 issues. I think this group has provided some 22 assistance in that regard. 23 MR. KEEGAN: Thank y'all very much. 24 MR. DYSART: Thank you, Larry. Bill Farmer. 25 MR. FARMER: I'd like to propose a motion for 43 1 2 consideration by the SEG that the Operating 3 Guidelines Committee be assigned the task of 4 thinking and developing a recommendation for the 5 SEG, as far as what the SEG should do from this 6 point forward, especially with regards to what kind 7 of final report might be required. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. You have a recommendation. 9 Discussion. 10 MR. KYLER: I guess that goes without saying 11 that would include some sort of procedure for 12 dealing with a failure to reach consensus and 13 minority reporting, such as what Morgan was 14 discussing? 15 In other words, if you are going to report 16 findings, you have to allow for a procedure which 17 would confront the possibility of there not being 18 consensus; is that right? 19 MR. DYSART: That would seem reasonable, yes. 20 You're saying that you want to make sure that the 21 Operating Guidelines considers how there is not 22 unanimity, how other views are included in the 23 reporting? 24 MR. KYLER: Yeah. I think Bill was implying, 25 at least I was inferring, it's really a process 44 1 2 of recommendation and not an outline for 3 publication that would be findings, is that 4 correct? 5 MR. FARMER: Yes, that's correct. In other 6 words, up until now we've been developing studies 7 for GPA to accomplish. 8 I would assume that most of those studies have 9 been developed, as far as what the outline and the 10 study plan would be. These studies are being done. 11 We need to look forward to what do we do next. 12 When the studies are done, what do we do, how do we 13 fit in with the matrix of mitigation possibilities, 14 that sort of thing. Do we comment on that, or are 15 we out of it at that point, or what -- so yes. 16 MR. DYSART: How about other discussion or 17 views, advice to the Operating Guidelines Committee 18 if this recommendation is adopted? Okay. Seeing 19 -- is there any view or impression from the chair 20 of Operating Guidelines Committee? Would you like 21 to say anything? 22 MS. LEFFEK: We'll be happy to review whatever 23 the SEG -- if it is a consensus of this body, we'll 24 be happy to review it. 25 MR. DYSART: Is there any objection to 45 1 2 referring this item to the Operating Guidelines for 3 them to develop options or recommendations for the 4 process for the SEG to consider in producing this 5 product? 6 I see -- I see consensus. I see no 7 objections, no one who can't live with it. Okay. 8 Thank you, Bill. 9 Anything else before we get into committee 10 reports? Okay. Why don't let's start with Beach 11 Erosion, Bill, update or whatever you care to 12 share with us. 13 MR. FARMER: All right. The Beach Erosion 14 Committee developed recommendations for four 15 studies. 16 Those four studies have been approved by SEG 17 and have been forwarded to GPA for accomplishment. 18 The first major study was the beach erosion study. 19 I'm told this morning that that is out for peer 20 review among some experts, so that's underway, and 21 the other ones are not complete yet. 22 So we have not had a reason to meet, so we 23 have not met. End of report. 24 MR. DYSART: Thank you. How about Dredging 25 and Disposal, Fred? 46 1 2 MR. BEASON: We're on hold until a model is 3 developed for us to look at the sediment 4 transportation. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Moving right along, 6 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Press. 7 MR. BROWNELL: Just a short note on Fisheries. 8 Of course, most of you remember at the last meeting 9 we did have discussion about the committee, someone 10 helping us facilitate meetings during the remaining 11 phases of our work. 12 Fortunately, we had Mr. Wil Berson volunteer 13 to help us out in that regard. We originally 14 thought about having a Fisheries meeting today, 15 this afternoon. 16 As it turned out, it looked like the best 17 thing to do was to use that time for a cooperating 18 agency group meeting. I think the Fisheries 19 Committee will meet as soon as a schedule can be 20 determined, and the main topics, I think -- anyone 21 else on the committee let me know if you have a 22 different view on that -- I think what we were 23 wanting to talk about at the next meeting, of 24 course, was our new facilitator and the new 25 facilitator's role, and also talk about what each 47 1 2 member thought or is thinking about how we can 3 focus our input, take the scientific studies, take 4 the various information available to us, and be 5 able to utilize that during the remaining phases of 6 the Tier II EIS. 7 Also, we wanted to try, at that next meeting 8 whenever it is, to coordinate with ATM, and Georgia 9 Ports Authority, and the Corps, to get a good 10 presentation for the committee on the use of the 11 hydrodynamic model, and some potential other 12 ancillary models that might be used with it to help 13 us, all of us on the Fisheries and Aquatic 14 Resources to understand and evaluate the 15 information available to us, and be able to 16 evaluate different alternatives projects and 17 different mitigation scenarios. 18 Those are the kind of things -- those are the 19 main topics I'm aware of that might be talked about 20 at the next meeting. We will schedule that meeting 21 as soon as possible, with the help of Mr. Berson. 22 MR. BERSON: Actually, if you would -- anyone 23 who would be interested in that meeting, if you can 24 stay for just a few minutes afterwards, we're going 25 to pull out our calendars and schedule it with Bo 48 1 2 coordinating, so we can get the next one 3 definitively on the calendar. It should only take 4 a few minutes. 5 MR. BROWNELL: That's all I have to say. 6 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Bo, how about a 7 report on what's happening with the Modeling 8 Technical Review Group. 9 MR. ELLIS: Just to go through the notes here 10 on your agenda, it should have said met 4-24-01, 11 Status report posted. I'm not sure where the 12 January 17th came in. And then the meeting was 13 scheduled for November 8th. 14 That was last week, not the 18th, I don't want 15 anybody looking for a meeting later this week or 16 this weekend. But we did meet last Thursday in 17 Atlanta at EPA. We had three agenda items. We 18 haven't coordinated a status report with the MTRG 19 so I do not have a report to file. 20 I'll give you quickly what we did cover. 21 The federal agencies made a presentation of their 22 modeling needs. ATM presented information from 23 the marsh studies, and discussed how the model data 24 will be used in the marsh secession model. 25 Then we also presented a status of the 49 1 2 hydrodynamic model calibration work, and had a 3 discussion about what we need to do finalize that 4 work. Like I said, the status report is being 5 coordinated with the full committee. 6 As soon as I have that, I'll present it to the 7 SEG. It should be ready for the next meeting and 8 that's it. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. I will guarantee we will 10 clean up any erroneous number the humble 11 facilitator put in there. Striped Bass. Ted. 12 MR. WILL: Striped Bass Committee has not met. 13 I'd like to have the Striped Bass Committee stay 14 afterwards too. 15 We're going to try to coordinate with Wil and 16 Fisheries, as far as hearing Bo Ellis or whoever 17 presents the modeling, and try to come up with some 18 ideas on how that model will fit into our studies. 19 So any members here, if you would stay after 20 to try to coordinate a meeting date for that, 21 that's it. 22 MR. DYSART: Anybody here from Communications 23 Committee anything to report? 24 MR. REES: No, nothing to report. We've not 25 had a meeting. 50 1 2 MR. DYSART: Economics Working Group, anyone 3 reporting for Judy? 4 MR. REES: Judy sends her regards. She's 5 sorry. This is the first meeting she's missed in 6 the long history of the SEG. 7 She's out of town on other business. She 8 asked me to give the report. Unfortunately, we had 9 some e-mail glitches -- probably my fault -- but 10 nevertheless, I haven't seen the report. 11 We did get our heads together this morning 12 briefly. I can tell you, generally, what went on 13 at the last meeting, but this has not been cleared 14 by Economic Working Group. 15 These are just my recollections, and they are 16 subject to correction and amendment as we get the 17 report completed and posted. We had several agenda 18 items when last we met, which was October the 11th. 19 We discussed the fleet projection white paper, 20 got about half way through that. We acknowledge 21 that the analysis of not only the fleet 22 projections, but of the trade projections as well, 23 may change before we complete all of the other work 24 associated with this project. 25 So we will continue to monitor what's 51 1 2 happening in world trade, and what's happening in 3 world fleet construction, and revisit these issues 4 at some time that is appropriate in advance of 5 having to reach decisions. 6 Is that clear? In other words, when we look 7 at the schedule, we're going to say okay, decisions 8 need to be made on such and such a date. 9 We will back up from that date a period of 10 time enough to allow us to revisit the trade 11 projections and the fleet projections. 12 We talked some more about natural resource 13 evaluation. David Kyler was kind enough to try to 14 put together a symposium, is that what we called 15 it? 16 MR. KYLER: Forum. 17 MR. REES: A forum on addressing that issue 18 further -- I don't know if you have any progress to 19 report on that -- 20 MR. KYLER: A few things. I made some 21 inquiries by e-mail and telephone and have some 22 strongly recommended people from the University of 23 Georgia, but I want to try to leave that question 24 open to try to get experts from other venues, and 25 also asking agency people who may have people 52 1 2 within their national staff, staff nationwide, who 3 would be able to be brought in to make this as open 4 as possible. 5 MR. REES: Okay. The other issue we discussed 6 was the design vessel. We talked about it earlier 7 in response to Wil's question. 8 The people who attended the meeting reached 9 consensus on the design vessel that I described 10 earlier. We acknowledge the Georgia Conservancy 11 has been a primary player in the Economic Working 12 Group, and we didn't want to reach a consensus 13 without their input. 14 So I was to contact to Wil, and I did, and I 15 don't want to put anybody on the spot, but we 16 haven't linked up yet. So that issue is almost 17 closed, but we still need to close it with the 18 Georgia Conservancy. 19 We're going to meet again on Thursday. We 20 will talk again about the issue we've just 21 discussed. I hope to complete the fleet projection 22 analysis, set a schedule for dealing with the other 23 white papers, hopefully close the loop on the 24 design vessel, and there is a presentation 25 scheduled by C-Hub -- is that the name of the group 53 1 2 that has the offshore port proposal? 3 Anybody who is interested in any of these 4 issues, we're meeting Thursday morning at 9:00 5 o'clock in the Corps of Engineers Planning 6 Conference Room. That's where we usually meet. I 7 think that's where it is. That's all I have. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you, Morgan and 9 David. Operating Guidelines, Teri. 10 MS. LEFFEK: Well, we have not met since the 11 last SEG, which I apologize, I was not able to 12 attend. It's been busy, both personally and 13 professionally the last couple of months. However, 14 the SEG has given us something in addition to 15 review. We'll be contacting the members of 16 Operating Guidelines to schedule a meeting. 17 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Any other discussion 18 on any of the committees? Okay. We don't have 19 anything in the way of new business. No new 20 business was put on the schedule this morning. 21 Does that mean -- would you rather take a 22 break, or would you rather wind up? I detect a 23 consensus here. Okay. Let's set a date for next 24 time. We can meet in December. We can meet in 25 January. The first Tuesday is not a good date. 54 1 2 The second Tuesday, we understand this location is 3 not available. We could either meet the second 4 Tuesday, if you wanted to meet in January at 5 another location, or go to another Tuesday and meet 6 here. In other words, this is something for y'all 7 to decide. Morgan. 8 MR. REES: This is a record for finishing 9 these meetings. I think it's a reflection of 10 what's going on. 11 I think a lot of people have recognized that 12 we're in the study phase, and there's not a lot to 13 report until there's more meat on the bone, if you 14 will. 15 If the SEG would prefer, the Corps is planning 16 to have a EIS or NEPA scoping meeting sometime. I 17 don't want to put the Corps on the spot either, but 18 we may want to think about deferring another SEG 19 meeting until the Corps has their NEPA scoping 20 meeting, and then have the meetings back to back to 21 save people an extra trip and so forth. 22 I'd just like to put that on the table for 23 consideration. Assume, for example, they have a 24 scoping meeting in February. Everybody would come 25 to the SEG meeting in January, and I'm not sure 55 1 2 there's going to be a lot more to deal with at that 3 point, but everybody would want to come to the 4 scoping meeting in February. So maybe we could 5 save a trip. Is that -- 6 MR. TOLLISON: I think that's the right idea. 7 MR. DYSART: Doug, do you have an idea when 8 that meeting will be? 9 MR. PLACHY: I don't have an exact date. 10 MR. REES: Let me add, if we find it's not 11 going to be until April, for example, then we can 12 get on the Internet and say okay, we're going to 13 meet in February anyway. That's an option. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Yes, ma'am. 15 MS. RUTHERFORD: When will be the independent 16 review of the beach erosion study be completed? 17 MR. DYSART: Larry Keegan. 18 MR. KEEGAN: That was slated to take 45 days. 19 I think that's probably still the reasonable 20 estimate, so that would put it mid December. But 21 until we hear from the two folks who are looking 22 at it, and get the feedback from them about what 23 sorts of things they need in order to be able to do 24 a thorough job, I can't guarantee that. 25 MS. RUTHERFORD: Might that be an agenda item 56 1 2 for next meeting -- if it was 45 days, it's been 3 out close to a month now? 4 MR. KEEGAN: About two weeks, I think, would 5 be a better estimate. 6 MR. DYSART: Would you let me know on that 7 somebody -- Bill or Larry, let me know for the next 8 agenda. 9 MR. KEEGAN: I'm sorry. 10 MR. DYSART: I said, either you or Bill let me 11 know about the desire, appropriateness of that as 12 an agenda item for next time. 13 MR. KEEGAN: I'd be happy to. I would think 14 it would be something the Beach Erosion Committee 15 would be more likely to place for that, wouldn't 16 it? 17 MR. FARMER: Sure. As I understand the 18 process, these reviewers give comments back to GPA. 19 GPA may decide there's a little more work to be 20 done, whatever, based on the comments. They go off 21 and do it. 22 Then they put out a final report, and then 23 that comes back to the Beach Erosion Committee to 24 look at, and then that comes back to the SEG; is 25 that the process that occurs? 57 1 2 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah, I think that's what we 3 think. 4 MR. FARMER: I would forecast if you give a 5 report to some experts, they're going to have to 6 come up with something. I would imagine it's a 7 couple months off before it would become an agenda 8 item for the SEG. 9 MR. DYSART: Would you want to set a tentative 10 date, and then if the date for the scoping meeting 11 turns out to be feasible to combine the two, then 12 we can change it to that. What's the pleasure of 13 the body -- set a meeting in January or February, 14 go ahead and set one and then -- 15 MR. BERSON: I'd like to suggest we set one 16 for our normal -- set one for February. If 17 possible, then consider backing off of the NEPA 18 meeting. It seems as if we should something in two 19 months to discuss, but I suspect this body could 20 talk about anything again. 21 I would -- I'd also like to make the 22 suggestion if we do end up piggy-backing we do our 23 SEG meeting prior to the scoping meeting, just to 24 sort of keep the two a little bit more distinct. 25 I think if we have the scoping meeting first 58 1 2 and then the SEG meeting, things might bleed one 3 way or another. I think we might do that and SEG 4 stuff would be cleaner beforehand. 5 MR. DYSART: You're proposing the next 6 scheduled meeting would tentatively be three 7 months? 8 MR. REES: February 5th. 9 MR. DYSART: February 5th would be the first 10 Tuesday. Okay. Acceptable to the body? 11 MR. SHELBY: Acceptable. 12 MS. VAUGHN: I'll verify this room is 13 available. Please check the website or phone 14 number to make sure that's what happened. I 15 believe it's available. 16 MR. DYSART: We will be alert to the 17 possibilitY of combining the next meeting with the 18 Corps meeting. Okay. Anything else? 19 MS. MOORER: We'll just clarify, it's not 20 combining but holding them on the same date? 21 MR. DYSART: That is correct. Will has 22 suggested that and it seemed like there was general 23 support for the notion of having the SEG meeting 24 before the scoping meeting. 25 Okay. That being the case we'll consider 59 1 2 madam court reporter has been a good influence on 3 us again today. She has set a record of 4 encouraging us to be efficient and effective in 5 doing our business. At 10:31 and a 1/2, I declare 6 the meeting closed. I thank you all for your 7 participation. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 G E O R G I A : 5 CHATHAM COUNTY: 6 I hereby certify that the foregoing 7 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 8 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 9 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 10 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 59 represent 11 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 12 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 13 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 14 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 15 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 16 anywise interested in the result of said case. 17 This, the 28th day of November, 2001. 18 19 20 ________________________ 21 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court Reporter, B-2041 22 23 24 25 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25