SEG Meeting

October 19, 1999

Coastal Georgia Center, Savannah

TAPE 1, SIDE A

B Dysart: Welcome to the October meeting of the Stakeholders Evaluation Group. I am Ben Dysart, the SEG meeting facilitator and we have a full agenda today, as we always do. We are always trying to figure out how to do things so that we can get the things that people are coming here to deal with, dealt with, covered, meet the expectations of all the members of the group.

The first thing I want to do, as briefly as possible, is to get some very brief comments as facilitator. This is a facilitated, census seeking project. This is not something where we are simply coming together to dialog on things and what not. We have a mission. Look at the words that are on this slide that you have seen before. It states that the purpose of me, the facilitator, is to try to help you, the members of the group, achieve the mission that you have put together. That is my only purpose. I have no interest in the context, simply helping you be effective, efficient - to try to achieve the objectives. Next slide.

The words that are mentioned there, you have seen this one before, what it is talking about, guiding toward an agreed destination, agreed objectives, keeping the group on tract to fulfill its tasks. However you want to say, still trying to achieve the mission that this body was created to achieve.

The next slide - I wanted to review what the mission is. In April, which was the second meeting which I have been privileged to facilitate, went around the table and asked everybody what they were here to do. The bottom line on that was we asked folks what is it that they were here to do and they said we are here to do the business of the science. We want to move forward, we want to get the job done. This is what people said they wanted to do.

The next slide is wording from the feasibility report of the deepening project. It makes it very clear that this body's function, mission and role is to identify the impacts that could occur, to identify the science, studies that are needed, to determine whether the impacts will occur and to determine what kind of mitigation would be appropriate, would be acceptable that might provide acceptable levels of impact. Then to provide a consensus of decision makers as to whether these studies will get the job done and then when the studies are done, evaluate them, report back to the decision makers whether it was indeed successful.

This is where it describes what the mission, the function of this body is. This is the third sheet of the feasibility report. I am talking -the flow diagram. This is the material referred to in the congressional committee report. Referring specifically to the SEG process. This is the various wording that shows up, referred to in various ways in all of the legislation. So this is the mission of the body. Now that, as I told many of you, I don't believe - I have no particular desire to say what I think the mission is. The mission is specified by Congress. As I understand it, all of the agencies, various interest groups, were involved in putting that wording together, polishing it, word-smithing it, changing it around, getting it to the point that where it was broadly accepted. The first two paragraphs of the Operating Guidelines that were put together by the Operating Guidelines Committee, also make this abundantly clear what the mission is. It also refers to this wording that we just looked at. That is the mission. You have a copy of the committee report that refers to this. You have the dialogue between Senator Chafee and Senator Hollings, and so forth. So I have assumed that since I came to work with you, for you in March, that there was pretty general understanding of the mission. This is the direction that I have been operating in, assuming that there was broad support, understanding of that. That is what people come together once a month for the Stakeholders Evaluation Group to do. I have no interest in monkeying with the mission. I don't have the authority, I don't know who does. It is clearly stated in the record.

So anyway, the last thing I want to do, very briefly, in the spirit of the facilitator's opening exercise, we will not have breakout groups today. It is the prerogative of the facilitator to use standard facilitation techniques and I am going to try to use something that speeds things up.

This group, its committees and its individual members have been working now for the tenth month working with this body. Working on achieving this mission. What I would like to do is ask three questions. Each one of you get a pencil and piece of paper. You will not have to hand it in, so if it is legible to you, that is all that counts. I am going to ask you to rate these questions - zero to ten, so you won't have to use all your fingers adding up. The other two to be answered in a word or a little phrase. I don't want sentences, paragraphs, speeches. Top of mind, quick. Write down three little responses and then we will go around the table and as fast as you can read your words and phrases, it will be done. I think this will, hopefully, be interesting.

First questions - on a scale of zero to ten with zero with being absolutely no progress and ten being exceptional progress, how do you think the SEG has done in its first ten months and moving forward achievement of its mission? How far have you gotten. Specifying all the scientific studies that are needed to meet congressional expectations that are in the mission. Zero to ten. There is no right, no wrong answer, your perception. I'm glad I don't have to put a number on it. I don't have to worry about…

The second question - what in your opinion would help SEG most in successfully completing its mission of specifying all scientific studies that are needed to get the job done. Including mitigation, feasibility of the various depths and so forth, potential depths that are mentioned. I will ask you don't refer to any organizations and don't refer to any individuals. One word, two words, the shorter the better, you get a prize if you make it in one word.

The third question is - now considering what you wrote in the second question, what is the most important thing that you believe you and your organization that you represent, can do to help achieve that, make that possible. This is what is needed and number two - achieve the mission, what would you do. What is the most important thing that you would do. A word, two or three words.

Question one, let’s see how fast we can go around. No body needs to take notes. Press: Number 2, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 5, 3, 6, 7, 3, 3, 2, 6, 4, 7, 7-1/2, 6, 6, 5, 6, 7, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 4, 5. Okay, it is there, I have no objections. I think most of you think there is a pretty good ways to go and that is that.

Second question. Press you did such a good job, I will let you start again.

P Brownell: I will say we have identified major issue areas, major topic areas. We need for each of, each of those major topic areas, (inaudible) potential study areas, we could have a facilitated breakout group to address those.

B Dysart: That was good, but you don’t get a prize for brevity. Next.

Voice: Clearly identify (inaudible)

Voice: Seek the advice of technical experts

Voice: Better understanding of how the individual pieces fit together

Voice: Written committee reports with brief verbal summaries

Voice: (inaudible)

Voice: Concentrate on the science and the (inaudible)

Voice: Continue to (inaudible)

Voice: Use ecosystem approach, realizing (inaudible)

Voice: Lucid communication

Voice: Attitude

Voice: (inaudible)

Voice: Cooperate and agree

Voice: Pause

Voice: Focus on the technical studies

Voice: Continue to concentrate on the science and the issues

Voice: Make a decision

Voice: Focus on the science

Voice: Take more pride in the comprehensive nature of the effort underway

Voice: Develop a balanced approach for valuing all the resources

Voice: Pass

Voice: Pass too

Voice: Teamwork

Voice: Communication and teamwork

Voice: Scientific facts only

Voice: Focus on the science

Voice: Focus on the science

Voice: Implement accurate and successful record keeping in all aspects of meetings and science

Voice: (inaudible)

Voice: Pass

B Dysart: How about on the back row? Everybody who walks in the door is an interested party. So therefore, is a card toting SEG member whether they are sitting at the table or not. Anybody back there want to throw some things in? I apologize for being overlooked. I am sure we have a lot of real answers back there.

Voice: Focus on the technical issues.

Voice: Focus on the science

B Dysart: Okay, third question. We had several prizewinners - one word answers. Question number 3 - what do you do to help?

Voice: Bring people together to (inaudible)

B Dysart: Anybody has the prerogative of passing.

Voice: (inaudible) help with consensus building

Voice: Same

Voice: (inaudible)

Voice: Find a better way to communicate with you and the GPA folks for reasons that I feel accurate record keeping is so important

Voice: Provide the link to people who are quite invested in this (inaudible)

Voice: Participation

Voice: Help if I can

Voice: Provide a federal (inaudible) in a professional manner

Voice: Honest, open communication

Voice: Good technical work

Voice: Stay focused

Voice: Work, do what it takes to reach consensus

Voice: Continue to communicate (inaudible)

Voice: Participate in the scientific studies (inaudible)

Voice: Critic and cooperate

Voice: Promote (inaudible)

Voice: Provide the best information we have on striped bass population

Voice: Promote facts

Voice: Pass

Voice: Pass

Voice: Listen and convey the information on (inaudible) plan

Voice: Base decisions on unbiased factual science

Voice: Accurately represent my agency (inaudible)

Voice: (inaudible)

Voice: Focus on the technical aspects

Voice: Agency provide (inaudible) information (inaudible)

Voice: Identify marine resource questions and identify the science needed to manage it

B Dysart: I believe what is being passed out now is the draft agenda and where we are now is consideration of the agenda. Yes Morgan?

M Rees: I think we didn’t do the first item on the agenda - introductions of people.

B Dysart: Former, burned out facilitators do have a real value added role. Morgan Rees, why don’t you start out state who you represent and roughly how many SEG meetings you have been to.

M Rees: I am Morgan Rees, I am a consultant with GPA and I have been to every one.

F Beason: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo, 100%

P Reese: Patricia Reese, Georgia Ports Authority

B Robinson: Brittany Robinson, International Paper and the Harbor Committee.

H Jue: Harry Jue, City of Savannah, four

N McIntosh: Neff McIntosh, Southern Marine Supply, CEO, all but three

D Gay: Dodie Gay, Chamber of Commerce, manufacturers council, governmental affairs director (inaudible) second meeting

S Stevens: Stuart Stevens, Georgia DNR, all the meetings and a lot of committee meetings

K Parsons: Keith Parsons, Georgia DNR, all but two

S Drake: Sam Drake, Fish & Wildlife Service, two

L Wise: Lloyd Wise, EPA, about six

F Perling: Florence Perling, League of Women Voters, first meeting

J Jennings: Judy Jennings, Georgia Sierra Club, (inaudible)

T Leffek: Teri Leffek, Stevens Shipping

B Farmer: Bill Farmer, City of Tybee Island, 100%

B Bailey: Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers, most of them

P Wendt: Priscilla Wendt, South Carolina DNR, about 70%

C Moore: Charlie Moore, South Carolina DNR, I am a member of the environmental office of the DNR, this is my first meeting

P Brownell: Press Brownell with the U.S. Department of Commerce, Marine Fisheries Service, I have been to all the meetings so far and some others

B Dysart: First timer, go and introduce yourself

H Moorer: Hope Moorer, GPA

B Dysart: I am Ben Dysart and I showed up in March and have been here since then.

S Booher: Sam Booher, Georgia Wildlife Federation, this my first time

T Tollison: Trip Tollison with Congressman Jack Kingston, and I have no idea how many I have been to

D Stewart: I am Don Stewart with Senator Coverdell’s office and this is my first meeting

G McKee: I am Gwen McKee, I have been to two or three meetings and today I am representing Jerry McCullum with Georgia Wildlife Federation

B Brewton: Ben Brewton, Coastal Environmental Organization, I have been here, how many have we had, all of them

D Greenwood: Darrell Greenwood, South Carolina Sierra Club, third meeting

A Calhoun: Andy Calhoun, Colonial Group Savannah, I have been to all of them

J Phillips: John Phillips, Ga DOT, I have made about six of the meetings

D Parrott: Dan Parrott, Corps of Engineers, I believe 9 out of 10

B Dysart: Well that was an A when I was back in high school

D Plachy: Doug Plachy, I am a senior project manager from the Corps of Engineers in Savannah, this is my first meeting

B Smith: Brion Smith and this is my first as a representative of Lockwood Greene Engineers

C Vaughn: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports Authority and I have been to all of them

B Ellis: Bo Ellis, Applied Technology and Management and I have been to all of them

D Schaller: David Schaller with the Georgia Ports Authority and I have missed one

B Dysart: Why don’t you mention where our other Lockwood Greene person is today.

D Schaller: Thank you. Regret to inform everyone that out able colleague and friend, Larry Keegan, had an accident, fell off a ladder last Friday - broke his right leg. He is in Atlanta, will be incapacitated for perhaps up to three months. If anybody would like to send him a card, sorry Cathy, they can e-mail Cathy and Cathy can give them a mailing address. I have it, I think, on my machine and I will be happy to send it along too. But we certainly wish him all the best wishes.

B Dysart: As Larry was hitting the ground, he was sending out an e-mail saying that he was taking a laptop to the hospital and that working with Brion and so forth and we should experience little interruption in getting things posted and so forth.

B Brewton: Was Larry in Atlanta when the accident occurred or was he taken up there for treatment?

D Schaller: He was in Atlanta.

B Dysart: Back row

J Baker: I’m Jim Baker with Colonial Terminals, been to four I think

C Wills: Caitlin Wills, University of Georgia, first meeting

C Desa: Chris Desa, Jonaro Technomar (inaudible)

G Krueger: Gail Krueger, Savannah Morning News, all of them

A Guidera: Ann Guidera, Savannah Morning News, my first

W Wolfe: Wesley Wolfe, Southern Environmental Law Center, Atlanta office, this is my second

B Holman: Blan Holman, Southern Environmental Law Center, North Carolina office and I think been to two

B Dysart: Between Blan and Morgan, they keep each other straight on all the arcane legislation and regulatory

M Rees: Blan keeps me straight

T Van Noppen: Trip Van Noppen, Blan keeps me straight as well, I’m with Southern Environmental Law Center. I have been to two meetings

R Mikell: I am Rob Mikell with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Coastal Programs. I have been to all of them.

M Yuschishin: Myron Yuschishin, I am with the Corps of Engineers, Savannah, I have been to four

J Yandell: Justin Yandell, CEO, this is my first meeting

T Williams: Thom Williams with Sen. Max Cleland’s office, this is my first visit as well

J Hawks: Jodi Hawks, Mulberry Grove Foundation, this is my first meeting

J Morekis: Jim Morekis, Creative Loafing Newspaper, second meeting

L Rogers: Larry Rogers, Georgia EPD, just arrived, about my tenth meeting

B Dysart: He came to the September meeting then. It is good to have a former legendary timekeeper.

B Dysart: Back row over here.

J Stafford: John Stafford, Audubon, I missed two

J Ginett: Joe Ginett, (inaudible) first meeting

J McCurry: Jamie McCurry with GPA, this is my first meeting

B Dysart: Got too many pieces of paper to handle, but I did want to make a special notation that Mr. Stewart, Tollison and Williams are from Rep. Kingston’s office, Senator Cleland’s office and Senator Coverdell’s office were here and we are particularly appreciative of them being here. We hope they will come back and hope they will, except for Trip who is a veteran, get a sense of the effort that is going into being responsive to Congressional mandate to identify the issues, generate the scope of the scientific studies that are needed and get the job done. This is an important mission and it is a challenging mission. I think probably a lot of people don’t know what the answers are and that is why we are committed, why presumably there is commitment to see what the answers are and what kind good and responsible trade-offs can be made. So anyway, we welcome them. Anybody on the back row or side row who wants to come up and sit at the table, they are welcome. If during the course of the meeting and you wish to speak, everybody in here, except me, is considered a member of SEG and has the privilege of the floor.

What we normally do about this time is look at the draft agenda which since it is basically about the same as what was posted last month - it has been posted for well over a month. It is there for your consideration as usual the agenda, draft agenda, is for your consideration, for your adjustment, your approval, whatever you feel is appropriate. And know that the agenda comes from issues and items you wish to put on there. The spin I put on there is that I am front end loading the science. I am front end loading impact working committees that are presumably dealing with the issues this body has identified. Because that is what seems to be the preferences of most people here. So other than that, I am simply saying something (inaudible) about that, but I am being responsive to what I hear from around the table.

So is there discussion about the agenda? Are there recommendations, changes, recommendation for acceptance? Stuart.

S Stevens: Are we doing this?

B Dysart: Yes, one of your most important jobs is to watch that corner over there and if that guy holds his card up, kick me. Our permission is when we can remember it is, to put your tent card up when you wish to speak. Stuart.

S Stevens: I just have a question. It seems like in most of our meetings, that we don’t get through the entire agenda and I am concerned that approval of summaries is basically the last thing on this agenda. We have got four months that are outstanding that we don’t have approved. I just think we need to bring that to closure somehow.

B Dysart: Are you suggesting that we…

S Stevens: I read the communications committee report on the internet and they have got some options for how to bring that to closure. I don’t, if the group agrees, maybe we should try to resolve that, get on with getting those minutes approved and not having to worry about it.

B Dysart: Is that a recommendation?

S Stevens: Yes sir.

B Dysart: Okay. Are there other recommendations?

T Leffek: I would have a recommendation that we go ahead and go through the agenda as we have. I think when we went around the table everyone focused, not to focus on something (inaudible) but we need to resolve those issues. But if you also look at what the communications committee recommends, that looks like it is going to take a while and I think maybe we should focus on the science first and as we moved around the table that is what the majority of the people said is they wanted to focused on the science. So I am sure the communication committee can do that in a half an hour, 40-30 minutes, (inaudible) I would personally rather focus on the science which is how the agenda is structured.

B Dysart: That is a recommendation. Stuart

S Stevens: Well the problem with that is a lot of the things that the communication committee recommended, I was not suggesting that we go through all of their report at this point in time, but maybe just this thing about the minutes. If we could stick to that, get it over with, and regardless of where we are trying to go to, we need to document where we have been.

TAPE 1, SIDE B

D Schaller: (missed first part of sentence due to restarting tape) we take the communications committee report up all together at one time and not start breaking out even now or later - what is - appears on the agenda later in the meeting. I mean nobody is going to agree to fix four months of meeting minutes right now. We are going to address that when Mr. Brewton makes his committee report. So there is no urgency as far as I can see.

J Jennings: If we set time guidelines for the agenda items, maybe our goal would be to get through all of them, including the meeting summaries. But if we set time parameters for the agenda items as we (inaudible) go through the agenda as completed. But in the order in which it is (inaudible).

B Brewton: The communications committee did address the four months backlog of minutes and I agree with Stuart that it is a very important thing, particularly since it has been brought to our attention that some agencies and so forth are forwarding the unapproved minutes to higher-ups and decision makers as a official record of the meeting. One of the concerns raised by the communications committee was that approval of the minutes should be the first item of business on the agenda. However, for this one meeting today, I would certainly not object to handling that later because we do have some specific recommendations on there. I do want to note that one of the recommendations is going to be that the approval of previous minutes be handled first item of business because I very much agree with what Stuart says, if you can’t agree on where we have been, it is going to be hard for us to go forward. If we don’t have agreement on what was said, agree on accomplishments.

B Dysart: So as chair today would you rather deal with it now or later?

B Brewton: Well we had two members who called and said, communications committee, they are going to be late today, so I don’t have a problem with handling that, but if we could handle, perhaps we could move the minutes issue up to be handled together with communications report. (inaudible)

B Dysart: My feeling is what the communications committee is recommending seems to be a significant package, preferred be presented as a whole as opposed to pulling it out. So we will make a note of that right up here. The communications committee and what is going to be done to adopt the backlog of summaries will come together. Okay. Having resolved that, is there a sense of the body that perceives otherwise as delineated here or are there other recommendations?

B Brewton: It may serve us at this point, it is about 10 til 10, if we said at least, maybe not set each portion have a time limit, but set some guidelines about where we want to be by a certain time, otherwise (inaudible).

B Dysart: Okay, another request has to been to actually number things in major sections like impact working committee reports for a bunch of things under that. How do you want to…is there a recommendation as to how much time somebody wants to put on some chunks.

T Leffek: I think there are already times (inaudible) already.

B Dysart: These are things, in most cases, people indicated how much time they thought they would need.

B Brewton: I was suggesting that maybe we take a look at the time chunks and just for reference say by whatever time we would like to be at break or at the committee reports or whatever.

B Dysart: Lets see if we can go through the science. I have got the times for the presentations and discussion…lets say - see where we can get to by 11:00 going through the science. If we have some discussion we will decide whether or not to cut it off and carry it over or whatnot. Okay. By 11:00 we want to see if we can be through with the science. Then presumably there would be a break. What I hope the purpose of that item 11 is to simply take the semi-famous Bill Farmer diagram and match up the issues that you all have identified in the committees and ask the committee chairs which of these issues are you - your committee assuming responsibility for. In other words, they have home and look at them and say are there more committees needed or are there issues that simply nobody cares to do anything about. That is not the final solution, final resolution, but it is to get some things on the table that a lot of you have been talking about. We need to see what is covered and what is not covered. And so that has been, I think, one of these things that has been carried over on the agenda for, I would say, at least six months. And I have said, I think that could be done in 30 minutes. If we could do 30 - work on that and see where that (inaudible) to and move on.

The communications committee, only Ben has an idea of how long that will take for his presentation. Judy has indicated 5 or 10 minutes, she can cover what she needs to cover. And simply listing all of the non-impact committees, I have got Morgan there, except he has not requested anything, he is not going to take very long. And so I would think that would be (inaudible). We ought to be able to see what we can do by, say by, 12:00 or 12:15 - be at that point. Then that would leave the other topics which are mostly, some of which are short items, have approval of minutes and I would have no problem with taking the approval or at least dealing with the minutes and rolling that up and putting that right behind the communications committee. It sounds like we have a - actually a possible shot at getting out by 1:00.

Remember one word - well you can use full sentences. Let’s proceed then. Is that acceptable to the group? I see no strong exception taken. Everybody feel free to speak up. If you like something, don’t like something, it is your group. Okay, first thing under the impact working committees - Beach Erosion - Bill Farmer. Cathy if you have your timer. Okay. You’ll have 5 minutes?

B Farmer: I’ll do it in two.

B Dysart: Set two minutes.

C Vaughn: I have it set for two minutes.

B Farmer: Several months ago this group approved a Beach Erosion Committee study. That has been forwarded to GPA. GPA is transforming those words into an actual contract. I spoke with Bo Ellis this morning. Contract is either there or about to be there for actually accomplishing the work. End of report.

B Dysart: This is the first time Bill has only covered what he really knew what he was talking about.

B Farmer: I want applause now.

Group: (applause)

B Dysart: I might say that is a facilitator’s technique - a little activity, a little exercise…

B Farmer: Move on Ben… (laughter)

B Dysart: Next is the Fisheries Aquatic Resources Report. Press Brownell. What is your latest estimate of time?

P Brownell: Probably ten to fifteen minutes maximum.

B Dysart: Put 15 on there. You get a prize if you (inaudible). Ready when you are.

P Brownell: Basically, we had talked at a couple of earlier Savannah harbor SEG meetings about the need for a fisheries committee. That came up from various parties. We decided back at the July 13 SEG meeting - asked if we could go ahead and SEG said go ahead and have a fisheries committee. The idea being not to have a fisheries committee (inaudible) striped bass committee. This would be a committee that would basically band together all the fishery and aquatic resources (inaudible) talk about, try to identify what kind of issues need to be discussed, what questions there were (inaudible) in view of what has already been brought forward - don’t leave any holes that are not filled.

We did have a meeting on July 23. I haven’t passed out a summary of what is available of the net. I am not sure if we have copies of that available here, (inaudible). As I said, we met on the 23^rd of July. We had Bill Bailey with Corps, Carl Hall - GADNR, myself, Trip Bolton from SCDNR, John Pafford - GADNR and Ed Eudaly from Fish & Wildlife Service. We began our discussions with deciding what our objectives would - what the purpose of the meeting should be and we decided that it was basically to identify the role of the committee. Identify what the membership should be. Talked about some organizational matters. How would we actually make this committee work and discuss a preliminary list (inaudible) fishery and aquatic resource issues that we thought should be addressed at some length. We started out about 9:00 and we mostly talked about the role and function of the fisheries committee. Our discussions basically centered on an agreement that the committee of which fishery agency representatives is not necessarily limited to that, but that fishery agency representatives could assist Georgia Ports Authority in identifying issues, concerns, possibly some general mitigation approaches as we move down the road in the study for the Savannah harbor project.

The existence of the Bass Committee would not be replaced by the Fisheries Committee. They would continue to stand on its own. Fisheries Committee would provide a forum for discussion of various issues of aquatic resource topics and questions. In an attempt to bring this together to a form to be brought to the SEG, membership would not be limited. It might vary depending on the issues that were discussed at the meetings. One of the things we talked about at some length was the Fisheries Committee should not be envisioned to assume overall responsibility for decision making (inaudible) and decision making about where to go. The appropriate thing to do is to summarize recommendations about the science viewpoint for consideration by the SEG and the Georgia Ports Authority ultimately. Again we would summarize the recommendations, Georgia Ports would make the decisions on what needed studied, what depth in response to these recommendations.

We went on to the overview of the fisheries resource issues and questions. We went through this fairly quickly and we realize that we had a short meeting - a lot more on the agenda. But we came up with a few very general areas which we thought might need to be addressed. One of those was that (inaudible) fisheries that we identified perhaps a few habitats, nursery areas that might potentially be affected by the project alternatives and also possibly by current mitigation strategies. We recognize (inaudible) experience, that really there has been relatively little basic, what you would call basic, life history work done in the Savannah estuary other than for striped bass. And the spatial distribution of nursery habitats for other species as well as the not known, the study would recognize that (inaudible) could compliment rather well, go hand-in-hand with the modeling studies which are already ongoing. We have a body of water quality information that would complement that very well.

Mark Collins who was planning to be present, but not present at that meeting, but he had presented a recommendation (inaudible) meeting before, that said based on his experience, in similar systems throughout South Carolina, he thought there may be a potential need for a hydroacoustic study to determine if there were major spawning aggregations of sciaenids species, that is fishy talk. Sciaenids are basically our trout family which include spotted sea trout, (inaudible) and a number of other related species. There is some possibility that there could be aggregations in the lower harbor area that may have thus far been overlooked. It was mainly noted that there was technology available now (inaudible) natural resources as of now that (inaudible) can identify different species with science based upon how good the sound profile. A lot of that work is being done in other estuary systems, not in Savannah. That may be something we want to check out.

Also we talked a good bit about how we identify the questions, have we identified all the important questions to be addressed with regard to shortnose sturgeon. We didn’t really have the answer to that. We thought that we should discuss that further. Take a look at the information that Mark Collins will have available for us. Make sure we have (inaudible).

American shad was a species that was talked about. It was recognized that the American shad are an estuarine-dependent species as well and evidence exists that juveniles of that species have some of the same habitats as striped bass. They are (inaudible) quite a bit during their life cycle with that (inaudible) in the estuary (inaudible). No survey of their spatial distribution (inaudible) in the Savannah system.

We also, Ed Eudaly noted that there maybe a study to determine use of different marsh types. They take marsh types in zones by early life stages of some of the other estuaries and fresh water dependent fish species. (inaudible) as well as oxygen depletion zones if identified, could block the movement of early life stages to and from the nursery habitats.

Carl Hall was also present then. He questioned in the committee and in discussions whether the Savannah harbor deepening project should consider the entire basin when examining fisheries issues and questions in that a lot of species (inaudible) lower harbor but they (inaudible) upper harbor (inaudible) some of those areas as well.

One of the things that was recognized too is that there may be a need for more information on dissolved oxygen tolerance at early life stages of some aquatic species. Research recognized this - work was going on this summer at the Gulf Breeze EPA Lab on shortnose sturgeon. (inaudible) also the ability to discuss this. So it was decided that we should at least look into this to see - take a look at the literature- review and identify what - whether or not to make dissolved oxygen part of this study.

Another issue that was brought up but not talked about at any great length - get tired of talking on the telephone - was the cumulative impacts of dredging. That is past, present and future dredging on ongoing basis - what effects that may have had and may be having on (inaudible) basis and on (inaudible).

We realize that these issues are going to need further discussion by the committee. That is really about all we talked about as far as actual fishery resources. We recognize that there is probably a lot that needs to be talked about. (inaudible) committee management matters and there was discussion in this regard - that is, who should chair such group, how we proceed with it, the group moves along, whose responsibility is it to make sure that the information is moved along. Of course all the members of the committee thus far are committed full time. Job commitments to take care of. Of course we recognize the importance of this SEG effort (inaudible) studies, but however we tackle, how we lead this effort, how we make sure that all the issues get the time they deserve. So one of the things we talked about is we do need some sort of assistance. We thought of Georgia Ports Authority of course. And we were going to ask Georgia Ports Authority to help us provide some administrative support whether that is a facilitator or chair. Let - someone is needed to help us do all the things that are needed to make an effective committee work. So I think that is what we want to bring to the SEG and the Georgia Ports Authority as well. We need some help with this to help us move that along. None of the agencies at present felt that they could undertake the task of scheduling and developing reports and just keeping that whole process going. It takes a lot more time to put (inaudible). So that is our recommendation. We came up with some alternatives. We could rotate chair duties each meeting. Perhaps one of the agencies could offer up someone as an administrative person. Or perhaps one of the agencies might get the chair (inaudible). Georgia Ports might be in the best position to help us with those. Including (inaudible) here, follow-up actions, we did have some follow-up identified. One of which were the administrative matters (inaudible). Another one was that Bill Bailey and I would prepare a meeting summary, which we did. Got Larry to post it on the website so all of us would have a chance to look at it that are interested in the fishery matters.

We did try to schedule the next meeting. Well it turns out we have not had a meeting since then. We are waiting to report to the SEG to see how to proceed. We will probably need to get together as soon as possible.

It was agreed that we would try to contact the Gulf Breeze Lab to establish a report on the shortnose sturgeon DO tolerance study (inaudible) offer to do that.

I agreed to try to coordinate with the DNR representatives and (inaudible). Mark Collins could not (inaudible). It looks like we could get that update today via committee report to the SEG were requested and reported about administrative facilitation support. It was agreed that I would be the person to bring this report to the SEG and that is pretty much the story. If there are any questions that I could answer or perhaps the other members present at that meeting (inaudible) will.

D Kyler: Press - you may remember at our previous meeting (inaudible) especially in your committee, trying to document the economic impacts of any effects on fisheries, commercial and recreational fishing economic consequences. Did that come up, and if not, I wonder what you see as being the best way of drafting that type of effect for this project?

P Brownell: I think we definite - there is some economic information available. Probably not as much as you might like. Lets be reminded that the information past and because of that are related to the Savannah harbor and it would hard to separate it out of other areas. But there is some information available. That is certainly possible. We should talk about the economics aspect and there are a lot of other issues that are very important that haven’t been discussed yet.

D Kyler: Would it be useful to have a representative of the fishermen on it?

P Brownell: I see no reason why they should not. As we mentioned earlier, we don’t want to exclude anyone from it. We do want to (inaudible) we should try to keep it as small as we can. We don’t want to exclude anyone who could bring some fresh thoughts to the table. Certain that a representative from the fishermen might be helpful. Do you have a person in mind?

D Kyler: Trying to come up with one. (inaudible)

B Dysart: Those on the committee who want to add to or amply to Press’ comments. Your request to GPA, has it now been transmitted as far as you are concerned - you have made a recommendation, have brought a recommendation here?

P Brownell: Yes

B Dysart: Does that need action, endorsement or what not by this body?

P Brownell: There will be some comment by the group about ratifying the reports (inaudible)

B Dysart: As far as support for the fisheries umbrella committee - is there other views from the SEG membership on Press’ committee’s recommendation. Morgan Rees

M Rees: The - Press, you mentioned to me earlier that you had trouble with your e-mail and perhaps you didn’t get the e-mail that I had sent that my understanding is that my good friend Myron has agreed to have the Corps be the chair and coordinator of that committee. But I don’t want to put (inaudible) pardon me?

M Yuschishin: Specifically we are looking a Bill Bailey.

M Rees: We had already responded to that, I had sent an e-mail and you said you had..

P Brownell: I didn’t see that notification…

M Rees: Okay, well we did, so we are all set on that. I appreciate the cooperation of the Corps on that. It makes a lot of sense to have them active in that committee and help us out to make sure we cover a very wide range of issues that you raised in the report.

R Mikell: What about the funding of the other studies that Prescott mentioned. The DO and the life cycle studies and that sort of thing?

P Brownell: Rob what we agreed to do then, when we had our discussions there, what we will do is continuing talking about those issues that need to be identified and develop some recommendations that say the Fisheries Committee recommends yes in fact we should do study A, B, C or D and here is what will be involved. So we need to work on this - recommendations, before we are ready to turn it into the SEG for action. We will probably have four issues. What we have identified here and some once we identify we may find that after further scrutiny (inaudible). We still have some more work to do.

B Dysart: Between Myron’s generosity and Bill’s willingness, what remains that you need to hear from someone from GPA at all? Is there anything else or does that close the issue? Morgan.

M Rees: I am not aware of anything else outstanding on the recommendations of the Fisheries Committee

B Dysart: Let the record so show. Is there agreement around the table? (inaudible) Judy. Always have to look toward Stuart before I recognize anybody.

J Jennings: Just another clarification. The work (inaudible) striped bass or fisheries (inaudible) Mark Collins will (inaudible) shortnose sturgeon. This is where most of the fishery issues will be discussed and studies being initiated. I just need clarification on the role that the Corps (inaudible) and if that (inaudible) in my notes I had written down "may need study, need study". It looks like to me that you have a lot of studies. As you say some may not materialize.

P Brownell: Basically what we need is someone to dedicate, to have the time to have a report (inaudible) to have time to do all the things to make a committee function.

J Jennings: Is Bill’s participation (inaudible)

P Brownell: That’s correct. His jobs is of course is to address (inaudible) as well. (inaudible)

J Jennings: Bill you need (inaudible)?

P Brownell: That is a possibility, not a lot but it is a possibility (inaudible) .

C Vaughn: Will you please ask people to speak up, we are trying to tape the meeting.

B Dysart: Use your best command voices please. Okay, anything else on the Fisheries Committee.

Next we have MTRG, Bo Ellis. I think you requested about ten minutes. Do you need anything else?

B Ellis: That should be plenty. I started to pass around the table, two reports, two status reports, did everybody at the table get one. I have about ten additional copies, might make it around the back of the table. The MTRG has met twice since the last SEG meeting and so you have two status reports as a result of both of those meetings. I want to start off on the August 23 MTRG meeting that was held in Savannah, hosted by the Corps of Engineers. This has been recommended early in the process when the MTRG was developing the scope of studies for the data collection effort, it was recommended that the MTRG come down to Savannah, or come to Savannah and to meet and look at the first several weeks of data to see if we were in the conditions and expected to collect the type of data that we were hoping to collect and discuss any conditions that had arisen at the time. The goal of that meeting was to review the limited amount of data that had been collected to date to (END OF TAPE 1, SIDE B) (missed a few words) data collection period would be and to prepare some comments to try to make adjustments if necessary in the monitoring program. You see in your sheet that the people who participated in those meetings, like I said, they were in Savannah.

The first day we had presentations of the data that is being collected from the field data collection effort. A second day, a field trip was made to look at the water quality stations and look how we servicing the equipment and the positioning of the equipment and all that from the field. We presented the field data collection effort methods that were utilized, the final placement and the maintenance schedule of the continuous stations. We had 55 instruments that were put in place - permanently installed at various locations throughout the estuary and execution of the sampling program. In addition to the monitoring stations, we, ATM on behalf of GPA, have been out collecting water quality samples and sending those to an analytical laboratory. We also presented the hydrologic, meteorologic and dredging conditions under which the data collected for late July and August…we had experienced. We presented the continuous monitoring data collected to date for salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen and clorides - the limited data that we had at the time. We discussed the data set and the adequacy of that data set to the proposed modeling effort.

We made a tour the following day to go out to the field and review the field operations. Some points of discussion, I will just brush over the highlights but you can read this in more detail, there was concern voiced about the amount of dredging that was occurring in the river because of the amount of accumulation in certain areas of the navigation channel, the Corps had contractors out in the channel pretty much the whole time. They moved around through the data collection effort. This was noted and tracked and we have all of the dates of different dredging activities that occurred in the channel. We also presented conditions on the in-stream temperatures and flows. Of special note - the in-stream temperatures were probably as high as ever been recorded in the Savannah harbor - very, very hot summer. The temperatures were very hot. The flows for most of the period were in a drought condition. The releases from the dam were very, very low. It was agreed by the MTRG that these probably represented very close to a critical condition, relative to salinity, chlorides and dissolved oxygen.

The bottom line of our discussions - we looked at some of the procedures and there were some comments about some slight changes to what we were doing. But the anticipated completeness of the data set for mono-calibration purposes, based on that data presented, was discussed and it was generally agreed that for dissolved oxygen and salinity, the data set should be sufficient. We were capturing the conditions, the tidal, seasonal temperature, weather conditions that we had hoped to catch and for the chloride data set, we didn’t have enough to make that determination. We decided to have another meeting further along in the data collection effort to discuss these.

There are a few recommendations. ATM to make some slight adjustments in the work that we were doing. To do some specific sampling around one of the Corps dredges, to make sure we get a list of all the other dredging activities occurring in the harbor and make some slight adjustments to the locations of some of the permanent monitored stations in the river.

The second meeting was held September 29, which was toward the end of the scheduled completion of the field data collection effort. This was in accordance with the MTRG’s recommendation to get back together toward the end of the field data collection effort and review the status of the execution of that work prior to completion, prior to pulling out the instruments. So we got together one more time. List of people who participated, provided input to that meeting…we discussed quite a bit the Savannah Laboratory analytical data that had been received up to that point. Some of the water quality sampling that had been sent to the lab, we had started getting some results back.

Something else to point out, the Harbor Committee in partnership with the Corps of Engineers is doing a complimentary waste water characterization study - monitoring at various discharges to supply data that will be used later on in the modeling effort. Under that separate study, some concerns were raised about some of the quality of the data from Savannah Laboratories. We discussed it with some of the people who were involved in that study and ATM noted a similar discrepancy on the dissolved vs. the total values for the laboratory data for some of the nutrient data. We agreed to get together in this meeting to discuss what could be done during the final week of data collection to make sure that we have done the best job at getting the highest quality of data and to check to see if any of these discrepancies have any merit.

It was discovered in trying to pursue what had happened and what was going on with the data, that Savannah Laboratories, it was thought that they were going to be filtering upon receipt of samples and it was found out that they filtered later on in the process and this could effect some of the values that had been reported by the laboratory. The MTRG discussed how that may impact modeling and for the most part the dissolved phosphorus and phosphorous from related samples were not considered critical to the modeling effort. They had been requested for possible future use, but there could be some value to the nitrogen values that were report.

Because of the hurricane that was approaching Savannah in the middle of September, we had to remove five instruments that were stationed in the river because they could be damaged if the buoys that they were anchored to moved around. The crew took those out and they left the site and returned a week later, replaced the instruments and continued the monitoring effort.

It was agreed that looking at all the conditions that we monitored under and the amount of data that was collected, that the final week of sampling which was delayed because of the hurricane, could occur during the week of October 4-8. ATM agreed to put together a sampling plan to do some split sampling and some QAQC(?) procedures to make sure we get the best data that last week of sampling. That was distributed to the MTRG and we received input and used that plan in that last week of data collection.

The dive crew did remove the instruments October 6 through October 10 and have removed the instruments. Some sampling in the river has continued up to now. But based on the overall conditions under which the data is being collected, the MTRG agreed that there is no need for the data collection effort to be extended. There was some discussion of that possibility, but decided it was not needed.

There was also a little bit more about the dredging that occurred and an update was provided of dredging activities that had occurred through the monitoring effort. There was discussion of chloride and bromide data that was collected. And a discussion of the low flows that occurred through Clyo and the range of flows that were experienced, that should be very good for being able to capture the relationship of salinity and chlorides in the upper parts of the harbor. It was requested that we receive from the City of Savannah chloride data from their raw water intact for the period that we were sampling.

Last, but not least, there was some discussions and recommendations for possible formatting for presentation of some of the data that would be collected and presented to the MTRG. Any questions?

B Dysart: Question, comment?

Male voice: Curious as to why the instruments were removed when this would seem to be a golden opportunity to catch really unusual measurements of - for an incident is not potentially all that unusual here.

B Ellis: We felt - exactly - out of 55 instruments, only 5 were removed. And they were near the mouth of the harbor and they were anchored to buoys - that if the hurricane had moved them at all, we would have lost thousands of thousands of dollars worth of instruments. It was a risk judgement and we took them out and it turned out that the buoys really weren’t moved. We definitely wanted to collect that data and 50 of our stations would have collected that information. Well, it did collect - if the hurricane had past through - monitored the hurricane.

D Parrott: Are you still getting the dredge updates on a routine basis from the Corps?

B Ellis: Yes.

D Parrott: Okay

B Brewton: Several questions. What - is the data collection complete now? Does this represent the entire set of data collection now?

B Ellis: The field work is complete. The stations have been removed. We are doing some kind of fill-in sampling, ADCP work to look at current profiles.

B Brewton: But all the data collection and the modeling effort…

B Ellis: All the sampling has been sent to the lab. We have not received all the analytical results that we haven’t process the data.

B Brewton: How successful were your efforts to coordinate - one of the topics we had several months was coordinating with private dredging and I guess Corps of Engineers as well. Were you able to do - accomplish anything toward coordinating your data collection as compared to the dredging?

B Ellis: Coordination was excellent. The Corps provided information and we worked literally side-by-side in their lab at the depot. They monitor around their dredging event and bring it into the same lab that they had set us up in and we were…

B Brewton: How about the private (inaudible) dredging?

B Ellis: That data has been provided to the Corps and we didn’t have ongoing discussions with the private dredgers. But we have got all that information. It was logged at the Corps and it will be noted through the data (inaudible).

B Brewton: Regarding the question about the samples - was the lack, the omission of filtering on that, was that due to lack of it being specified or the laboratory not doing what (inaudible).

B Ellis: I guess there is a question (inaudible) and the harbor committee had some other concerns to that separate study…

B Dysart: Would you explain, what is the significance of the point that is being discussed?

B Ellis: There was a concern about the quality of some of the data and it would be the phosphorous…

B Brewton: Specifically, what were you wanting it filtered for? Solid materials or (inaudible).

B Ellis: Yes

D Gay: Its in the minutes

B Ellis: So you get your dissolved fracture

D Gay: That list is on the minutes

B Brewton: The - in regard to the filtering, I can understand how that would taint your samples sitting there, but obviously those (inaudible) are present in the river. Is there anything in the model that accounts for the substances removed. The effect they would have in the river?

B Ellis: Yes, for most of them. In this particular system, phosphorous is not that important and really doesn’t go into the modeling efforts. It is an important piece of data that could be used potentially down the road. But for the TKN values that were discussed, they will, that data will be entered into the model.

B Brewton: Where is the list, you said there was a list of what was being filtered for? Where is that list.

D Gay: On page 1, September 29, Savannah Laboratory data.

B Brewton: That has a list of what was being measured. I don’t see any indication of what was being filtered.

B Ellis: The samples

B Brewton: No, what I am saying is what components were you filtering out of the samples.

B Ellis: You just filter out the solids to get to the dissolved fractions only.

B Brewton: And those, and the effect of those solids that are in the river, you say (inaudible) some adjustment for that is in the model and (inaudible)

B Ellis: Correct

T Tollison: You had 55 stations and you used - how far up the river did they go?

B Ellis: Up to Ebenezer Creek. Started at the mouth of the harbor and went up to Ebenezer and it sampled most of the side channels, interconnecting channels at the Inter-coastal Waterway and other important junctions. Very significant effort.

N McIntosh: You mentioned in your August report, you also brought it up, go were giving your review about the critical nature of the stream flow? How would that effect the outcome? If, in fact, you were sampling during a basically a drought condition stream flow - what would your expectations be about the samples and what they would say, given that you were sampling during a drought situation?

B Ellis: It wouldn’t be necessarily to calibrate a model. We can go and calibrate to any conditions, but what you want to do is to try to calibrate as close as possible to your critical conditions that you are interested in. So for salinity, for DO, for chlorides, the low flow-high temperature are the critical conditions that you are interested in. So, it gives you a more reliable tool and applying it at that range of flows - when you get down to applying it for critical conditions - if you actually compare the model data to measured data during - as close to a critical condition as you can. Is that? Not necessary, but it is a benefit to do that and we did it. We captured probably as good as you could of during that period of time.

N McIntosh: So you thinking it wouldn’t effect the quality of model, (inaudible) if you got a good reading on low flow conditions for sure, but how did it effect the structure the model?

B Ellis: It is a good thing if you are going to be applying the model for critical conditions. Which is typical of what people do. To see what your worst case scenario - it is good to have data close to that condition. And we have got as good of data as we could have ever hoped for. So it is a very good thing. It will help the reliability of the model and confidence in the application of the model.

P Wendt: I was just going to say there are several of us in this corner who did not get September 29 status report. Are there any more?

B Ellis: Give me a card…

B Dysart: Here are a bunch of them, pass them around.

B Ellis: If anybody doesn’t have one, or would like one - these are regularly posted on the MTRG website also if you have the address.

J Phillips: So you are finished will all your testing instruments right away and the Corps and everybody can start dredging the first without …

B Ellis: Correct, no concerns about dredging.

B Dysart: Any other comments, questions or corrections?

T Tollison: When will we see some sort of report on how the data collection (inaudible)

B Ellis: Sometime in November

B Dysart: Thank you very much. Next item is Morgan Rees is - going to make some comments about one of his specially areas, Shortnose Sturgeon.

M Rees: A few of you may recall from discussion at the previous SEG meeting about the issue of Shortnose Sturgeon and I had agreed to look into it and report back at the September meeting. Since hurricane Floyd did away with the September meeting, I sent by e-mail to everybody on the e-mail list at the time, what that report is. I don’t intend to belabor that - just to say that the report is there. I had some feedback which resulted in a modification from what you saw. That is - I have attached in a final report that I will have later today or tomorrow. There were really no changes to the report. But just an appendix that I will include that includes the excerpt from the August meeting where the issue was discussed - to make sure whoever reads the report has the full flavor of the discussion that occurred at the meeting in conjunction with the report. I will also note that at one point I think I said something like the "shortnose sturgeon study - or the GPA is arms-length from the shortnose sturgeon study" and while I think that is true - a clarification is needed that the GPA is actually paying for the study - so I make that clarification. Rather than those two minor changes, you all have the report. You have had a chance to look at it and I will just let it stand.

B Brewton: If you are referring to the seven page memo that you sent about your comments to the Westphal letter?

M Rees: Well, no - I think I titled the report on shortnose sturgeon. But yeah, it was derived from…

B Brewton: … responding to questions been raised

M Rees: It was in response to the discussion principally that you and I had, others. And it was a report to the SEG.

B Brewton: That - the one you circulated, Cathy circulated by e-mail?

M Rees: Yes

B Brewton: I would like to respond to a couple items in that if it is the appropriate time to talk about that. I saw you had that later on the agenda and also here, so.

B Dysart: Earlier would be more proper. Is that what… follow-up letter or …

B Brewton: No, specifically in response to his memo in response to the questions about the statement in the Westphal letter.

B Dysart: Go ahead

B Brewton: Morgan, if you will recall, I think I and others had asked for the GPA to consider clarifying or correcting the statement that was made "there are no sturgeon currently existing in the Savannah River". In response to that you have a rather lengthy debate between you and I and others and then you agreed that you would follow it up at the next meeting, that was the September meeting. And several weeks ago the memo that you produced, which is about seven pages if I recall, came and it quoted various people from the meeting and it offered some responses and it has, I have it here somewhere, probably 30 or 40 footnotes. What I have to say here is short. First of all you criticize me and others and said we took your statement out of context. In fact your statement was a sentence. It had a period at the end of it. There was no qualifying adjectives or other things in it. But in response to that statement in the discussions that you quoted - you took numerous remarks of mine out of context. And you quoted a number of people, in some cases parts of their comments, in support of the fact that the group had no interest in that. In fact you left out specific quotes from Patty McIntosh, David Kyler and others actually supporting the concern about the statement. So I would say first that basically you have not, what you were criticizing us for doing, is that taking the discussions and remarks out of context. However, more importantly, the substance of the issue - in all the citations that you give, and I believe there are 30 or more of them, the ones that you don’t include, is in this document - the July 1998 Environmental Impact Statement - there is a specific statement in there that it is estimated that there are between 300 and 3000 shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River. That is the most critical statement - you give dozens of other things, trying to show that maybe there aren’t any in there, but there is absolutely a statement in here that appears more than once and it says it is estimated that there are between 300 and 3000 shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River.

B Dysart: You have a comment to that, Morgan?

M Rees: I am waiting for Ben to finish

B Brewton: I just got one other thing.

M Rees: We have reached this accord where we let each other finish …(laughter)

B Dysart: Sometimes it is a problem with the rest of us, we kind of lose the threads…

M Rees: I am making notes and we will come back to them

B Brewton: Really all we were asking for is a simple statement. Asked you if you would be willing to notify the Corps - the statement as stated is not entirely clear or correct. Needs some clarification and yes there may be sturgeon in the Savannah River. All right, we conduct the study to find out. It seems to mea - with a short one paragraph letter that acknowledged that fact to Secretary Westphal as we asked, we could have avoided endless debate, we could avoided seven page memo. Quite frankly when I got - my initial reaction was to sit down and do a point-by-point rebuttal because there was dozens of things in there that aren’t correct or out of context. But I said, you know, lets not get into one of these protracted e-mail exchanges that floods everybody’s mailboxes with pages and pages. So, in conclusion, I think you took my remarks out of context. I think you left out important quotes of others and rather than giving a balanced view of the discussion, attempted to be an advocate for the statement that you had made earlier and finally left out the most important statement in this document which, in fact, is a declarative statement that is estimated that there are between 300 and 3000 sturgeon. So I would ask that if you would reconsider that and when something like this comes up in the future, I think we can avoid a lot debate, a lot discussion and a lot of e-mail if we could try to understand each other and perhaps if you would respond with one paragraph that we have requested rather than a seven page memo. So, thank you.

M Rees: I appreciate the comments Ben and let me just respond as briefly as you responded. Your comment about the context is well taken and that is why I have modified the report to put the specific excerpt from July, pardon me the August meeting, as part of my report. With respect to the comment that you mentioned about 300 to 3000, I really thought I had included every… I mean I went through my copy and yellow highlighted…if I missed one, I will go back and pick it and we will fix it and let it go at that.

B Brewton: Would you provide us a copy of that revision?

M Rees: Yeah, oh yeah.

J Jennings: The study that Mark Collins is conducting would included feedback, evaluation and analysis from all others will precede any prior work, statements, whatever on shortnose sturgeon. Is that a true statement?

M Rees: Sorry, couldn’t hear you

J Jennings: The work that Mark Collins and his team is doing on shortnose sturgeon would impact, would feedback, input and analysis from other resource managers, that will take precedence over any other work or statements that have been done on shortnose sturgeon as it pertains to this harbor deepening project. Is that a true statement?

M Rees: Yes, as far as…is true in my understanding of where we are, yes.

J Jennings: So we are moving forward on shortnose sturgeon

B Dysart: David?

D Schaller: Actually I am holding up Mr. Ellis’

B Dysart: Bo, speak for yourself.

D Schaller: I am facilitating his remarks

B Ellis: According to the minutes you are interested in a status report on the work being done by SCDNR. The principal investigator is Dr. Mark Collins and he is doing the work and Priscilla, you might want to add something to this, he is in the Savannah River. He has had a crew in the river for a couple of months now. He is using gill nets during the night and the day, different periods of time, to try and catch shortnose sturgeon to implant transmitters in properly size and healthy shortnose sturgeon and then track the movements of sturgeons with telemetry. He is also collecting water quality data where ever he finds some and where ever they are moving to try to understand the relationship of their behavior with the water quality conditions.

He started the first month in the area of the Kings Island Turning Basin which has been a key area of focus with the SCDNR, primarily looking at the presence of juvenile shortnose sturgeon which have been found over ten years ago in the Kings Island Turning Basin. They spent about a month there and didn’t find any shortnose sturgeon.

They are also doing a project in South Carolina on the Edisto River and they found that by tracking with this telemetry method, that the adult shortnose sturgeon especially had moved further up the estuary during these drought conditions, in response to either salinity or temperature.

And so he notified me that they were moving up above I-95 to start looking for shortnose sturgeon up there. He has caught several, a handful I’ll say, of shortnose sturgeon, I don’t have the exact number. I got a brief report from him. He has implanted some transmitters and has been tracking a few of them. The shortnose sturgeon appear to be coming into the navigation channel at certain periods and then going back into the upper part (END OF TAPE 2, SIDE A) and back up to river mile 30-something which is near Abercorn Creek, above I-95.

That is about all the information he has. He has been collecting water quality data and will have a report in another year when he finishes all this.

P McIntosh: One of the concerns that Ben touched on was that I am not sure it has been resolved, and I am trying to find out if it has been resolved - with the significant and relevance of this statement to the Chiefs Report that will be written in December (inaudible) and we wanted to make sure an accurate statement was transferred up to Westphal so that could be reflected in the Chief’s report. And has that been done?

M Rees: Yes, we sent a copy of my memo that I sent to everybody to both Sec. Westphal’s office, not addressed to him personally, but to the staff who works on this for him and to the staff of the Chief of Engineers.

B Brewton: You followed that up with a correction?

M Rees: No, but I will.

P McIntosh: That is, I guess, what I was asking.

M Rees: They have it.

B Dysart: Sounds like a bit of closure there. (inaudible) about the statement. Ben Brewton.

B Brewton: Bo, just of - fascinated with the information you relate there. So it sounds like, from what you are saying, is that we actually can now conclude that we say that there are indeed sturgeon in the river (laughter).

B Ellis: Ben, I would say so. I would - I’d get that statement Mark Collins, but that is my understanding.

B Brewton: The.. perhaps Morgan can put this information in the report…

B Ellis: At least one

B Brewton: …at least one. The second thing I would just like to touch on, follow-up on what Judy said to just make sure that we don’t overstate things. I understand that is certainly going to be our latest study and sounds like a pretty good comprehensive one. I wouldn’t want it to go on record unless the fishery people concurred that it is such a comprehensive study, that it replaces and supercedes, I believe is the word you used, all previous studies about the sturgeon.

B Ellis: My understanding is that it would be another piece of the puzzle. There is limited amount of data on shortnose sturgeon and that would fit into the overall picture.

B Brewton: Right, thank you.

S Drake: A while back…I’m concerned and I have been kind of keeping up with things and traffic on the website and (inaudible) shortnose sturgeon and I have had a few meetings. As perplexing that -really a subcontractor or contractor (inaudible) as of (inaudible) you folks (inaudible) there are adult shortnose sturgeon in the river. You know, based on that (inaudible) caught quite a number of adults and (inaudible) three juveniles and Priscilla, correct me if I am wrong, but they have I think radio telemetry on three juvenile fish…

P Wendt: From what I understand, I haven’t got the most recent updates from Mark. I have been out of town for the last week. I think…

B Ellis: I just got a brief report myself, Sam. I don’t have the numbers.

S Drake: But my concern is that a Chief’s Report on this project is going forward before December, or may have already gone, I haven’t talked with anybody in the Corps. But it would seem to be good to have accurate information to the Corps of Engineers on this particular resource since it is one that is going to be looked at. It is one of the top three that we are looking at.

P Wendt: I think, wasn’t the first status report posted on the internet. Did Mark send it or not. I’m not sure.

B Ellis: I don’t believe so.

P Wendt: I think it would probably be worthwhile since you say that the status report includes maybe actual numbers…

B Ellis: He might be posting them on the site that Press’ referred us to.

P Brownell: It has not been done so yet. (inaudible) hold off on that until gets some more information - that was the last time I talked to him.

B Ellis: He really sounds - that he is just getting underway and doesn’t have a lot to report.

P Wendt: Mark, he didn’t seem to have any problem with sharing the status report with the SEG. And if there is (inaudible) sent out. I would prefer (inaudible) but I have (inaudible).

P Brownell: By the way there is other information additional to what Mark is doing. Other sampling efforts (inaudible) related to this project elsewhere in the river that has to do with shortnose sturgeon presence in the vicinity of the Savannah harbor, (inaudible). That has been going on for sometime. Say that is not related directly (inaudible) current study effort. But just to be knowledgeable (inaudible) that there are shortnose sturgeon in the river for sometime - and that we have records of them over the last three years.

B Dysart: Is there anything else that needs to be said. I recognize (inaudible) is there anything else that needs to be said in the way about fisheries experts about what was available, what has been done, the status? As far as ya’ll are concerned, is everything laid out (inaudible). Press.

P Brownell: One comment I would like to make, (inaudible) do have a study underway which should give us some good information. It may not necessarily because that species is so low in numbers. Not catching one is not very conclusive. So we need to bear in mind that we shouldn’t speculate. We should try to avoid the temptation to speculate about that species where it is and where it isn’t. I just like to say let’s proceed and see what we can get. See what the best information we can get is - recommendations from Dr. Collins when we have those available.

B Dysart: Gather that the capture of three studies would be kind of difficult. (inaudible)

P Wendt: (inaudible) after a month of sampling (inaudible) found eight shortnose sturgeon officially (inaudible).

B Ellis: In the Kings Island Turning Basin.

P Wendt: In the Kings Island Turning Basin, but what he had told me is that in that month’s time there actually only able to sample in the Kings Island Turning Basin once because they were precluded from sampling because of on-going dredging. So at that point he was going to (inaudible) Kings Island Turning Basin further up river because of what they found in the Edisto River (inaudible) freshwater saltwater (inaudible) further up the river in response to low flow conditions. This (inaudible) a year or two (inaudible) in years that are not drought years (inaudible).

S Booher: As a result of the earlier discussion that I read on the internet, one of the reasons why I came to this meeting from Augusta, I went over to the Department of Energy at the Savannah River Site to make a copy of four different reports. DOE had done a life cycle of the shortnose sturgeon and I will make copies available to anybody who would like. It goes into the larva stage (inaudible) as well as the juvenile - discusses the whole life cycle of their life in estuaries. I thought you might be interested. If anybody wants a copy, let me know and I will get a copy. Thank you very much.

B Dysart: Morgan, you were…

M Rees: I just - almost forgetting what I was going to say - responded to Sam. I just wanted to be sure that everybody understands that whatever information we have is available to anybody as soon as we have. There has been no and will be no withholding of any information from anybody. I think, at least I drew an inference from Sam’s remark, maybe we were holding something back. What you heard from Bo today is brand new information to us and you know it as soon as we know it. And that will be the case as we continue. And if there is any other information, like Sam suggests, we will be thrilled to have it. That is why we are here, that is why we established the SEG. We are here to seek information to support whatever action may ultimately be taken, if any. Now having said all that and to respond to Sam, maybe folks at headquarters need this information and we will be glad to provide it to them. That is not a problem. I agree, the more information the better. Having said that, the process set up in a way that our report and recommendation and in fact the authorization assumes that there are shortnose sturgeon there and we are going to do something about them. That is the fundamental authority that, yes, if you find them there in your phase II studies, which we are now doing, the authorization assumes that they will be there and that they will be taken care of. And the economic analysis that was done assumes that they will be there and assumes that there are mitigation costs involved. So, just the fact that we said, maybe we don’t know if any are there at the time we submitted the report, from that point we went on, and this is really go with the memo that I really didn’t want to get into because ya’ll had a chance to read it, we just assume that they would be there. And we assumed that we would have to deal with them, even though we didn’t have specific evidence that they were there. So I just…

B Dysart: David, is your card down now? Okay, Neff.

N McIntosh: I don’t want to accuse Morgan of doublespeak, but I think there may be a quick and easy way to resolve the issue. I would make a formal recommendation that the SEG either on GPA’s letterhead if they so choose it, if not, on SEG’s letterhead if we have it, correct to Westphal with the latest information we can get from South Carolina as to what the current conditions of shortnose sturgeon are - best we know. There is a deadline as Sam pointed out. Sometime in December, on his recommendation and think he ought to have that as a rebuttal to the shortnose-Westphal-(inaudible) prior GPA letter to Westphal. (inaudible) make a recommendation that we be so bold, SEG members, as to forward a note to Westphal and what ever other parties that might be of interest, or would have interest or would be in the decision making process. Sam might know or the Corps of Engineers guys would know, that the SEG would say here is what - we have employed Dr. Collins and here is what he found and we want to be sure that you understand that this is the current condition as best we understand.

B Dysart: What is the sort of views on Neff’s recommendation around the table?

M Rees: It is my understanding that we don’t have a report from Dr. Collins. And he was asked for a report and he is not ready to give one. But if there is one, that I don’t have a problem submitting it. I just don’t want to speak for Dr. Collins.

N McIntosh: We can certainly ask him for an interim. Because, someone commented earlier (inaudible) we can’t stop the clock on the Chief’s recommendation. So I think it is an area that he be provided with the most up-to-date data. If you got a (inaudible) that’s great, but if we can ask Dr. Collins for an interim or some sort of - here’s the date and here is what we know of as of this date.

S Stevens: I going to agree with both Morgan and Neff. I think it would be an error to paraphrase what Collins has come up with. But it would be good if we could get some kind of preliminary report from him with that - that would be good information to forward.

T Leffek: Just a procedural question. Does the SEG have that authority. Is that really what (inaudible) is that actually allowed that we can issue reports to the Corps of Engineers that within the procedures of how…

B Dysart: Operating (inaudible) …

Male voice: (inaudible)

Male voice: I can’t answer that

Voices: (inaudible)

M Rees: I can answer that

T Leffek: I don’t think we need to do it on SEG letterhead

M Rees: No, no, well Neff said either GPA or SEG and GPA has agreed to do it.

B Brewton: I would like to suggest that what I think would be simple thing - your not making any conclusions for Dr. Collins at all - doing this would certainly - clarity and brevity would satisfy me such that this statement doesn’t get lost in a lengthy memo, something simply a paragraph or two that says "dear Dr. Westphal, our sturgeon study is underway and we would like to report that we have identified the existence of sturgeon in the Savannah river" period. The study will be continued. We will forward complete results upon receipt.

B Ellis: I just like to point out with all the information in the Tier I EIS, that shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody. Well, we have gotten wrapped around the axle. But there have been shortnose sturgeon found in the river for years.

B Brewton: I am somewhat humored by the comment because that is what started this whole debate off in August was a statement by Georgia Ports Authority that there is no evidence of sturgeon currently existing in the Savannah river.

M Rees: That is still true

B Brewton: That is still true?

M Rees: That is still true though. See the point is …

B Brewton: That is still true? We just had him tell us this morning that they have found sturgeon in the Savannah river.

M Rees: Yes and we are talking about finding - and that is why the sentence was carefully constructed - has been misconstrued. Because I don’t disagree. Because if there is report that there is information available, we ought to get it in and be done with it. You know, I am not going to argue you that. I just reiterate that I don’t want to speak of behalf of the principal investigator.

T Leffek: How much time have we spent on this issue. We have made a goal of (inaudible) at 11:00 and it is 11:00. Maybe we should (inaudible) forward.

B Dysart: How …

T Leffek: Now that we have achieved a resolution that GPA was going to forward the most recent information and that would make everybody happy at the table.

B Dysart: That seems to be a resolution

T Leffek: (inaudible) most current information

B Dysart: Is there anything

T Leffek: (inaudible)

B Brewton: Well I heard someone question sending that information saying that Dr. Collins had not finished the study. I would like to amend Neff’s motion and promote that (inaudible) that we request that GPA send a very simple letter to Dr. Westphal noting that the study is underway and shortnose sturgeon has indeed been found in the Savannah River and I think that would certainly satisfy my concerns and everybody else’s. I would ask that if there were anyone in the group would object that the SEG formally request that this - that GPA do this.

B Dysart: How many people would object to this or how many would… How many people would support it. Okay, more hands went up in supporting it. Rather if that was consensus I would defer to the distinguished operating guidelines, what not, but I think the group, the majority of the group has spoken. So now (inaudible) appear that we have resolved this. Morgan.

M Rees: We haven’t resolved it. I understand the recommendation that GPA is being asked to characterize studies that are being done by somebody else - based on some undocumented telephone conversation. And I frankly have a lot of trouble with that. This is supposed to be a scientific organization and you tell me what scientist anywhere who is willing to say something on the basis of hearsay and submitted in the record as a fact. Now if somebody can tell me that, I would like to hear it.

S Drake: The only thing I would suggest (inaudible) was the fact that I think Dr. Collins has caught some fish in the river and I think that he may have captured a large number of adult fish, juvenile fish have not been (inaudible). And I was just thinking that he was working for GPA, it would be simple enough to pick up the phone and how many have been caught, how many have been tagged and just, you know, one or two numbers, but no (inaudible)…

M Rees: Sam, I don’t have a problem

B Ellis: (inaudible)

S Drake: That is all I was suggesting

M Rees: All that I am responding to that the recommendation on the floor was for GPA to say something, articulated by Ben, that I object to say without getting confirmation from Dr. Collins. That is all I am saying. And if the recommendation is ask Dr. Collins to summarize his results and get it in as soon as possible, I’ll buy that in a second.

Male Voice (Drake or Brewton?): I don’t think asking for a…we just want to know how many (inaudible) fish caught and how many.

M Rees: What ever he is willing to say, I am willing to send forward

S Drake: I am not asking for any interpretation of what it means …(inaudible)

M Rees: That is right, I am willing to say whatever he is willing to say

B Dysart: Press and Priscilla are recognized (inaudible)

P Wendt: I just want to say it isn’t just hearsay. I mean I have a two page summary ….

M Rees: Okay, that is fine

P Wendt: …that Mark Collins submitted, sent to me and Bo Ellis. Apparently he submitted another one that I haven’t received yet. So, I mean, I think we could write a letter saying what Ben suggested and just attach the two status reports. (inaudible)

B Ellis: But at that time Priscilla …(inaudible)

P Wendt: (inaudible) that Mark included (inaudible) effect and not speak for him.

B Ellis: At that time he hadn’t found .. I guess he found (inaudible)

P Wendt: He found one, he found one adult shortnose sturgeon and it was above the project area, in the vicinity of (inaudible) island. But..

B Ellis: But lost it. He didn’t track..

P Wendt: No, actually he collected one, lost it and then the second one he actually caught. And subsequent to that he (inaudible) transmitters installed at that point. But subsequent to that, to this report he did (inaudible) at least one (inaudible).

M Rees: Hopefully we can bring this to closure. We will send today to headquarters, whatever information is available and whatever additional information Dr. Collins want to provide.

B Dysart: Charlie and Press.

C Moore: I think that the solution is, I can’t imagine a better solution that what Morgan has said. Basically, that if you are willing to send a letter that will bring both the information that is in the preliminary report and the information he has. There is no question in my mind he will give you an update progress report. Period. Just attach it to the letter.

P Brownell: Just a comment to add to what Priscilla just said and to what Sam said. It certainly would be helpful to get, as Mark feels appropriate, any information that he would like to share about his study. One thing we do need to be alert to and I think (inaudible) information, the assumption based on that preliminary and other information, because there is a great, great opportunity for misinterpretation of the data that says Mark reports two sturgeons and some will think that is all there is. There is (inaudible). What I am saying is we know only one thing, and we have known this all along, we never had any doubts that there were sturgeons in the Savannah river and Mark with the (inaudible) he has found out so far is valuable to (inaudible). That information certainly should share (inaudible) but lets avoid the temptation to speculate about areas that were, about areas that may not be important without what areas are actually (inaudible). And any information that we may send forward, make sure that it includes (inaudible) from that point up. In particular the Chief of Engineers level that need - explain that this is a very important information. That we have always known that sturgeon existed and that we also know what the habitat areas are. (inaudible) we don’t want (inaudible).

B Dysart: Ben Brewton’s comment then we will waive for a humanitarian break.

B Brewton: Okay, I will re-clarify the motion that we just agreed to since I am the one that originally made it. I - it is not a request for a conclusion, for a preliminary conclusion about GPA or anyone else on one fact, which is a statement of fact which is basically a yes or no question, that the study is underway and the existence of sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, in the Savannah river has been confirmed. And I think anything else would be improper. I agree with Preston, Priscilla and the others, we don’t need to jump to conclusion, implied conclusion or even provide information such as someone else could draw a conclusion beyond the fact, and that is the only thing I want to see clarified, is that there has been sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, located in the Savannah river. And with that clarification, it would be okay with me to move on so long as that it is clearly noted and that is the extent and limit of what GPA is being asked to do and state that it is clear (inaudible).

D Parrott: On the last item, I talked to a (inaudible) Chief’s report is in process at Headquarters. There is a meeting tomorrow. Myron just left to call the people at Headquarters to let them know that everything (inaudible) smoothly. The meeting tomorrow (inaudible) make sure the Corps is being prepared with more than just GPA information, a wealth of information being used to make that final decision. So this is one more piece being added.

B Brewton: Is that a final meeting tomorrow? Or is that just another (inaudible). Okay.

D Parrott: All I know is that a meeting is being held.

B Brewton: Good, great.

B Dysart: Says striped bass up here. Tom has said that he would let us know when he was ready to report. Is there anything that you would like to… Striped bass - Tom.

T Meronek: We really didn’t have anything to discuss. The Corps of Engineers 1135 (inaudible) and Bill was kind enough to attend that meeting and update us on the progress of our project which basically is underway but there is really no results yet. We have had contact with the field crew. They are doing our transect work on the Savannah river and one group of contact field crew (inaudible) set up along with transect stations with them. Striped Bass Committee which was another task in our proposal, that is about the only thing that has been accomplished and I would also like to add that in interest of efficiency now that we have a volunteer chairman for the Fisheries Committee, we will probably be operating under - we will probably be meeting the same time - most of the records are the same. So I think we will probably be operating the - will keep the Fishery separate but in many cases we will probably be able to save time for this group (inaudible).

B Dysart: (inaudible) lets take a 10 minute break.

(Break)

B Dysart: The adequacy of current SEG impact working committees. As we indicated, that is based on request we have had for a number of months to work at, for us to take a look at the issues that you, the SEG, have identified. Grab one and pass it - save trees, cut down on paper and print on both sides. Here is the current list of issues - impact issues - that you, the SEG have identified. And I believe that came off the web site yesterday, so it is current. We don’t want to have old information brought here. I don’t know how long it has been since that has been updated. But anyway, it came off yesterday. Those are the issues - the potential probably impact that this body has identified. And this is one of the things in the Congressional mission stated this body should identify the potential, probable impacts. When we want to go with this, I don’t know whether Bill Farmer will recognize the famous Farmer diagram. You probably (inaudible) all clean up and tidied up and probably the biggest thing I did was I took all of his x’s out. I think that Bill had indicated where he thought what issues various committees where working on and doing things on. What I did is took all those out and I think…I appreciate what Bill did. One of the big things was being persistent, keeping on badgering this body until they finally looked at how is the coverage matched between committees and the issues. The work of this body is done by individual SEG members working as committee members. That is where the science has been pulled together. The experts as well as the other interested parties, users, and so forth. That is where the work is done. Things are brought back to this body. Recommendations laid on the table, discussed through, sent back, or what not. So anyway, it is very important. There is not a whole lot of science that has been specified around this table at monthly meetings. Individual people doing whatever they are doing, may or may not be incorporating the science, listing the science that needs to be done. So it is the committees. I guess the feeling is some committee has to claim something, assume responsibility for it or science is not going to get done. We don’t have an infinite time horizon on this. But I thought this is more in the spirit today of a reality check, progress report, what is claimed by what committees. What are the holes, what do you want to do if anything. So I’ll tell you what, lets get an active piece of work. Here is a pen.

What I would like to do is call on the chairs of the impact working committees. And if you would tell us - put a little red circle in the right cells on (inaudible) - one of the things that your committee is assuming responsibility for generating scientific, determination of scientific studies that are needed for a particular issue. Now thinking about it, interested in it, diddle around with it or what not - I don’t know what that counts. This is talking about assuming the responsibility for generating the determination of the scientific studies that are needed so that this can be reported.

Which committee chair would like to go first. Ben.

B Farmer: Just a point of reference. I did this with each committee chairman. And the x’s that were on the draft of that had their input already.

B Dysart: (inaudible) this is a test. We will see if they remember. Okay. I appreciate that clarification. So they have been through this before.

Voice: Anybody have any more of the hard copies.

B Dysart: Ben Brewton

B Brewton: I just have one question. At least one issue that I recalled have (inaudible) that I don’t see on there. Are we are going to talk about that at some point. Other issues (inaudible)

B Dysart: This particular issue (END OF TAPE 2, SIDE B)

B Dysart: As I remember from the Operating Guidelines Committee that you and Morgan and Bill, and (inaudible), this was, there was much discussion about this was a living document. And so it is alive and things can be added. And when something is added somebody has to assume responsibility for doing something or the science is not, never gets specified. Which …

B Brewton: When will it be appropriate to talk about it (inaudible) come up, not on there. I don’t mean to pre-empt this (inaudible).

B Dysart: Okay, what is it

B Brewton: Dr. Fred Marland has written several items, don’t think he has attended SEG since then, questioned, heard other people articulate too, having to do with, Stuart you might help me phrase what I am talking about here, but the increased tidal amplitude or increased tidal prism upstream that may result from the deepening. What would be the proper way to (inaudible).

B Dysart: Rise in sea level.

S Stevens: No, it is not the rise in sea level. There is a potential if you change the hydrology of the inlet that you may actually increase or decrease the tidal amplitude and all along the river - there is some point upstream that may even change how far upstream (inaudible).

B Brewton: I think he cited in one of his letters that there may have been, maybe some time in 1970’s, a 13 inch in tidal height up above the fort and he expected 6 inches of it would be attributed to sea level rise. So it is not really hydrologic at all. It is a study of the effect of the deepening on the increased tidal amplitude in the Savannah river. Thank you.

B Dysart: Okay for the record that all has been captured. So we added it to the living document.

B Brewton: I volunteer to go first because it will take only 30 seconds to tell you about the communications committee.

M Rees: If I may just - we have been discussing Dr. Marland’s letter for sometime, you know, on the GPA staff and we have made sure that the model that is being developed will be able to address those issues in the Tier II process. So, in fact I have communicated with Dr. Marland and asked for more input to the kinds of studies that are needed and he simply sent me copies of his initial comment, which were raising concerns, and I am not saying they are not legitimate concerns, but I have been in touch with him and got a response from him and we have made sure that we will be able to deal with that issue in the Tier II process.

Male Voice: Could you explain what the committees are across the top?

B Dysart: Okay, thank you. Bill’s version was better than this because he had (inaudible). I’ll pull that down a little. Okay, operating guidelines, beach erosion, striped bass, modeling MTRG, communications, economics, shortnose sturgeon - which I recognize is not a committee ignore it or whatever if you want to, and the last one is Press’, Bill’s so-forth fisheries. So communications committee wishes to indicated by letter or whatnot, which comments…

B Brewton: Ben since those are valuable environmental scientific impacts, there is really nothing under the scope of the communications committee on that list except for the fact that we do have some recommendations about record keeping, data accessibility. (inaudible)

Voice: Do you have another one of those forms.

B Dysart: Let see…

Voice: You can have Jack Kingston’s (laughter)

B Dysart: (inaudible) Dan

D Parrott: There are two Ft. Pulaski’s but no Ft. Jackson. Could that be a mis-type? Item u, u and dd.

B Dysart: Okay, it should be what?

D Parrott: Well, I’m just curious that (inaudible) twice, u and dd.

B Dysart: Okay, well, Bill had them there, I just…

D Parrott: Which would be Ft. Jackson

B Dysart: Okay, which one should be Ft. Jackson. Ft. Jackson. (inaudible) you don’t need to proof anything, I always assume that everything is right. Okay, okay, so we have put a check under communications. Who wants to go next? Okay, operating guidelines.

M Rees: Actually, the only thing on our agenda at our next committee meeting was to go through this exercise. So maybe we don’t have a next committee meeting. For those of you on the operating guidelines committee who got an e-mail from me where the attachment didn’t come through, I am sure I forgot to attach it, this is what it was going to be. That we need to tackle this exercise. And I had offered some dates that we could. But if we are doing it now, that is fine, any maybe we won’t need a meeting.

B Dysart: This is in the spirit of the same kind of efficiency that (inaudible) was talking about. Okay, how about beach erosion.

B Farmer: k, s, and x. k, s, x.

B Dysart: I made the contribution to put a dotted line so you could go from left all the way over to the right without using a straight edge. (inaudible). K, s, x. okay. Next we have striped bass.

T Meronek: 3, F, J, K, L, M, AA

B Dysart: Modeling, MTRG.

B Ellis: We are working on 1 through 5, B, C, D, and E

B Dysart: B, C, D and E, okay.

B Ellis: And Tidal Amplitude, that was modeled in Tier I and reported in Tier I and we are going to be using the revised model to do it again. And I guess I had a question on V - DO/Fecal Coliform on Beaches. The model will cover DO near the beaches, but we are not focused on that issue. And Y- Upstream Water Releases, we can, we model various water releases from the upstream but I am not sure what that issue…

B Dysart: Lets put some circles in those two and the reason for putting circles is I’ll come back very quickly and say which ones are you simply doing something contributing to, will solid, black them in, red them in or whatever, the ones where you just hit them right in the (inaudible) or something (inaudible) responsibility. So we have got those two added. Okay. Economics working group.

J Jennings: On this form the only one I can see is Z.

Voice: Which one.

J Jennings: Z

B Dysart: Z, Z as in zebra. Okay, and shortnose sturgeon. I said that I recognized that it is neither fish nor fowl, it is certainly not a committee. Does that need - the reason it is here is because Bill had it and I don’t know why he had it. Does that need to be kind of scratched out and that simply need to come under the purview of…

Voice: Fisheries

B Dysart: Fisheries.

P Brownell: I would say that

B Dysart: Okay, scratch out shortnose sturgeon. They have been picked up… fisheries. Press, Bill.

B Bailey: L, M, O, P,

B Dysart: L, M, O, P.

B Ellis: Now you have G.

B Dysart: G, shortnose sturgeon

Voice: How about 3 and 1

P Brownell: (inaudible)

B Dysart: Whatever we end up marking up here, we can make a hard copy available to everybody that is here today.

Voices: (inaudible) beach erosion

Voice: Probably need to add 5 too

B Dysart: 5

P Brownell: You almost add all of them except for about 7. We don’t need 4, and E (inaudible), don’t need T.

B Dysart: Start at the top and which ones are positive we will put in. Okay, we have got listed under fisheries, 1, 2, and 3, what about 4?

P Brownell: That is more specific for (inaudible)

B Dysart: We have 5,

P Brownell: B, C, E again we drop out because that is covered under (inaudible). Of course, F, G, H, I, J, K,

Voice: I don’t think L is necessarily going to be covered by… it more in wetlands than fish.

Voice: But fish is in wetlands.

P Brownell: That is one of our key nurseries areas

Voice: Well, as long as people recognize that there is more to it up there (inaudible)

B Brewton: Maybe we need to note somewhere on there today before we leave today that there are other issues beyond the scope of that committee. (inaudible)

P Brownell: That is right. This is not a (inaudible)

B Dysart: Okay, I think I hear you, the spirit of the intent of this particular item. I would say, it seems to me that H and I should be marked. It is a critical nursery area. Then we will look across the row and then say okay what is covered and what is not, more than one, we will black them in or red them in, excuse me. Okay. Tide gate

P Brownell: Certainly that area in which the fishery may be involved.

Voice: Cumulative impacts

P Brownell: Definitely, K, L, M

B Dysart: Okay, so solid on down through P

P Brownell: O, Q, (inaudible), R, even S - there are some considerations there (inaudible) beach erosion (inaudible)

B Dysart: Someone needs to tell Myron that Bill is going to be kind of busy. (laughter)

P Brownell: (inaudible) Q and V. I think it almost (inaudible).

B Dysart: Dredging, agitation dredging?

P Brownell: Yes, W, X, Y. Put a very small mark on project economics. There are some fishery economics (inaudible). AA, BB, CC, (inaudible), EE. Doesn’t sound like FF is in an ecological sense with wetlands and deepwater habitats, (inaudible) that is probably (inaudible) other fishery issues. (inaudible).

S Stevens: I think fisheries committee needs…

B Dysart: Dear Stuart (laughter). Okay any of other committee chairs want to claim some circles? Okay channel slope erosion and Ft. Pulaski erosion. Is that, there is no impact working committee that is dealing with that. Dan.

D Parrott: My understanding is that the Ft. Pulaski erosion is part of Corps Section 111 study on-going right now. We will be giving an update next month.

B Dysart: Okay, by Ft. Pulaski, just write Corps Section 111?

D Parrott: Section 111

B Dysart: Okay, Ben.

B Brewton: Two observations. One, just looking again at some of the erosion issues and the impacts on adjacent South Carolina properties, I noticed some of the impacts talked about the Georgia properties, our erosion issues, I guess they are different from South Carolina (inaudible). Perhaps we should consider a private property impact committee that could look at those issues. I know there are a number of people who have been here all along with that in mind and I don’t know the appropriate way to address that. The other observation I wanted to make is simply we need to make sure that we don’t forget that some of these issues, for instance the fisheries committee is addressing a lot of these issues in relation to fisheries, but not necessarily in relation to other impacts. So I don’t think we need to delude ourselves because there is something in every line and box that that issue is being fully addressed. Much like what Bill Bailey was stating about (inaudible), I think we need to (inaudible) our plan on how we are going to address the other issues that are not fisheries but some other science.

J Jennings: Another category as (inaudible) pointed out, it is true (inaudible) is working on this project for economics (inaudible) impact of commercialization of fisheries in (inaudible).

D Kyler: Yea, I think this is a great attempt at an analytical tool to get an overview on what is going on here. But one of the flaws I see, that is not unusual in this kind of approach, project economics is such an encompassing term, such as we have here. The only box that the economic committee justifiably check is that economics. Whereas so many of your other issues are at a much higher degree of resolution or in terms of definitive subcategories. So you have, as you see in here on the chart here, you have some committees that have numerous categories. So I think I doesn’t do it justice to the economic aspects of the project to simply lump them under project economics. That should be broken out into a number of things such as project benefits, project costs, secondary impacts on economic (inaudible) that may be adversely effected by the project and so forth.

B Dysart: Comment is well taken. I, this is ya’ll’s list and this little relatively short discussion, I think we may very well be most of the way through. If that prompts you to want to revise that or bind things up or lump things together or what not, feel free. Obviously, I have no ownership in your appendix. Point is well taken.

D Kyler: I would encourage a greater detail the better because make sure that you are complete in your assessment.

B Dysart: All you people sitting around the table, feel free to work on this living document and see if there are holes that somebody needs to fix up. Ben.

B Brewton: Yes, I would like to commend Bill Farmer for initiating this idea several months ago. It was laid out like this (inaudible). What I am saying here is possibly some work for them with the operating guidelines committee tackle this area of things. To try to identify I think three things or find some procedure that three things down. One additional item, such as Dave Kyler mentioned, can be identified and added. Number two, that we can identify when there are overlapping areas and number three, more importantly, identify where there are incomplete areas such that a committee is looking at part of one of the impact topics but in its entirety. Figure out how to get the rest of it covered. And in doing that, it may be that all of us, since we have had many months now to discuss and to think about these things, one of the first things we perhaps should do, you could put out e-mail asking everyone for any additions to the list of impact issues.

R Mikell: Talking along that same line, I talked to several people - I think we need to create a committee to deal with dredging issues. Looking at the list, I think it could expanded (inaudible) disposal of contaminated materials and (inaudible) navigation. (inaudible). Like I said I talked to Priscilla Wendt, talked to John Phillips and I believe I talked Dan Parrott. They have said they would be interested in serving in…but I think that is another committee that needs to be formed.

B Brewton: I would second that

R Mikell: Just have not had enough time to deal with it.

B Dysart: This body has created, nurtured or allowed to come into being and whatnot all the working committees that are going on now. Ya’ll are, I am sure more familiar than I am, of the process that you use. I presume that enough people who are willing to put the sweat equity into it, are interested in it, step forward and volunteer or make a proposal for a committee. So, if anybody is interested in this, feel free. Ben Brewton.

B Brewton: I would like to sort of second what Rob said - suggest that we do establish a dredging impact committee that would look at both the dredging and disposal aspects of that on a long term basis. And that is my suggestion. I don’t know if it is the appropriate time to ask the group to concur with that. Maybe we could ask Rob to be the committee coordinator. Fish and Wildlife and others may have some interest in that too.

B Dysart: Patty

P McIntosh: One of the things I see missing on the list is a study of proposed mitigation measures themselves and potential impact that they may have on the same environment. And it relates to agenda item that I have had on the list for quite some time. I think number 18 or so. But the specific concern that I have raised was the potential impact of the proposed oxygenation system that would deal with the dissolved oxygen problem and the impact that that may have, particularly on larval species and other fish aged species - and how and when will those impacts be studied, who will fund them. Are any committees working on them now?

F Beason: I would like to back up to what Ben Brewton said earlier about the disposal and dredging problems. They are going to follow us through this in the next years to come. The committee needs to recognize, if you don’t know this, that John Phillips represents the Georgia Department of Transportation who is the local assurer for upland disposal of federal project material. And if you are looking for a chairman, I am not trying to put him on the spot (laughter). If you are going to do that, that’s the fellow.

B Dysart: I think Myron might concur.

B Brewton: We have two issues on the floor, we kind of need to deal with both of them.

T Leffek: I think a dredging committee is a great idea. Something I know that Judy and I would definitely like to sit in on, to some degree.

N McIntosh: Can’t we just form it? Can we authorize it right now. Be so bold.

B Dysart: Why doesn’t somebody assume responsibility, think this through and bring back pros and cons and recommendation for consideration next time. I think that would be appropriate.

F Beason: Can we get Dan do that before he passes the torch. We have some continuity that is fixin to change here and folks are still going to be around the table. But ..

D Parrott: I will still be involved for a year - transition.

R Mikell: I think we ought to create the

Voices: Yeah, here and now, today.

N McIntosh: That is my recommendation.

Voice: Second

B Dysart: I hear the recommendation and I hear the second, discussion.

D Schaller: I want to speak to the issue of the committee. But Ms. McIntosh had her tent up before me and I don’t think she ever had her issue resolved. So I yield to how you want…

P McIntosh: The question was when, if and when, the study of mitigation measures would take place and who would do them.

B Dysart: You have a committee looking at a certain impact. Part of this is going to be the likelihood of the impact, the magnitude, the severity and so forth. How it can be mitigation, whether it can be mitigated, feasibility of mitigation and so forth. Presumably, they should be looking at that or do we need a separate committee to look at the impacts of mitigation measures.

P McIntosh: Is that something we can assume?

B Dysart: Could that be simply presumed when we are dealing with mitigation that there are (inaudible) impacts.

M Rees: If I might, David is pointing to me so I was going - I would like to respond to Patty. There are two things. Number one, internally within the GPA team we have looked at the question of when can we start to deal with the potential mitigation issues, including the DO and the oxygenation and all that. And we had decided among ourselves that it made more sense to get the studies to see where the DO problems are and to what the extent of the DO problems might be. And then we can start spending time and money to analyze what the impacts are and how best to mitigate them. So that was our perspective. Ben, you may recall, it was July or August, the issue was brought to the floor about creating a committee to start dealing with those issues and the SEG as a group decided it premature to do that. I just offer those observations.

P McIntosh: The reason why I brought it up is because I believe it was in the letter that went to Sec. Westphal that an oxygenation system was proposed as a mitigation measure for dealing with dissolved oxygen. We have already got a mitigation measure out there proposed and that is why I bring it up. It is not something that is maybe proposed at sometime, it has been proposed. And I am just looking for some science behind mitigation measure.

D Kyler: (inaudible) Ben had a good point in saying that various aspects of the issues on the list here are being partially covered by one or another committee but not wholly covered in most cases by any committee. For the same reason mitigation measures that meets the needs or concerns of one committee, may not meet all the mitigation concerns for that issue. Or as you create concerns that were not there before because of its effects on the resources involved. So it seems to me that there has to be some sort of synthesizing overview type of function that takes place to resolve these types of mitigation concerns and can’t be done at committee level.

B Dysart: Swing this way, Judy then Pres.

D Schaller: Are you staying on this issue?

J Jennings: Actually we have two issues floating around

B Brewton: Lets go ahead and finish this one (inaudible)

J Jennings: (inaudible) dredging issue is still on the table and so is the (inaudible)

B Brewton: Why don’t we go ahead and finish this one.

B Dysart: The Patty issues, the impact of mitigation measures (inaudible)

J Jennings: If we are talking about DO, it looks to me like from where we are right now to any potential mitigation measure and we are talking about mitigation - I see a fairly lengthy environmental engineering analysis. The only thing that I put on the table is a fairly general (inaudible) with three different potential solutions for increasing dissolved oxygen in the river. That is very general. And I can’t help but think that there would have to be a relatively detailed engineering study compared to what is on the table now before a decision can be made. And we talked about on the economics committee and that I am not (inaudible). In fact, to my knowledge, a system of this nature has never been used in a tidal river about 50 feet deep. I am not saying it can’t be done. I am saying I don’t have the engineering data that tells me that it can or can’t and how effective it would be and what it would cost. It seems to me like from where we are right now, a fairly generalized list to more scrutiny by this body (inaudible) we need some relatively detailed engineering. (inaudible)

(END OF TAPE 3, SIDE A)

P Brownell: (inaudible) fisheries as they are identifying potential impacts in each one of these categories (inaudible) under the purview of the fisheries committee. Could deal with potential mitigation consideration or restoration issues so each committee may want to deal with that study to some extent. But I can envision down the road that we may need to have another, more or less, an umbrella committee that would (inaudible) would be a habitat restoration and mitigation committee to (inaudible) specific to project actions. We have a model for that already. In the past (inaudible) environmental management program, basically their process was much like ours. Not just like it, but very much. They ended up with a habitat restoration committee. And what they did is they actually - after they studied everything, they pretty well came up with a committee that would take a look at potential mitigation restoration options. So that is the way they draw all of this together. We could do something like that down the road perhaps. But for now having two committees how to deal with those issues - we can understand them better. Down the road we may (inaudible) committee to deal with how we are going to deal mitigation restoration.

B Dysart: Sounds to me, I won’t even perambulate discussion, seems like this is a good discussion, something that needs to be revisited at the end. I don’t know. Seems that (inaudible) right now to form a committee. That is just an observation. Priscilla, do you have something to say about Patty’s comments.

P Wendt: No (inaudible)

B Dysart: Bill Farmer

B Farmer: Beach committee was supposed to, of course, study the adverse impact and at the tail end of their study, they are supposed to come up with possible mitigation methods of, you know, recovering from the adverse impacts. I have tried to look ahead. I think that if you have visualized each committee doing that, and when you listed all the mitigation for each committee, there might be some commonality where this committee might be mitigating this way and the other committee might be mitigating the same way. So you have a commonality of mitigation. So, because one point was well why not try to come to head and see what are the (inaudible) mitigations that could occur. Is it about the pumps in the river that pump air into, perhaps hold back (inaudible) or something. In other words, what physically can be done to mitigate all this stuff. Whether it is chlorides, salinities, fish dying off, or whatever. What physically can occur. And it might be worthwhile to (inaudible) kind of brainstorming. Maybe we could just…

B Brewton: Just thinking about what I have heard here and based on a good point Patty made that some of these mitigations actually are already, I guess, being purposed, or are certainly being included in reports going to the authorities making decisions specific mitigation methods such as the oxygenation system. It may not be too soon to at least take a preliminary look, and I don’t know if Patty would have the time to do this, but I would like to suggest perhaps maybe not an official committee, but at least sort of a semi- or initial group that Patty could spearhead perhaps to speak to the other committee chairmen and the GPA about and sort of catalog or inventory what mitigation methods have been proposed so far and who is looking at any particular impacts there. And something maybe not a whole lot more (inaudible) than what we are looking at here today, but to simply go ahead and start listing those things and seeing if anybody is looking at them. So I would ask the group maybe sort of sanction, if Patty is willing to do that, to create an initial list of things so we could see if there is something that needs to be, that we need to go ahead and look at.

B Dysart: Before we seek consensus on that, is there any other comments that anybody wishes to make about the Patty topic.

P McIntosh: I would be willing to do that.

B Dysart: I am sure Myron, if he were here, he would be happy for you to …

N McIntosh: Could I ask a question of Patty?

B Dysart: Morgan, do you or David have anything to say about the Patty topic?

M Rees: Well, as when everybody was going around, I kept making notes and I have got my card up. Now I have got to go back over my notes and see if I think maybe everything has been addressed. I would like to endorse David Kyler’s observation of the potential with a number of different committees, that the committees will come up with potentially mutually exclusive mitigation options and there needs to be some way to bring all of that together. And I, you know, endorse that a 1000%. I agree with Judy that, at least with respect to the DO, there is a lot of engineering that needs to be done and that’s, you know, before we can start reaching any conclusions about what really works or what doesn’t work. The proposal that is in the EIS that was submitted was a proposal from the interested group that was most interested in this issue at the 11^th hour of the study process. And so we said to them what is the worst case cost you can imagine to address this issue. And so it was presented, the oxygenation system was presented, as nothing more than a worst case cost option. There were no judgements made about whether that is what we ought to do or ought not to do. But it was done in the context of - is the project still economically feasible, even if it costs this much to fix the DO problem. So we concluded the answer to that was yes. But, made no endorsement of that particular option, and a lot more work needs to be done. That is why we decided that we needed to have the model results first before we could spend a lot time - engineering solutions to what the problem may or may not be. I don’t want to speak for Bo, but could you characterize the Tier I studies that were done with respect to potential changes in DO that modeled or not?

B Ellis: Well we modeled, we modeled using the simple model and it is being refined right now. We modeled worst case impacts to DO. We identified that and then the conceptual design was, like he said not put together by us, but was presented as feasible alternatives that could be used to mitigate.

M Rees: Anyway, the point is that, you know, we don’t suggest that that system is what we ought to build. It was done in a, lets say feasibility of the project level of analysis and a lot more engineering - and it may turn out to be an entirely different system. We just don’t know at this point. But we think that the costs assigned to it are really the outside potential costs for it. Lets see, I guess that is all, that is all I am going to say.

B Dysart: David, do you have a comment?

Voice: (inaudible)

D Schaller: No, I had a comment about the, I am waiting my turn on the…

B Dysart: Okay, I’m sorry, I’m sorry, yeah - with respect to Patty’s comment

N McIntosh: But David was going to talk…

B Dysart: No he is waiting on the other issue.

N McIntosh: Okay, I ask the question of Patty - would you want to go ahead and make it a formal committee or do you want to just go ahead and sort of follow along with what Ben had in mind. I don’t see any problem with it a committee - a potential possible mitigation committee.

B Brewton: We are going need it at some point or another (inaudible)

N McIntosh: She could be made (inaudible) what GPA and ATM have in hand at this point as well as - with anybody. Lets look at all sorts of mitigation that might relate to any committee and things that may not have even come up. So that at some point they may become a resource point for individual committees that have certain mitigation that may be best suited for their problem. We don’t have anybody, if you will, receiving in, stockpiling, potential mitigation outlets for known problems as well as unknown problems. So if you want to do that, I don’t have any problem again suggesting that we go ahead and establish a committee if Patty wants to do it. Lets do it today and move on.

T Leffek: I think we are putting the cart before the horse here. I think it is great that if Patty would take a preliminary look at things. But we have several people mention that we don’t have the studies, we don’t have the engineering, we don’t have the science on the table. We know that we need to evaluate mitigation efforts (inaudible) make sure committees don’t duplicate. But several people have said lets, lets wait, lets see what is happening. We are talking about one specific thing. At least that has been used as an example. I think it is great if Patty wants to take a preliminary look at things, but I don’t think we need to officially recommend a committee that (inaudible) that we could just wait and look at it when we have a little bit more (inaudible) from the sciences. So we have a better understanding of what we are dealing with. I don’t know how you can even suggest what you are going to mitigate when you don’t know the entire parameters of what you have to mitigation for.

B Dysart: What is the view around…Ben Brewton

B Brewton: I would just like to second Neff’s motion that will, that the committee go ahead and be established on, on identifying coordination efforts and additionally may be, would be limited to just identifying and providing the list and among the committees. And then as the scientific information is available, then the scope and responsibility will grow. But I will second, if Patty is willing to do it, Neff’s motion to go ahead and establish a mitigation impact review committee, however.

B Dysart: Around the table how much, how many of you agree that it is, that this is appropriate time to establish mitigation committee as discussed - raise your hand. Okay - 11. No - 13. There is not a consensus to establish a committee as about. I think what I hear is that this would be a nice thing, Patty if you would start cataloguing and getting the information, and bringing this back, this would be fine. Okay. What was the other…

M Rees: I didn’t catch your last statement Ben.

B Dysart: I said if somebody, if Patty wants to catalogue information, do something with it on an advisory basis, bring something back, whatnot, discretion of the committee…

T Leffek: (inaudible) back to the SEG? If she finds something, that would really be helpful to the rest - the findings (inaudible) this is what we are looking at. Would be helpful information.

B Brewton: I would suggest that the group concurred in asking Patty to do that and include that as an agenda item for her to give us a report on what she finds at the next meeting. Then we can make a decision on whether it is appropriate to …

P McIntosh: It won’t happen by November.

B Brewton: Okay, December?

P McIntosh: December.

B Dysart: How about letting Patty let us know when she has something worth consideration. So we don’t get something that (inaudible) she is not ready to do. Okay, what was the other topic that was on the floor (inaudible)?

Voices: Dredging

B Dysart: Is there further discussion on the dredging committee? David Schaller.

D Schaller: Yes, at the risk of putting my foot in my mouth, let me remind everyone here that the purpose of the SEG is for environmental issues and focus on the science. Before someone says that dredge disposal maybe an environmental issue, I certainly acknowledge that. I am not trying to suggest that it is not. But you will remember when we started this process, we had the stakeholder’s group for science - and that is what we are doing here today. We had another classroom, if you will, for engineering and design. Under which came issues related to property owners, to erosion, to dredge spoil material disposal and then we had a third classroom, if memory serves me correctly, of cultural issues where we are going to talk about Ft. Jackson, CSS Georgia and those kinds of things. So what I wanted to say is that the subject of spoil disposal is in another classroom for the main focus of work, of energy expended on that particular issue. Not here at the SEG. Doesn’t mean that if the will of the SEG is to form a committee that is fine, but we are not prepared to deal with that subject until we get to the design engineering kind of work where that is on the agenda. That is what I wanted to say.

S Drake: I respectfully disagree. The six thousand acres of spoil areas along the Savannah river, I think it is an environmental issue. With the amount of dredging that is put over in (inaudible) is (inaudible) for this project. There already used what is available for just the maintenance. The need for 500 additional acres that has been identified by Georgia DOT by the Corps of Engineers right now for just maintenance dredging. That is not including what may come out of this project and I think it is an issue that has to be dealt with and I think that stakeholders along the river, whether they are landowners in South Carolina who may haven to give up property or the fish habitat that is going to be sacrificed, I think it needs to be identified. David, that is a lot of the reasons for some of the response Fish and Wildlife given back to Georgia Ports. We kind of get piecemeal, because you say it is in another camp and I agree with you some other groups are working with it, but then it seems like all these things, just like the need to deepen the upper harbor which the Corps is kicking off I think another study to look at the 5 or 6 shippers that are upstream from the Kings Island Turning Basin that want to widen and deepen the river. That surfaced at the last meeting. So this piecemeal approach, I would like to see this stakeholder evaluation group kind get their hands around it. Like I say only two words, ecosystem approach, lets look at this area as an ecosystem. We are all living in, playing in it and then going and making a living from it and that is kind of the things you want to sustain (inaudible) to help the environment. So I know that early on in this process, that Charles Griffen may have made an effort to spoil disposal outside of it, but it is very much a part of what is going to happen to with project.

D Schaller: I thought I was pretty clear, but I will try it again. I didn’t say that disposal areas were not an environmental consideration. I simply endeavored to enlighten the group about the original development of the SEG. The focus on scientific issues and where its various issues fell on the line. I didn’t speak against creating a dredging committee if the SEG wants to do that. I just simply wanted to remind everybody where we started and where incidentally we are still headed with that subject in another classroom.

P Wendt: I would just like to say I think there is merit in forming a committee. I think there are some issues in respect to disposal (inaudible) not fully addressed and I am not sure, I don’t know whether they are being addressed in some other forum or not. And DNR has had some concerns about that. (inaudible)

B Dysart: Well lets get off this - Press

P Brownell: Just wanted to add to what Priscilla and Sam said. I think that is an important environmental issue. I don’t think that is in conflict with what Dave is trying to say about the engineering aspect. (inaudible) engineering emphasis also environmental and fisheries interest in dealing with that long term dredging material management situation. That probably is an integral part of this project and appears that the SEG should deal with that. Certainly the fishery committee - as far as my recommendations (inaudible) consider this.

B Dysart: You have a few thoughts Morgan?

M Rees: I do. And it has more to do with procedure and I am not speaking to whether we establish this committee or not, but I look at the number of committees and the expectation that it will grow and I just put on the table for some thought that we have scheduled a time certain, mostly certain subject to hurricanes and so forth, for the SEG to meet. Can we think about scheduling some other time certain that everybody could plan on attending committee meetings and have committee meeting pretty much the same location at the same time and get together for a day and say for the first two hours it is this committee and the next two hours it is that committee, so those of us who may be serving on more than one committee may manage our time better. Does that make any sense?

R Mikell: I was just going to say that since we created a fisheries committee, we really don’t have that many committee. The fisheries committee is going to take over the striped bass and the sturgeon (inaudible) and I would just say that creation of a dredge, of dredging issue has been a long standing issue with our agency and with SCDNR and the purpose of the SEG is to address all issues. It is not just the five issues that came out of the Tier I EIS. It is to address all issues and I think the dredge…

B Dysart: I think you add now…

B Brewton: Yes, I really concur to what Rob said and I would remind everyone that we have said that all issues will be addressed that the SEG finds that needs, need to be addressed in spite the continued reminders about the limitations from Congress or other people, we have created committees just as the economics committee to address that we felt important to address. I think this issue of dredging permeates just about every category up there and fills many others. With all respect to what Dave said, I realize that there are certain impacts, certain things connected to dredging that may not be able to be identified later, until later on, and appropriately will be coordinated there. Nonetheless at the present time it looks like there is an overwhelming number of issues that do need to be addressed and I would sort of call for the handling of the motion to establish that. I guess we already voted on it.

D Schaller: I still have one final word. I still haven’t spoken against the creation of a dredge disposal committee here today and would point out on EE there is already the subject disposal - I can’t read it from here -

B Dysart: Dredge material disposal capacity and impacts

D Schaller: Yes, and if they are different, then lets create another one if that is the will of the group.

B Dysart: Okay, what is the sense of the body. Who supports the formation now of a dredge material disposal committee of SEG. (Counting) 24 - sounds like we can make a statement that there is broad support for this.

T Leffek: Who is the point of contact?

B Dysart: Who is the point of contact. Initially Rob and perhaps to get the job…

R Mikell: (inaudible) don’t want to be chairman, but I will start it.

B Dysart: Okay, action

R Mikell: Ben, if anybody is interested in participating, please e-mail me or contact me.

B Dysart: Okay, so as far as I am concerned we have done what we wanted to do here. It has obviously stimulated much spin-off discussion. This was meant not to answer everything, but to clarify things and stimulate this kind of discussion. Priscilla, do you have a comment?

P Wendt: I hate to throw a monkey wrench into (inaudible). This is an issue that has come up (inaudible) is not listed here and not, sort of (inaudible) to this whole thing. It is the issue ballast water and introduction of non-native species. I realize that every port has potentially that problem and there are a few voluntary guidelines for exchange of ballast water. I know other people who have raised the issue. I think the Southern Environmental Law Center raised the issue in some of their correspondence. (inaudible) is going to continue (inaudible) as an issue. I don’t think it is something that necessarily has to be addressed through scientific studies, but maybe through consideration of how the deepening project might impact the type of vessel traffic, the kind of ballast water that could potentially be discharged into the Savannah River. This is an issue (inaudible). So I guess I would propose that maybe that should add to the list if everyone agrees that it is something that (inaudible).

S Drake: I would just like to second what Priscilla’s saying. (inaudible) science is coming out with information that some of these organisms can exist where they are dumped in salt water and when they get in the right environment then they can grow. There have been some health, human health and safety issues in some reports. Some of the organisms have gotten into seafood and caused deaths and that kind thing. I think the committee needs to look at it, look at it seriously.

Voice: We used to have that in the list of impacts?

P Wendt: (inaudible)

N McIntosh: It is happening everyday

Voice: More and more, (inaudible)

B Brewton: What would you call it, biological contamination?

P Wendt: Ballast water/introduction of non-native species

N McIntosh: Isn’t there a Federal regulation on that. (inaudible) that says they have got to dump it, so they must.

F Beason: That answer is out there and the Coast Guard is monitoring it right now. But we need to confer with the Coast Guard and see what their rules are going to be and how they are going to enforce it.

P Wendt: It is voluntary program. I mean it is mandatory reporting requirements but voluntary for ballast water exchange (inaudible). I believe some ports, I believe that Charleston, South Carolina ports authority has the authority to prohibit discharge ballast water in port. I don’t know if they ever enforce that. This is something that perhaps the ports authority, the Georgia Ports Authority could address (inaudible). The only thing that I can advise on that, offer, people think that this is potentially a concern. (inaudible) more research (inaudible) South Carolina DNR (inaudible) they have been studying this, not scientific study, (inaudible) data for ballast water in South Carolina and (inaudible). I have asked (inaudible) willing to give the SEG a little 15 minute presentation including the background on the issue.

B Dysart: Why don’t next time, request agenda information, why don’t you request that and we will put it on there and that would be the appropriate thing to do. Judy, Lloyd then Teri.

J Jennings: I think the issue of ballast exchange and non-indigenous fish is very important. It is very interesting. I read something probably every other day on it. But I don’t know if it is relevant to this group, because it is no more relevant for a deeper harbor than it is at the current channel depth. So I am not sure that it (inaudible) for us to.

P Wendt: Well my comment on that if the nature of the vessel traffic changes as a result of the deepening project - how might - is there some way to address how that might effect the volume or nature of ballast water?

L Wise: I want to make mention that there is a national task force in place and there are regional panels. The agencies are members and are recording (inaudible) evaluation of the indigenous problem.

T Leffek: (inaudible)

B Dysart: How do you go about…are you proposing now that that be added to the list?

P Wendt: Yes, I am proposing that it be on there.

B Dysart: Is there, is there support. I don’t think that things have been added since I have been facilitator and if somebody says I want to add it to the list…

N McIntosh: May I comment Ben?

B Dysart: Yes

N McIntosh: I though Judy’s quote was well taken that it is not perhaps relevant to a deepening or a shallowing of a port, but I thought Pris’ rebuttal was actually on point. That if in fact the deepening does, lets say per chance that we went from 42 to 48 feet and these larger ships, they are larger ships, and if they are light loading and if they are coming in in at an economic downturn - they don’t have as many containers and they may be using more water ballast from where they come from. If it is deeper then they may be coming more from say the Med more often than the Pacific and there may be more problems if the trading routes change and all of a sudden the Med becomes the primary source of traffic with Savannah and that water - most of these things that come are from the Med, I have read about it, or are Med based (inaudible) - so in a fact the deepening did cause the trading patterns to change significantly such that ballast that we were getting then as opposed to the ballast that we would be getting now would be potentially more infected than the ballast we would have relative to this route.

B Dysart: Okay

N McIntosh: It would be more ballast water too. They are not talking smaller ships. They are talking bigger ships. That is why we are talking deepening so, you know these 32 foot trampers as opposed to a 47 foot Regina Maersk.

B Dysart: Lets assume that this has been proposed and the operating guidelines committee will add it to the living list of issues. Okay, discussion

B Brewton: We are going to add that to the list?

D Kyler: Procedural question on this. You mean this list up here?

B Dysart: Yeah.

D Kyler: I assume that by virtue of being put on the list that - that one or more committees should address that, should address that issue.

B Dysart: It appears (END OF TAPE 3, SIDE B) generate the scientific studies that are needed to determine whether it is going to be an impact and what are the mitigation measures. As opposed to simply, you know, here is something we would like to talk about. So presumably somebody is going to do something with it. Otherwise (inaudible)

Voice: Should it just be presumed or should it be assigned. Consciously, intentionally (inaudible) on this list.

B Dysart: This body, if they wish to assign it, they can. But at the right place. Okay, have we talked enough about…David

D Schaller: Did I hear you say we were going to do scientific studies about…

B Dysart: I was not talking about that particular …David Kyler rather said, you know, that presumably if something was added to this list, to this appendix B in section 7 of the operating guidelines of the stakeholder’s evaluation group, I said presumably if it goes on there it would then - the purpose of putting things on the list is somebody is going to be determining what scientific studies need to be done in relation to this project and so forth. Otherwise, this is not just a list of things that people like to talk about.

D Schaller: That is not the way I remember it. When we talked about SEG identifying issues that fell into the category of, you know, I must do, clearly cut, we have had this conversation in here a couple of meetings consecutively, or we go and help identify the appropriate home for that issue to get a thorough addressing. Which in this case might be Coast Guard, might be EPA, it might be other regulatory agencies, might be the GPA in terms of what regulatory power we - as Priscilla had mentioned. Ports implementing no ballast discharge in provisions in their tariffs and, you know, how is it reported if they do. But I think that is different then - what we are talking about here with respect to the deepening. That is an issue whether we deepen or don’t deepen.

B Dysart: This is something that you all members of the SEG need to decide. Now this is not my ruling.

D Schaller: We can put it on there, but to say to everyone that we are going to do a scientific study about the ballast exchange or …I don’t think we are ready to say you betcha, you know, we will get it done. Does anybody think that is the case?

J Jennings: This is a difficult issue and I feel strongly about this issue. I also feel strongly that it is not relevant to this SEG. In fact EPA is considering regulating ballast water under the Clean Water Act. We might come up with conclusions, but we have no, absolutely no ability to implement no matter what. It is difficult for me because I care about the issue. It is not, it doesn’t matter if this harbor - whether it is 42 feet or 48 or whatever. There is some possibility in the final Environmental Impact Statement that if you look at the fleet mix that is supposed to call Savannah and make some determination as to whether or not ballast exchange from that fleet mix might have changed. That is possible, but I don’t see it being committee work here. We might come to conclusions that the Federal - that we would have to have an act of Congress to implement.

B Brewton: What have we decided to do on the list. Are we considering taking it off or have we already concluded this?

B Dysart: Well operating guidelines call …(laughter) chairman?

M Rees: What is the question?

B Dysart: What are the procedures to getting something on -that things be…

M Rees: We have no procedures that explicitly deal with putting additional items on. It is my personal view as chairman of the operating guidelines committee that the SEG reaches consensus on putting something on and it doesn’t go through committee.

B Bailey: I guess what I have heard is that you have a regulatory agency saying that this is a concern of theirs. What I would, the message I would take from that is, if you read the EIS - ought to have that issue, ought to say something about that issue. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you even do a lot with it, just look at it. It may not be part of this group, may not (inaudible). But I think it needs to be in the EIS (inaudible).

J Jennings: I think that (inaudible) it does need to be addressed, I am just not sure this is the place for it (inaudible).

C Moore: From what I understand all the issues here, items that have been identified are just that, items that have been identified and considered. I think what may have perpetrated this conversation,

(inaudible) I would think that we would necessarily (inaudible) something on all these areas, but certainly something that needs to be considered. Identified as an item, so needs to be included by (inaudible) one of our committees.

S Stevens: I was just going to suggest that it is obviously an issue that has attracted some folks, there are some people around the table that have some expertise and knowledge about it. Maybe instead of trying to do scientific studies or (inaudible) or whatever, somebody could just send us an e-mail that kind of describes who has authority over it and what is being done. I agree that it is not something that the Georgia Ports Authority can solve. There are agencies looking at it. I would be curious who is doing what and just let us know what is going on. If some folks around the table that have expertise…

C Desa(?): That is one (inaudible) the Coast Guard is taking voluntary information on this issue. It is very sketchy, but something is being done. The information is being assimilated.

B Dysart: What action does this body wish to do, adopt on this matter? Is there any action this body needs to take on the issue of ballast water?

L Rogers: Ben, I would say that this issue is an issue of importance whether or not the channel is deepened or not. It is an important, it is an issue right now with respect to introducing foreign species into the water. That could happen right now and I would suggest, not making a recommendation - a motion - but I would suggest that we have got the EPA working on this. The Coast Guard is actually working on it. Simply this body, the SEG, making some sort of a recommendation, getting some finite - would people are doing with it now. Is that sufficient or making a further recommendation to the Port Authority that we need to do, that we recommend some further action beyond what is being done now. Identify what is being done now and make a recommendation that we need to insure that no ballast water is brought in past the 3-mile limit or something like that.

B Dysart: Are you recommending that somebody assume the responsibility of pulling information together and bringing information back to update this body?

L Rogers: I think that would be the recommendation.

B Dysart: Is there interest and support for that recommendation? All who are interested in that recommendation, please raise your hand.

Voice: What is the recommendation?

B Dysart: Recommendation that somebody go out, find out what is going on - on the issue and bring information back to this body.

P Wendt: Lets say we have this person who can give us a general background about ballast water issues, all the (inaudible) of on-going federal initiatives to deal with this, what we won’t have is the information, perhaps the Ports Authority could generate it about how the deepening project might effect the, what was the term that you used, the vessel mix, container ship vs. bulk cargo. That - how would ballast water is likely to change as a result of the deepening project. That is relevant to this group I would think. I mean we all know ballast is an issue (inaudible) issue. I think we would be remiss in not identifying it as, as a potential environmental problem.

B Dysart: I gathered in the past there is very low barrier for - (inaudible) go over, get on the list. As far as I am concerned go on the list. Would you assume responsibility for bringing some information back and report.

P Wendt: Yes, and hopefully maybe the Georgia Ports Authority could provide some statistical information relative to this.

B Brewton: Trip has said he would be glad to coordinate with the Coast Guard, get them together with you or bring them into the group, whatever, to see what they are actually doing now.

L Wise: One of the persons who works with me is actually on the (inaudible) expert panel on that task force. I will ask him (inaudible)

B Dysart: Okay, Priscilla is the point of contact

T Tollison(?): I think it is important to get the Coast Guard to start attending these meetings. Is that okay with everybody?

B Dysart: Sure. All they have to do is walk in the door and have a seat at the table. Let the record show that Bill, Hope and I did what we needed to do in our half an hour. Okay.

T Leffek: It (inaudible) have put a lot of committees or a lot of proposal - could the operating guidelines - can we come back (inaudible) and list (inaudible). I mean I jotted those down…this is going on, that is going on, but I would like to have an update (inaudible).

M Rees: It will be changed on the web site and everything. Whatever changes the SEG agrees to, we will make the changes to the documents and be posted.

T Leffek: It would be good to have an updated list, I think, because we have - throw a lot things on it (inaudible).

B Brewton: One note on that - Morgan, as far as the website, creating this list, it maybe a good idea to come up with some designation in that grid or in the list that - to designated where a committee is partial - looking at that issue partially. (inaudible)

M Rees: Well we didn’t do that, we didn’t do that.

B Brewton: Maybe something the operating guidelines committee can try to find out.

M Rees: Or alternatively, our good friend Bill who put all this stuff together in the first place and contacted the committees, could find out (inaudible).

B Brewton: That would be even better. (laugher)

B Dysart: Bill, (inaudible) duplicating what you had already had.

B Farmer: I don’t know, but I will do that.

M Rees: Bill has all that information at hand and all he has to do is check with the committee heads and fill in one of the boxes.

B Dysart: (inaudible) clean format to use. Okay, Ben, why don’t you take off on the communications report?

B Brewton: Does anybody need to kind of break before we do this?

B Dysart: Everybody can kind of…lets take a…Stuart says no.

B Brewton: Okay

B Dysart: Okay, I can out last some of you. (laughter) If I can’t, I know where to (inaudible).

B Brewton: Okay, I have passed out a copy of report of the communications committee which you will see is quite extensive. We were, over the last few months, charged with coming up with some answers and methodology to try to help the meetings move along more quickly, to try to minimize the amount of discussion, debate that was taking place over minutes and record keeping and other types of communication tasks. We met twice. One sort of preliminary meeting to identify issues. The second time we met we had a three page agenda. We went through, the committee worked very hard. Larry Keegan, Morgan Rees, Patricia Reese, Chris Schuberth, Patty McIntosh, Dave Kyler, Judy Jennings all participated. In the second meeting we went for about six hours. We went through pretty methodically and knocked out quite a bit of…had quite a number of recommendations. I am going to run through these as expeditiously as possible.

The committee met on June 21^st and August 17^th and then formulated some recommendations, all of which were concurred with unanimously by those present. On September 7, we got some comments from Morgan and we had some comments from some other folks - put that together with a first draft that went out to committee on September 9^th. On September 11^th, all the comments back from the committee were compiled in a revised draft including a change or suggestion by Morgan, Larry Keegan and other committee members with notes on September 11^th. That was in preparation for the then aborted September meeting. September 27^th, after a couple of weeks, reminded committee members that were providing additional comments. And then on October 1^st, this was posted on the web - hopefully most of you have had a chance to review some of it - and today we present it to you and there are a number of action items.

I will try to run through this as quickly as possible and then we will come back and take them collectively or take specific items for action individually if you prefer. The, I will skip over the first section about the June 21^st meeting because all of those items are incorporated below. The August 17^th meeting the group came up with the following recommendations. Number one, on agendas, that the agenda should be posted (inaudible) before the preferred (inaudible) number one, posted approximately 20 days before each SEG meeting. That is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule due to holidays and other things. But that will be the target date, 20 days ahead of time. That the agenda would include a list of all deferred items that had been deferred from previous meetings along with a notation of the meeting date from which they were originally deferred. This was to address some people’s concerns that (inaudible) articulated here today, that sometimes deferred items or unfinished might get lost in the shuffle as we accumulate that. And then a procedure which you see there in number one about receiving comment and the agenda, the final agenda being posted one week prior to the meeting and noting any additions and so forth and then members could notify the facilitator when concerns or objections of the agenda. Approval of the final agenda would be the first order of business at the SEG meeting each month.

Recommendation number two is on e-mail notifications. There was some discussion about whether we needed hard copy, whether we need website and so forth. The committee reviewed an earlier decision and was that we have received quite a bit of e-mail saying that the website is great, we like it, but we would also like to have continued notification from Cathy or whoever is going to handle that. We have some suggestions relating to that, but continued notification - so I don’t have to go to the website everyday and check. We would like to know when new material and important material is posted. So the committee recommended continuation of e-mail notification in addition to the web posting.

Meeting records of minutes. This was discussed very, very, extensively. Larry Keegan did some cost, rough estimates of what it was costing now to produce these things. Tricia Reese did some investigations as to what it would cost to get a court recorder and the group recommends that we go to verbatim transcripts prepared by an independent court recorder - but that would be accompanied by an index to action items and topics of discussions. This would be a no commentary, simple listing of each topic discussed and each action taken with a reference to the page number so the people won’t have to thumb through the entire document with no way to reference it. Larry has also introduced a possibility of actually doing hot links on the internet from that list of topics that would take you immediately to the page.

Another advantage is not only did they find out there would be some cost-shaving of what it would cost currently, but that on a routine schedule, the minutes could be available about seven days after the meeting, and an expedited schedule as quickly as three days. We thought the seven days was fine which would be at their regular rates. So to provide a complete accurate record SEG members and others could access either the brief index of actions and topics of discussion or a very through transcript of the meetings, depending on their needs. We got several comments from Corps of Engineers people in Atlanta, Jerry McCullum with Georgia Wildlife, and a number of others who aren’t able to attend every meeting who (inaudible) endorse this and will.

We also think there will be significant time saved at the SEG meetings, approval of summaries of minutes would become a completely routine matter. There would no question about anything, except maybe someone’s name was put in wrong or misattributed comment. But there should be little or no question about content, which should speed up our meetings considerably. As many of you recall, the last time we tried to approve minutes it took quite a bit of time and we still ended up not approving them and deferring them to later.

There was another recommendation that was academic to this point. We had asked GPA to just go ahead and have a court recorder on standby should we approve this to start today, but not to belabor this, but events have sort of overtaken that. And GPA, Dave told me they were a little bit reluctant to do that, not wanting to seem presumptuous to the group, to make a decision without the group’s concurrence.

Fourth item - declarative statements on consensus items. I have heard today a good step toward that when we cover these items. Whenever there is a (inaudible) by the group or by the facilitator that consensus has been reached, we feel it is important to come up with a simple sentence or declarative sentence that states exactly to what we have agreed to so there is no ambiguity about what that decision was.

Item number 4 - suggesting a standardized format for the agendas and index that will be created. Larry has offered to create - to what I refer to a standardized web-friendly table style format that could be used for working for the facilitator and others to create the agenda and then to be filled in during the meetings with sort of one-liner descriptions to create the index so it can be posted to the web the same day Larry said. And there would be an immediate brief record of the item, action item, discussion items. In order to provide some consistency and clarity and with respect to some comments Morgan made about this, does not mean to write anything in stone and to prevent judgments being made by the group or the facilitator during the meeting to expedite things or if desirable to rearrange. Nonetheless, that is a starting point that there would be a consistent order of business which would be introductions, approval of the agenda, approve previous meeting summaries, old business which this should be clarified that it would include any committee reports and requested information from the previous meetings, then new committee reports, then new business, which would then include the action items and discussion items of any new business, then adjourn.

Item 6 is clear labeling of unapproved minutes. Several people had called our attention to the facts that minutes were being sent by the Corps of Engineers to Washington, to the political leaders and other decision leaders, the draft minutes. In some cases the draft minutes have not been updated even though there have been revised drafts. And in some cases for four months we don’t have approved minutes. So we think it is important that these minutes, that they be clearly labeled and how they are used, where they are sent and how they are being, what assumptions are made from them be clearly understood. The labeling suggested first that it says draft - not yet approved reviewed by the SEG for minutes that have been prepared buy not acted upon. B - unapproved previously submitted to the SEG but not approved for minutes that were not approved at the first time they were presented. And finally approved by the SEG at the meeting date inserted once they have received final approval. That is recommended that it be done immediately to any outstanding minutes.

Number 7 is resolution of backlog of deferred or rejection of meeting minutes, records which still remain unapproved. We realize that this is going to take quite a bit of time to do this. What the committee is offering to do is volunteer, we don’t want to be presumptuous in this, but if the members are willing to do this, is to serve as a clearing house for all comments, concerns, additions, objections, corrections and so forth to the outstanding four months of minutes. We would convene a meeting, invite everybody who wants to participate in the SEG, not just from the communications committee, and put together a package trying to incorporate all suggestions and bring that back to the SEG for approval at a future meeting date.

Item number 8. The committee discussed, but did not resolve, on any thing on the need for a master project file. What came up in discussions earlier, is that some of the consulting contractors and others are spread around Atlanta, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and so forth and there was some discussion about what the need might be for GPA to have a master file here that contained all important, relevant documents so that the SEG members, the general public, the media and others would have one point of access to the information about the project and any scientific task that was being performed under the auspices of the SEG. That was sort of deferred pending the, your feelings about item number 9. One of the things we were asked to look at (inaudible) finding that some committees were keeping certain types of records, other committees weren’t keeping records at all, was to come up with some sort of recommendation on what type of records need to be kept, what sort of accessibility needs to be provided to those records to the, from those consultant contractors, committees and so forth that were conducting tasks under the auspices of the SEG.

The committee made the following recommendations. One - that each committee clearly have a designated point of contact which would normally be the committee chair. If there is no chair, then the committee actually designate a point of contact. Secondly, when establishing future committees that the SEG would discuss at that time its expectations regarding recording keeping at the time (inaudible) information at the time the committee is created.

Item C. The communications committee’s agreement that there should be convenient, economical local assess that will not inconvenience either the proprietor or the party seeking the information. We are recommending the SEG to ask all current committees, working groups, etc. to provide a report that will cover how they will address record keeping and access to those records. Now, one item Morgan brought up and I think there may be some confusion of the communications committee does not propose to be the clearinghouse for the records of these committees. What the communications committee did do is we feel it would be presumptuous of us to come in and make a recommendation on how every committee should keep records. So what the committee decided was to ask that each committee come up with a plan of that, forward those to the communications committee, file those, and then present those in a package to the SEG for a decision of the SEG about whether to approve, approve the proposals or how to standardize them (inaudible).

Item D is no official custodian has ever really been designated with the SEG and I don’t know if anyone has ever thought about this, but is it the facilitator, is it GPA, who is keeping the records of the SEG and the committee recommendations that be formalize. Larry Keegan actually said Lockwood Greene has been doing that for the most part he said. And we think that there should be an official designation made by the SEG regarding responsibility for the records. We think that the committee chairs and others need to be aware that all the notices, reports and other information need to be copied to that record custodian so that his records will be complete. And when possible those documents should be transmitted in an electronic form to facilitate the use of appropriate handling and web posting. We have asked Larry to develop some guidelines for that.

Item 10 is the website. The committee discussed various issues and recommends the following actions. You will have to forgive my computer and printer. Some of you have pages numbered 1,2,3,4, some of them have numbers 1, 2 and then 1, 2 again. Somewhere between Bill Gates Office 2000 and my lazer printer, some copies printed out with one set of pages and some with another, but that is a computer problem. Anyway, the website should be a location for posting of official SEG records, but should also be a means to facilitate communication between and among SEG members and should allow posting of information deemed important by any SEG member. Keith Parsons, I guess has left, and others earlier this year submitted items of interest that they wanted to have posted for all of our information and because there were no procedures or whatever, those things were never posted. So we would ask SEG, we would recommend to the SEG the following guidelines. One - any member can submit material for web posting. Two - as materials will be submitted to the site, the custodian or web master is Larry Keegan and will be posted as submitted. Number three - the web site would continue to have the appropriate disclaimers that it doesn’t express the opinion of the SEG group, GPA or others. Number 4 - all postings be required to include the name of the SEG member who submitted the document and date of original posting, this is so it doesn’t turn into a graffiti board. And, five - all posting would be submitted with an expiration date or request to post until further notice by the submitter. B - The question came up before - some of the documents were being posted, minutes in Adobe Acrobat and other formats that weren’t readily accessible. The recommendation is, this has already been handled by Larry, Ben Dysart and others, all information will be (END OF TAPE 4, SIDE A) (missed a few words due to tape change) format. When a graphical document is the only alternative, you will be using Adobe Acrobat and if necessary other formats. C - we looked, tried to look ahead and we accumulating now a lot of minutes, a lot of reports, a lot of agendas and so forth, and Larry said it would be easy to create a searchable archive with an index that would include all meeting notices, agendas, reports, submissions, etc. and that should be maintained for the life of the harbor expansion project.

Number 11. Who was responsible for notifying of committee meetings? General notice of committee meetings should be provided on the web site in addition to e-mail or other methods as selected by the committee or its chair. Specific notice to the committee members would be the responsibility of the committee chair for forwarding contact.

Number 12. Maintenance of SEG e-mail contact list. This has fallen on Cathy so far, we understand it has been a lot of work for her. Larry Keegan has suggested and he was going to talk today to Schaller, GPA about this in interim, that Lockwood Greene has the ability and was able to maintain those records and they could set up an automated e-mail remailer system such that when a committee wanted to circulate some information, the committee chairs would be authorized to send that information in without any human intervention. It would go immediately to the current GPA mailing list.

Other items discussed with no recommendations particularly with just audio tapes and copies, there needs to be an efficient, economical method of providing those audio tapes. B - A suggestion was made that video taping might be considered since sometimes the speaker cannot be identified on audio tapes. And finally the question that if the SEG needs at any point to have some method of representing, should the SEG want to release a report about progress, actions or other things, that is sort of a future item there. Some of these items such as the audio tapes, video tapes, and other things they become moot if the group endorses the verbatim method of transcripts.

So with that, I would like to ask if there are any questions and then number two, your preference about whether to attack the recommendations as a whole or whether you want to go through them individually.

B Dysart: Okay, it is 1:00. I think one question is - you all decide how much further you want to go and how long. I have no opinion. We can go into general discussion. We can talk about whether to act on or consider the whole package as a lump or whether you want to go item by item. What is the…does anybody have any advise or opinion of where you would like to go from 1:00? How long do you want to go? Neff.

N McIntosh: In the essence of time, I would suggest that if anyone having specific objections to any of the recommendations, then we can talk about that. Otherwise we can take them as a whole and go on.

B Dysart: I see Mr. Schaller.

D Schaller: Yes, I think we ought to address each recommendation individually. There maybe comments or thoughts or discussion that may prove valuable to the SEG membership before they acquiesce to the committee report in mass. Time is a consideration too I’m sure for everyone.

N McIntosh: My suggestion is contrary to that, if anybody has an objection to a particular item, we can discuss that.

J Jennings: I agree with David. I would be uncomfortable adopting things en masse. I would like to address a statement on the first page, in the last paragraph.

B Dysart: Does everybody have a copy of the report. We have 40 or 50 up here in case we need…okay

D Parrott: I suggest that we read this and come back with our discussion next month given the time. There is a lot of information here (inaudible) but there are some things in here we need to look over and see if it is a good idea or (inaudible).

B Dysart: Are there other

D Parrott: (inaudible) time sensitive in here that we have to decide today?

B Brewton: I think the issue of meeting minutes would be important to decide today. Particularly, court recorder.

D Parrott: Make that one item that is germane to next month.

B Brewton: The other thing that I think would be good to put in motion is to ask the, of the committees to provide a, to ask GPA to provide feedback on the record keeping so the group would have something to evaluate on that.

B Dysart: Let me ask you a request on that. Is that different from the requirements of the State Open Records Act or is that…

B Brewton: Yes, but (inaudible)

B Dysart: …additional, additional requirements you are proposing?

B Brewton: Why don’t we discuss that at the moment that we discuss the other (inaudible).

B Dysart: Judy was talking and she deferred to Dan who was waving his card.

J Jennings: (inaudible) with Dan to, everybody take the time to digest it and come back some other time so we can do it item by item. But I would like to make a point as you read through these, the last paragraph - an extensive discussion of various alternatives, after extensive discussion of various alternatives, the committee unanimously agreed to recommend that the official records of the SEG be verbatim transcripts. I think I might point out work in the communications committee is done like work in all of the committees and that is by consensus and I don’t really understand the word unanimous in terms of a consensus process. At almost any given point of time dissenting opinions were probably voiced, they definitely were on some occasions because I voiced them. So I think unanimous is not appropriate in this context.

B Brewton: Mr. Facilitator, may I respond to that?

B Dysart: Sure

B Brewton: Since I wrote the report. That, that states that the final decision was unanimous that I believe, if I am not mistaken, you as well as everyone agreed that meeting, agrees that is was a unanimous decision that we would recommend verbatim minutes. And if you did have a problem with that selection of words, I believe I first mailed you a copy of this on September 9 and this is the first objection I have heard since (inaudible).

J Jennings: I think my comment is more appropriately made for the SEG. And unanimous implies a couple of things that it implies, motions, seconds, and votes and with in a consensus process the most what you get is something like "agreed not to block". "I agree" has consensus. As people evaluate the report, I think it is important to be aware that certain recommendations did receive dissenting opinions.

B Brewton: So are you saying that you disagreed with the decision to recommend verbatim minutes?

J Jennings: I disagreed, no, I gave consens…, I did not block it. You did not get consensus on that

B Brewton: You did agree?

J Jennings: I was (inaudible)

B Brewton: I don’t think we need to redo the committee meeting here Judy.

J Jennings: That’s all, but I am asking as they evaluate this report, I think there needs to be some (inaudible).

B Brewton: I will be glad to agree to substitute the words "the committee without objections agree to", "all the committee members without objections agreed to recommend official records" if that suits you better.

J Jennings: I think that consensus is the strongest word that we can use in this (inaudible) in committee.

S Stevens: When we started the agenda today, I asked about specifically the minutes of the last meeting. Could we kind of get that resolved so we can move forward? What I have heard is that we are going to defer that with this discussion and now I hear that we are going to defer that until next month. So I am a little concerned, if we could at least get that part of it done. Find out (inaudible) the rest of this may not be a big issue. I would like to see that before we (inaudible).

B Brewton: Maybe we could just ask for a show of hands about who wants to tackle this now and who wants to wait until next month. Is that…if it won’t wait, we can break it into parts.

B Dysart: Okay, who would like to defer, raise you hands (counting) - 14 for deferral. Who wants to act now?

S Stevens: Are we talking about every individual item?

B Brewton: Maybe we need to redefine the questions.

B Dysart: Okay, who made the recommendation?

S Stevens: I would like to see us, if we wait another month, then we will be another month behind. If we can’t somehow figure out what we are going to do about the minutes. The rest of it is not that big of a deal as far as I am concerned. I could go either way, but I would like to some thing (inaudible).

N McIntosh: We have got…his recommendation is that communications committee (inaudible).

S Stevens: Yeah, let the communications committee (inaudible)

B Dysart: Okay, those interested in deferring action on approval process for the minutes until next month. Deferral on minutes - deferral…

D Schaller: Minutes of the last meeting? What minutes, minutes of the last meeting?

Voice: The last four

B Brewton: We have got the last four meetings and we are going to have the meeting today and if we don’t make a decision here about how we do the minutes, we will also go into the next meeting with no decision about what type of minutes we are going to have. So that would make six months of minutes with no clear resolution.

S Drake: I am getting confused and I don’t know who is on first (laughter). I thought I heard one proposal that we go ahead and vote on having a court reporter at the next meeting and then after this meeting. That is one item that I vote… that I would like to address why I didn’t to vote to defer everything. I would like to address this one item (inaudible).

B Dysart: Okay, lets see if there is consensus on verbatim court reported minutes and the meeting summaries, records, transcripts backlog and so forth. Is there anything else? We have go to clarify this? Okay, the first thing ...

N McIntosh: Which would be items 3 and items 7, correct?

B Dysart: Lets see…

N McIntosh: Recommendation 3 and recommendation 7.

B Brewton: I guess also number 6, Neff which has to do with labeling of the minutes

N McIntosh: Okay, 3, 6 and 7

B Dysart: 3, 6 and 7. Who is interested in acting now on the verbatim, court reporter record now on the verbatim (counting) - 18 ayes. Who would like to not to…who would defer on court reporter - raise your hands (counting) - 1. We obviously have more people wanting to act today, but also have quite a number of people who did not vote. Okay.

D Schaller: Mr. Facilitator, you also have quite a number of people who have left. And I think that begs the question about how much more time we are going to spend here today. I think we need to put a time limit on what we are doing. Are we…make it to a vote or a consensus, great. If we don’t, I think in deference to those of us who have appointments, commitments, then we have to defer.

B Dysart: What time do you want to leave today?

D Schaller: 1:00

Voices: (inaudible)

B Brewton: As soon as we decide these last…

Voice: Right now

B Brewton: meeting minutes.

B Dysart: Okay, the next meeting is the 9^th at the Mighty Eighth Airforce Heritage Museum.

B Brewton: Now that is the second Tuesday as opposed to the first, is there a reason for that?

B Dysart: I supposed we had better discuss with what we are dealing with now and then we…

B Brewton: Can we go ahead and finish this and then do that?

B Dysart: Finish what we were just talking about or…

B Brewton: The minutes.

B Dysart: Okay, minutes. Okay you have decided you want to deal with verbatim transcripts today.

D Schaller: With or without a time limit?

B Dysart: With or without what?

D Schaller: A time limit. Are we going to….

B Dysart: Okay. Time limit,

Voice: Well we can just take a vote on it.

Voices: (inaudible)

D Schaller: We can’t vote without discussion. And there is a difference in opinion that I have heard expressed here.

B Dysart: Okay, do you want to leave by 2:00.

Voices: No, way too long, ten minutes.

J Jennings: A lot of people who came here today (inaudible) at 1:00.

D Schaller: That is right

N McIntosh: We just said that the consensus was 18 to 1 to discuss this…Why are we stopping, why are we stopping?

B Dysart: Because we want to know how long it is going to go on.

N McIntosh: Lets see - 18 to 1 said lets talk about it.

D Schaller: Neff, there are people who have left, there are people who are interested in this subject and would like to hear it debated and to just, you know, have everybody to leave and then you call the question while you here alone is not appropriate.

N McIntosh: Alone? Alone is hardly the case.

D Schaller: Well there are people that just said they would like to leave and thought they might leave at 1:00.

N McIntosh: That was after the…

B Brewton: Why don’t we see how much discussion is necessary on this. It may not be a lot necessary.

B Dysart: Does anybody want to stay after 2:00?

Many Voices: No, no, no, no…

B Dysart: 1:30 - does anybody want to stay after 1:30.

Voices: No

B Dysart: Okay, we have about 12 or 13 minutes. Discussion on the verbatim records. Bill.

B Farmer: If every person who has an action item on the agenda would provide a written report and then after the meeting, only summarize what it is in the written report, then the written reports and the summaries would become part of the minutes and that would be the minutes. That would eliminate the need for a verbatim reporter, because you would have verbatim written reports. Not of the discussion.

Voice: I believe (inaudible)

B Dysart: Does anybody…who wants to go past 1:30. There is not a consensus to go past 1:30. Okay, you want to discuss item 3 of (inaudible).

F Beason. Ben, my questions would be…Georgia Ports Authority is going to pick up the tab for it and if they don’t have a problem with verbatim, my information that I hear is that most of the people would go for verbatim. That puts it go bed, so it really should be a default to the port authority. Is it going to be an economic hardship for them. Look at who is going to be paying the bill.

B Dysart: Morgan, do you have a comment?

M Rees: I do. First of all, I want acknowledge all the really good work Ben did in putting this together. This was an incredible job. You folks have maybe no idea of how difficult it was to bring all of these dispirit issues together and dispirit views on some of the issues. I was a very early and strong advocate of verbatim transcripts and I guess I am. However in briefing my employer yesterday, I had some, there were some questions raised that I was unable to provide what I felt like were solid answers in defending that position, and I just put them out for discussion - having to do with constraining the openness of the debate and constraining the potential creativity, if people particularly of the government agencies think that something they say in this meeting may come back to haunt them. I didn’t know how to respond to that. That is an issue that I think bears discussion and I think going back to what Judy said earlier. Even though this report of the committee is a consensus report, and I said I will reiterate I was a strong and early advocate of verbatim transcripts, there was a lot of discussion that went on in the committee. It was by no means a slam-dunk that these are the way the recommendations came out and would seem not inappropriate to me to have some, some discussion about the different perspectives that would be brought to bear. I would actually like to ask the question, I don’t want to put anybody on the spot, but particularly of the regulatory agencies, whether verbatim transcripts are an issue for them and might even constrain their contributions.

B Dysart: Does anybody representing a regulatory agency - okay.

D Schaller: I would like to embellish that.

B Dysart: Okay.

Voice: (inaudible)

D Schaller: I just want to simply embellish that point. Georgia Ports Authority, when this thing started, made a promise to all of the resource agencies. And we said we guarantee that the positions and the comments that you express in the SEG forum are not issues that will be held against you if, when the final Tier II EIS is done the mitigation is renewed, some regulatory agency says "nope that just doesn’t cut the mustard here. It is not good." I am concerned that there may be a reluctance on behalf of the resources agencies to fully participate, say what is on their mind and ensure the free-flow of communications, ideas, thoughts, negative or positive, during the process that we are in the middle of, for - out of the concern that later someone can say - "oh don’t you remember Press when you said you were all, you know, for this thing." And I am not talking about the GPA. I am talking about other people who may choose to hold someone accountable for what they said in here in a verbatim transcript versus what happens later when they have a duty, a regulatory duty, to make a judgement about whether the Tier II EIS mitigation plan is satisfactory or not and whether or not the project is permittable. I am very concerned about that because we have represented, still stand behind our interest in making this free-flowing - exchange of ideas, comments - I think the spontaneity of our work is gone. This will become a very formal process. People will have to identify themselves. There won’t be any give and take exchanges that will happen, you know, spontaneously. Yes, it is another administrative burden. In order words, another administrative expense burden for the port, but I guess that part comes with the territory.

B Dysart: Neff, Lloyd.

N McIntosh: I would respond to that - that that is awfully presumptuous to think that you are speaking - understanding - would feel how these people would react given a non-verbatim transcript vs. a verbatim transcript. And I would (inaudible), anything that is said gets written down. There is a lot of stuff going on. To me, I don’t mean to put my foot in my mouth which I can do, or to erroneously step on a (inaudible) foot, but it seems like a no-brainer. I wish I could replay Jerry McCullum’s comments on this of 6 or 8 weeks ago, when he talked about those people who can’t attend every time and those people who do leave early, (inaudible) people who did stick around for the debate of certain issues later on, that if there is a comprehensive index, if there is a verbatim transcript that follows, it seems like the time issue - people who would be worried about how much time to find something and if you could link it on the web site, then to have a verbatim transcript seems like the absolute best way to ensure that all voices are heard and recorded properly and that every issue that was brought up, was recorded properly. That no one said something and there is no biased, objective there’s (inaudible). It just seems like a no-brainer to me.

D Schaller: May I respond to that please.

B Dysart: Lloyd, Teri, Charlie

Voice: (inaudible)

B Dysart: You are right after Lloyd, you will be after Lloyd.

L Wise: As a member of a regulatory agency, we are very much involved this process, I am reluctant to speak for, to speak for the agency. I have a (inaudible) to do that. I have been involved in other forums and our attorneys have expressed that, be very cautious about, you know, taking positions that would be represented as agency positions. He is very conscious of that. So just from that pure matter of fact - a cautiousness - sometimes even a reluctance to come forward to say unless, that I know, am comfortable with GPA’s position. So whether it is a verbatim transcript or not, I am still going to have a certain reluctance, probably greater so appear in a verbatim form.

B Brewton: I just wanted to read a letter we got from Gary Maulden with the U.S. Corps of Engineers in Atlanta. "Ben - I wanted to try to keep up with the events of the SEG from afar. I work for the Corps of Engineers in Atlanta. My vote would be for a transcript type minutes. Granted it has taken me," lets see - said some other stuff here, then says - "one thing maybe the SEG can approve their minutes with a verbatim transcript, rather than arguing over someone’s attempt to summarize." And I have got several others notes like that from folks. I will point out the meeting Patty McIntosh and I had with Jim Parker and Myron, who has left now, wish he was still here, with the Corps of Engineers, he said in his words when we were talking to him about this several weeks ago. What is the debate about. (inaudible). This is a no-brainer. We have been doing verbatim transcripts for years with the Corps. So, if there are resource agencies, we have got South Carolina people, Georgia and so forth, I would ask if somebody who is going to be more reluctant to speak. Because, we have got a tape recorder running now. Anybody can go back and transcribe it. Why don’t they speak up, rather than as Neff said, us assume that they all don’t want.

B Dysart: Okay, Teri, Charlie, Judy and Sam.

T Leffek: I think (inaudible) to say that the idea is a no-brainer. I think that it denigrates the, should we say the objections that people have at the table. I personally don’t like the idea of verbatim because it comes across as - it implies distrust that we as a group can’t work together, that we as a group can’t trust one another. We as a group can’t figure, come to agreement (inaudible), go though an agenda, go through recommendations and go back and look at it and approve things. We are here in a trust building process and I have a problem with verbatim minutes. It is, to me it comes across, I guess - I mean I may be wrong in this, maybe personal perspective - it is almost a sense of distrust that we just can’t work together. I mean I have (inaudible) exact minutes of what each and everyone of us of said, that we told each other, feet to the fire when the crap hits the fan, to put it in a vernacular. I mean I just don’t think it is necessary.

C Moore: My personal opinion is almost exactly the opposite. We have to be accountable for our work. That doesn’t mean we won’t make mistakes and think that is the way it should be. That is one of the biggest problems we have in government today is that nobody trusts. This whole discussion reverts back to a lost of trust and if we can’t have our words written down, for what we say, so we are accountable, that is the lost of trust. I certainly support it. This is my first meeting. I think your meeting would go a whole lot smoother. I think there would not be the same things repeated over and over again, if you did have verbatim transcripts.

D Schaller: Well, verbatim transcripts would have come in real handy when my friend Neff McIntosh mischaracterized what I said. Not presumptuous in my opinion about whether or not the resource agencies are reluctant to speak in a verbatim forum. I asked the question, whether or not they were. Some of them evidently are. I haven’t heard anything out of the Corps except for what Mr. Brewton just read from the Atlanta office. I don’t, I am troubled by verbatim transcripts. That’s fine. Someone pointed we are being recorded right now. That is great. Someone said something that later they choose to change their mind about that opinion, they are going to have to put that - each and every one will one of us will have to defend our change of heart about something. And in particularly the regulatory agencies will. I think that they will be more reluctant to speak given those circumstances.

B Dysart: I would just say back when we used to process summaries, on more than one occasion, representatives of such bodies did wish to change paragraphs around. Rob.

R Mikell: I just, I have no problem with verbatim transcripts either. I go to a lot of public hearings and they are all, they are being (inaudible) by a court reporter. I think we ought to call the question.

B Dysart: We have 30 seconds and are preparing to vote. Sam?

S Drake: To me it is a time factor. Whoever takes the notes here, represents (inaudible), putting a personal slant to it. A court recorder is going to get it just the way it is said. Unglamorous, they are going to have every stutter, every uh you said and that type of thing. It does prevent the process of having to go back and kind of review and comment on and you know if you have four sets of minutes that have not been approved yet. It does away with all that. All the regulatory agencies have told Georgia Ports are participating in this process. But the final decision of the agencies may not impact, reflect what we said in group because that is the nature of what we are dealing with. We don’t even know the alternatives, the depth, anything else, to be selected yet. So we have no problem with what was said being part of a public record.

B Dysart: David Kyler and Ben Brewton want to add to this or do you want to vote?

(END OF TAPE 4, SIDE B)

D Kyler: (missed a few words due to tape change) statement that I made a part of the record. It is part of the official record. I don’t see any problem.

B Brewton: The only comment I want to make, I think that there were some very good comments there, is that Larry Keegan had done some cost estimates and what Lockwood Greene was billing for Georgia Ports Authority just for Marian Thomas’ services, not counting everybody else’s time, the facilitator, Cathy, Morgan and others who participated in doing the minutes, was almost as much as the court recorder was going to charge to do it. He said without question, it would be cheaper for the Georgia Ports Authority to do this.

Voice: Call the question

B Dysart: Okay, all in favor of item, recommendation 3, raise your hands (counting) -18. All opposed, raise your hands - (inaudible) the facilitator sees no hands up. I think we could make a declarative statement on that. What is the - next meeting has been scheduled for November 9^th. Anyone wishes to discuss it, free to discuss it.

Voices: (inaudible)

B Dysart: Is there objection to going past 1:30?

Voices: Yes, yes there is.

B Brewton: Can we call the question right now on 6 and 7 and take a vote.

D Schaller: Ben, I have some comments I would like to make relative to - what were they? 6 & 7?

B Brewton: 6 & 7

S Stevens(?): I think all we are doing is asking the communications committee that there (inaudible) is a great idea volunteering to help resolve those minutes. Lets get them resolved.

D Schaller: We don’t have any objections to 6 and 7. We are just one vote.

B Dysart: Okay, all in favor of 6 plus 7 raise your hands (counting) - 16. All opposed - one hand up. (inaudible) 6 and 7, two for the price of one. November 9^th is scheduled as the next meeting date. Ben Brewton wishes to comment.

B Brewton: Only thing about it is I noted is not the first Tuesday. I heard quite a number of people, some who are in this room, some of whom could not be here today, because the meeting was changed away from the first Tuesday and they had made provisions to be here on the first Tuesday and they could not today. I realize that it is pretty close, but should we do it the first Tuesday or should we make sure after November that we are back on the first Tuesday (inaudible).

Voice: Why was it moved to the second Tuesday?

D Schaller: It is simple, it’s simple. Put a little distance between this meeting and the next meeting. You know, instead of meeting again in two weeks, thought it might be more appropriate and get a little more work done in three. And then get back on the regular schedule of the second Tuesday. And that, you know, might sound real stupid, but that was the logic that was applied when we tried to establish a November meeting date.

B Dysart: Patty McIntosh

P McIntosh: Getting away from the regular schedule has caused major problems. This is not the only game in town. There are a lot of other standing committees, other issues. I missed two meetings today that were scheduled around the regular SEG meeting to come here. It is a big problem, we need to get back on a regular schedule.

D Schaller: Provided we can find accommodations, we do not object if you want to have the meeting…

C Vaughn: I already have the Mighty Eighth Air Force Museum booked for the next year and a half on the first Tuesday unless there is a holiday, then it is the second Tuesday except for December and June and I am still looking for a place for those two.

D Schaller: I don’t care, if you want to meet on the second Tuesday.

D Parrott: There has been a lot of discussion about other Corps of Engineers studies in process that are going on out there and how they may or may not relate to this project. We have been talking to Morgan and Ben about next month, November 9^th, the Corps of Engineers is willing - prepared to give a one hour to one hour and half briefing on the following topics: Section 1135 Back River Study, Tybee Island Section 111 Study, Tybee Island Beach Renourishment Project, Savannah Harbor Ecosystem Restoration project, Savannah River Basin Comprehensive Study, Section 107 Harbor Extension. These are things we have going on in Savannah harbor right now that may or may not impact what we are doing here. They are to give 10 minutes each, scope, schedule, cost, deliverables and how they may impact this project.

T Leffek: During the meeting?

D Parrott: During the meeting.

B Dysart: That is already on the draft of the agenda.

D Parrott: For the 9^th, for the 9^th.

M Rees: And the other thing is for the 9^th is we have already scheduled the deferred presentation on the economics from the Corps Headquarters folks. They are scheduled to be here the afternoon of the 9^th.

B Brewton: Well, it would be alright with me to go ahead then, although I realize that there are probably other people, we have to address them. I think after November we have got to get back on the regular schedule.

M Rees: We agree, no problem.

B Dysart: I, with due apologies (inaudible) get covered today (inaudible).

Voices: (inaudible)

END OF MEETING