Final Meeting Summary:

February 2, 1999, Stakeholders Evaluation Group Meeting.

1. Introductory Remarks, The facilitator called the meeting to order 9:15

AM. Introductory remarks included a summary of feedback from the first

meeting.

-Some thought the meeting was too unstructured, others thought it

was too structured. The facilitator indicated his preference for

unstructured meetings to ensure all views are adequately aired, but in

deference to many calls for more efficiency in the meeting, the facilitator

would probably intervene more than in the first meeting.

-The SEG agreed the first meeting was too long and that this

meeting should adjourn by 2:00 PM with a short break for lunch to be

brought in.

-A comment was made that the E-mail delivery of information was

faulty. GPA agreed to check its distribution list for errors or omissions,

but was not aware of any.

2. Summary of January 12, 1999, SEG Meeting. The SEG agreed to the draft

summary of the January 12, 1999, SEG meeting with modifications as follows:

-There was a brief discussion of pros and cons operating under a

committee structure, but no closure was reached at this time. (Note that

later in the meeting the committee concept was adopted for several issues.)

No changes to the draft summary are required for this item.

-The group affirmed a decision from the previous meeting for the

SEG to be informal to avoid becoming involved with Federal Advisory

Committee Act requirements and to maintain the independent review and

regulatory responsibilities of state and federal agencies. No changes to

the meeting summary are required for this item.

-It was pointed out that the first meeting had agreed to clarify

that mitigation included the possibility that no suitable mitigation may be

found. There was no dissent on this issue. This change has been made.

-There was a question whether the SEG would address the "short

list" of the five original issues or the longer list developed at the first

meeting. The facilitator indicated that all issues are on the table, but

the SEG had not yet deliberated specifically on which issues to include or

exclude. It was suggested that the summary of the first meeting include

the long list of issues. This has been done.

-There was discussion of whether the first meeting agreed to ask

GPA to provide a discussion of why certain issues in the Tier I EIS were

stated as having been "adequately addressed" when there is still

disagreement on some points. GPA indicated it understood the task as

simply providing a list of the issues and not a reiteration of its

rationale for considering them "adequately addressed". After discussion,

the SEG agreed that reiterating the information in the Tier I EIS is not

necessary and GPA is not being asked to provide that documentation. The

summary of the first meeting has been annotated to reflect the change in

the decision of the SEG. (Further annotation: The third meeting of the

SEG reconsidered this issue and requested GPA to provide citations of where

in the Tier I EIS information can be found to adequately issues raised in

public comments.)

With the three changes noted, the meeting summary for January 12, 1999, was

agreed to and the facilitator was directed to distribute a revise final

summary.

3. Presentation of the Entire Tier II study and EIS process. At the

request of the facilitator, GPA provided a summary of the entire Tier II

EIS and study process to indicate how the SEG fit into the overall effort.

The Tier II effort is comprised of the SEG, a detailed design effort,

cultural resources evaluation and mitigation, and a public involvement

program. The various individual task elements and the Tier II schedule

were presented.

During the presentation several questions were asked.

-Which issues are included in which part of the Tier II process? GPA

indicated that all issues will be fully addressed but preferred to focus

the SEG on the original five principal issues; dissolved oxygen, chlorides,

salinity, striped bass, and shortnose sturgeon. The facilitator stressed

that all issues are on the table and the SEG will decide which to include

in the SEG process.

-Is a copy of the Project Management Plan available? Yes, a hard copy will

be furnished to anyone who wants one and the plan is available on the GPA

web site.

-Does the NED Plan include the cost of mitigation for each alternative?

Yes.

-Will GPA follow the recommendation of the SEG? GPA officials intend to

follow the advice of the SEG to the maximum extent, but cannot make an

unequivocal commitment because the outcome is unknown, GPA has governmental

policy responsibility which it cannot give away, and no one at the staff or

management level in GPA can legally make such an absolute commitment for

the Board of Directors. At the previous SEG meeting and earlier in this

meeting it was noted that none of the governmental agencies, including GPA,

can make an unequivocal commitment to the outcome of the SEG process.

-Would the Corps adopt a GPA recommended plan if it is not the NED Plan?

The Corps may adopt a plan which is not the NED Plan as long as it meets

all federal environmental requirements. If the adopted plan meets all

environmental requirements and is more costly than the NED Plan, the

federal government would share in project costs only up to the cost of the

NED Plan and the non-federal sponsor would have to pay 100% of the

incremental costs over the NED Plan. The federal government does not

usually oppose plans smaller than the NED Plan as long as they are

themselves economically justified. If the adopted plan is economically

feasible and less costly than the NED Plan, the federal government would

share in costs up to the cost of adopted plan. (Note to readers: This is

not precisely the way the process of variation from the NED Plan was

discussed at the SEG meeting. However, the facilitator believes it is

important to provide participants with correct information. The

facilitator welcomes discussion at the next SEG meeting on how this element

of the meeting should be represented in the record of the SEG.)

-Since WRDA 98 was not enacted, will the Corps make a similar

recommendation for WRDA 99? The Corps has not as yet made any

recommendation, even for WRDA 98. Authorization of the project was

introduced by the Congressional delegation subject to completion of a

report of the Chief of Engineers and recommendation of the Secretary of the

Army. GPA's report is under review in Washington and will follow the

normal Corps internal review process. It is uncertain whether there will

be a WRDA 99 or what the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers or the

Secretary of the Army will be. It was noted that Congress can follow the

same course for WRDA 99 as it did for WRDA 98.

-Which parts of the detailed design process will be facilitated? Those

issues which the SEG decides to undertake will be facilitated through the

SEG. All others will be fully addressed, but outside the scope of the SEG.

-What is the significance of the different colors showing various tasks on

the project management plan? Red tasks are on the critical path, blue are

summary tasks, and black are stand alone tasks.

4. Report of the Modeling technical Review Group (MTRG). After a break,

the MTRG presented a summary report of its activities since being formed at

the previous SEG meeting. The group reported that at a meeting on January

26, 1999, in Atlanta, it agreed on the schedule and content of studies

dissolved oxygen, salinity, and chlorides. The MTRG expects to present a

study plan to the SEG by May 1, 1999. The MTRG will revise the task

statements by February 10 and convene a meeting in Atlanta on February 25.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the South Carolina Department

of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) were unable to participate in

the MTRG meeting and as a result, were not able to commit to the outcome of

the meeting. The facilitator indicated that views of all interested

parties must be reflected in committee actions in order for the SEG to

properly consider the committee recommendations.

The principal reasons stated for people being unable to participate were a

computer failure so the meeting notice was not received, schedule

conflicts, and location of the meeting in Atlanta. It was explained that

the meeting was held in Atlanta because the most knowledgeable modeling

experts involved in the process are located there.

ATM, GPAs environmental consultant, indicated that extensive efforts were

being made to include everyone, to ensure adequate information is shared

with all parties, and all parties have sufficient opportunity to

participate in the committee. Representatives of the committee made a

commitment to ensure involvement of all interested parties, including use

of electronic mail and conferencing. Documents will be posted on the web

It was agreed that committee meeting minutes should include who attended.

Coastal Environmental Organization noted that they did not receive minutes

or other information from the MTRG meeting. GPA indicated the MTRG is a

GPA managed function. After lengthy discussion, it was agreed to make all

information available to anyone who wants it giving consideration to

electronic distribution as the most cost effective way. All information

regarding the committee proceedings will be posted on the web site.

The FWS indicated they would not be able to attend the next MTRG meeting on

February 25, 1999.

5. Discussion of Operating Guidelines. At the first SEG meeting

participants were invited to submit recommendations for changes to the

draft operating guidelines to be considered at the February 2nd meeting.

Two recommendations were submitted, one from the Savannah Manufacturers

Council and one from the City of Tybee Island. The recommendations were

summarized by representatives of each entity. Verbatim copies are

available from either the comment proponent or the facilitator.

Tybee Island Presentation:

-SEG lists the issues its wants addressed

-Decide how to deal with each issue

-Assign issues to committees

-Committees develop recommended studies and report to the

SEG

-The SEG votes on the committee recommendation

-SEG makes recommendation to GPA

-GPA assesses the recommendation and, if necessary,

discusses with SEG

-Disagreements would be negotiated

-Process allows participants to help without committing the

full weight of the organizations they represent

At the end of its presentation, the City of Tybee Island recommended

establishment of a Beach Erosion Committee. The recommendation was tabled

until later in the meeting.

Manufacturers Council Presentation:

-Ensure minority views are represented

-SEG select its own facilitator

-Consensus, not majority vote will make decisions

-Organizational structure: policy committee, technical

committees, and ad hoc committees

-Any SEG participant can propose task statements

-Add more specific task language to the mission statement

-Distribute minutes and agenda on a timely basis

-Add GAEPD to the SEG membership list (facilitator's note:

EPD had been included as an element of the GADNR)

-Studies must include impacts to the overall dissolved

oxygen deficit in the river, not just to manufacturing

discharges.

-A term of operation should be established

The National Marine Fisheries Service stated its support for the SEG but as

an agency with specific responsibilities, NMFS must retain its

independence. It was agreed that the same principle applies to all

government agencies.

It was further acknowledged that any ultimate project proposal would be a

GPA proposal and that the SEG would assist GPA in preparing as good a

proposal as possible. However, it was also agreed that no individual

participant would be bound by the outcome of the process. (Facilitator's

note: This is consistent with the definition of consensus adopted at the

first meeting, i. e., there is provision for a minority view if a

participant does not agree with the consensus or the SEG can reconsider the

definition of consensus.

There was a question from the floor: To what extent will environmental and

cultural resources be affected? The facilitator explained that these are

the questions to be addressed by the SEG with a view to developing

consensus answers.

A recommendation was made from the floor that GPA provide general guidance

and staff support for the SEG and the SEG should function as it will. The

facilitator indicated this issue is on the list of issues to be addressed

from the first meeting.

6. Discussion of Draft Operating Guidelines. The facilitator noted the

previous SEG meeting completed a consensus version of the Introduction to

the Draft Operating Guidelines. However, two points were raised from the

floor which required the group to revisit the Introduction. First was the

definition of consensus. After discussion, the group decided not to change

the definition previously agreed to. The second point was the description

of the study and whether the language "Savannah River Estuary" was too

geographically limiting. GPA indicated that whatever the law required as

part of the project impacts would be considered. The group agreed the term

"estuary" was too limiting and directed the facilitator to delete it from

the guidelines.

The FWS stated there were still issues on the table from the Tier I EIS.

The role of GPA was discussed in the context of the potential for

recommendations for studies of issues which might be beyond the scope of

project induced effects. There was consensus that SEG recommendations

would be related to channel deepening impacts.

It was also pointed out that other changes to the Introduction were agreed

to at the January 12 meeting including noting that the group may find that

some impacts cannot be mitigated. The facilitator agreed to revise the

document to reflect all the language agreed to at both meetings and

resubmit it to the SEG for review and approval.

7. Discussion of the Principles Section of the Draft Operating Guidelines

-Principle a. Deliberations of the SEG will be scientific in

nature and be based on the best science available.

-Discussion: A comment was made that in addition to the scientific

issues, the SEG should be able to review how the economics of the project

are affected as a result of the outcome of the scientific analyses. There

was no objection. Ben Brewton was asked to draft a statement of this

principle and furnish it to the facilitator for inclusion in the

guidelines.

-Principle b. Decisions will be by consensus.

-Discussion: This was agreed to with the addition of "not by

majority vote." Some additional discussion regarding the definition of

consensus resulted in an affirmation of the definition reached at the

January 12th meeting.

-Principle c. There will be no formal organization structure.

-Discussion. It was recognized that the SEG will determine its own

structure and the structure should include the use of subcommittees for

specific tasks. It was further recognized that too many committees may

introduce redundancy and be inefficient. Ben Brewton was requested to

revise the statement of principle to include these thoughts and to submit

it to the facilitator for distribution.

Also discussed under this item was dissemination of information. GPA

agreed to put all pertinent information on its web site and keep an updated

information report on its telephone information line at 912.963.2511. It

was recommended and agreed to that a committee be formed to identify the

types of information the committee would like to have available on the web

site, the phone line, and through e-mail. Ben Brewton agreed to chair the

committee.

-Principle d. Work will be assigned by discrete assignments

performed by appropriate individuals, groups, or consultants as agreed to

by the SEG.

-Discussion. This principle was adopted as stated.

-Principle e. Detailed activities required to meet the objectives

of the SEG will be developed by the SEG.

-Discussion. There were no comments and this principle was adopted

without discussion.

-Principle f. The SEG will provide a means to allow other

non-government parties to participate in an evaluation of the results of

its scientific analyses for the purpose of assessing the environmental

impact of a channel deepening on a party's special interest.

-Discussion. This principle will be revised to ensure there is no

conflict with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Revised language will be

prepared by GPA and distributed by the facilitator in advance of and for

discussion at the next SEG meeting.

-Principle g. GPA will be responsible for developing task

statements for consideration by the SEG.

-Discussion. This principle will be revised to include a provision

for any participant to propose task statements, scopes of work, etc.

Revised language will be prepared by GPA and distributed by the facilitator

in advance of and for discussion at the next SEG meeting.

-New principle. The group agreed to add a principle addressing

"boundary conditions" i. e., recognizing that the limitations of the

studies. Ben Brewton will draft a proposed principle for SEG

consideration.

8. The City of Tybee Island proposed forming a committee to address beach

erosion issues. The group agreed. All interests are welcome. The

committee as of February 2, 1999, includes:

Chris Schuberth

Dan Parrott

Fred Nadelman

Andrew O'Connor

John Robinette

Bill Farmer

William Bailey

Stuart Stevens

9. The SEG agreed that the agenda for the next meeting should include

committee reports from the three committees, the modeling group, the beach

erosion group, and the communication committee, then proceed directly to

the remaining portions of the guidelines.

10. Ben Brewton recommended adding a principle to address requirements of

the Georgia Open Records Act. As it was getting late, the SEG agreed to

table the discussion until the next meeting.

11. The facilitator requested any other recommendations for modifications

to the guidelines be submitted.

12. The SEG agreed to hold regularly scheduled meetings on the first

Tuesday of each month from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM with no lunch break.

13. The SEG agreed to have the MTRG include in its recommendations any

additional scientific studies it believes are necessary for this summer.