Summary of the Proposed Savannah Harbor Improvement Project
Stakeholder Evaluation Group (SEG) Meeting
March 2, 1999
Initial Comments
The SEG meeting was held at the Coastal Georgia Center in Savannah on
Tuesday, March 2nd, and was called to order about 9:00 am.
David Schaller (Deputy Executive Director, Ga. Ports Authority) indicated
he had some decisions and views of GPA top management to share with the SEG
members. David explained GPA's role involving the SEG group. He pointed
out that GPA was the proposed Savannah Harbor improvement project proponent
and that this was entirely logical and proper due to GPA's mission. He
pointed out that GPA was also an active stakeholder in the SEG process.
This means that GPA wears two hats.
It is very important to GPA--including its top management--that
project-related environmental impacts likely to occur or that might occur
should the harbor improvement proceed be clearly, systematically, and
comprehensively identified by the diverse group of stakeholders comprising
this body--the SEG--and that SEG as a group develop the scopes of work for
sound, credible, and cost-effective scientific studies to evaluate the
likelihood of such impacts and practical measures to mitigate such impacts.
GPA will determine what scientific studies to fund, select qualified
contractors, have the scientific studies conducted, and provide the results
to SEG for review. David explained that GPA wants the SEG process to be
open, productive, and inclusive.
Effective immediately, Morgan Rees will give up the role of facilitator and
become the GPA stakeholder representative on SEG, reporting to the GPA
Executive Office. Morgan will speak for GPA concerning all matters in the
SEG's mission. Larry Keegan, Bo Ellis, and Ed Modzelewski will be
available as technical and scientific resources to the SEG. Charles
Griffen will continue to have accountability.
GPA will have a top-management representative, either Doug Marchand (GPA
Executive Director) or David--probably David--who will regularly attend the
SEG meetings. This top-management representative will speak for GPA on
policy-level matters beyond the scope of the SEG mission and will also
address any germane issues involving GPA's role as project proponent. GPA
will be guided by the SEG and the science as it continues through this
process on through the final analysis.
David introduced the new facilitator, Ben Dysart. For administrative
purposes, Ben will report to the GPA Executive Office. GPA and the GPA
Executive Office expect Ben to be neutral and independent as the SEG
facilitator. That expectation has been made clear to him by Doug and
squares with Ben's views of an effective and credible facilitator.
New Facilitator
The facilitator gave an introduction of his background. Explained the
notion of being a neutral facilitator. Explained he is here to try to help
things to move productively. Discussed his various experiences in
academia, the corporate world, conservation community leadership, work with
resource agencies, environmental engineering, water resources, impact
evaluation, etc.
The facilitator stated that he--the facilitator--had no desire or intent to
influence any thoughts, words, views, or anything else in the products of
the SEG. The product will be yours and yours alone. All he's here to do
is help you produce the best product you can and want to produce.
Several values were mentioned by the facilitator as being critical--in his
opinion--to the success of an effort such as this. These include mutual
respect, trust, and appreciation for one another's views.
[A fuller list provided by the facilitator for the record: Primary values
to be honored in all aspects of the SEG process include (in no particular
order) mutual respect, trust, appreciation for one another' views,
fairness, willingness to listen, cooperation, and seeking sustainable
win-wins. Additional important values include (again, in no particular
order) openness among parties, direct communications, willingness to learn,
good-faith commitment to the process and producing constructive results,
active contribution, a sense of balance, regard for
reality/practicality/doability, equity, quality of life, the "triple bottom
line," sound science, advancing interests over defending historic
positions, innovation, serving the broad public interest, current
opportunities orientation, and a commitment to success of the SEG. This
success will be measured by how effectively the SEG's product informs the
environmental aspects of a major public-policy decision (i.e., the
potential authorization, funding, design, and implementation of the
Savannah Harbor improvement).]
Ben Brewton questioned what the facilitator sees this group is to
accomplish and how to move forward. The facilitator explained that he was
not up to date on all the paperwork, but he understands that the mission is
to be discussed today. He stated that it is not for him to say what is the
mission.
Draft meeting summary from the February meeting was sent to SEG members by
e-mail and presented today.
The facilitator stated that agendas are needed for the SEG meetings. The
agenda for today's meeting is included as item 9 on page 10 of the draft
February SEG meeting summary.
Old Business: February SEG Minutes
The facilitator asked if there were any changes and corrections to the
February 2nd draft meeting summary.
Ben Brewton asked about the last bulleted item on section 2 page 6
regarding public comments and GPA responses on the Tier I EIS. The first
SEG meeting (January 99) had requested GPA to indicate more clearly how
some issues had been "adequately addressed" in the Tier I EIS, and the
second SEG meeting had decided not to require that information.
Ben Brewton stated that several other stakeholders were concerned that many
comments on the Tier I EIS were not adequately addressed and that
additional information is necessary to assist SEG in addressing these
issues.
Frank Peeples stated that there were a number of issues raised by the Tier
I that he did not feel were adequately addressed.
Ben Brewton stated that the list of issues provided to the SEG does not
necessarily include every concern of all members of the SEG. Also, he
would like GPA to show how and where the issues were addressed in the Tier
I EIS.
David Schaller stated that one way to do this is make available the Tier I
EIS to review it in GPA office. David informed the group that GPA will sit
with SEG members and respond to their questions. If the answers are not
satisfactory to you, then the issues can be introduced to the SEG.
Ben Brewton asked if there were some type of summary as to where and when
the various issues had been adequately addressed.
Morgan Rees stated that he prepared the list of issues by reviewing all the
comments in the comment section of the Tier I EIS, Section H, and noted
every issue raised regardless of whether GPA had indicated resolution. The
list of issues presented at the 1st meeting was based on the assumption
that these issues had not been adequately addressed, as people were still
concerned about them. Everyone was invited to add anything that they
believed might have been missed.
Judy Jennings stated that, on page of 3 and 4 of the draft February meeting
minutes, it indicates that the list can be added to as necessary.
The facilitator asked how many other people had this concern.
Question -- who else was interested in sitting down with GPA off-line to
discuss the issues in the Tier I EIS?
· Action items - individuals who want additional responses to comments
should let David Schaller know, a time will be set up, and everyone will be
notified of this date.
Rob Mikell stated that, if the channel were deepened, there would need to
be more spoil disposal areas. Explained he was told that this issue would
be addressed at later date.
Larry Keegan explained the question of whether additional things could be
brought to SEG. One of the things discussed in previous meeting was who
could participate and bring items to the SEG. Bill Farmer and Larry were
tasked to work on these guidelines.
Larry Keegan explained the question regarding the Tier I disposal site.
This was addressed in the Feasibility Study by the COE District Civil Works
engineering staff who looked very carefully. On the issue if an additional
site will be required, the conclusion was that the existing plan would be
adequate for the life of this project. This is addressed in the report.
This is not to say that sometime in the future this will have to be
replaced.
There was a question about the meaning of the term "the life of the
project." Dan Parrot (COE) explained the lifetime of the project was 20
years.
Chris Schuberth stated that many people did not have an opportunity to
examine or challenge GPA's conclusions that many issues had been adequately
addressed in the Tier I EIS and that there should be a mechanism for the
SEG to challenge studies and conclusions made by GPA.
· David Schaller stated GPA would make a presentation on this issue at the
next SEG meeting.
Judy Jennings stated that that there will not be a presentation every time.
Suggested that we should talk about how to get all opinions on the table.
Bob Scanlon stated that his impression of the SEG was that it was to deal
with natural resources and issues that would impact those resources, such
as the disposal area. The SEG was to be one of several groups formed to
deal with all the project issues. If we are going to resolve things in a
timely manner, we need to identify the time-sensitive issues first and get
on with preparing scientific study scopes so the work can be done, and then
revisit the other issues that may not be time sensitive.
Suggested that GPA state references of the paragraphs in the EIS that
addressed the list of issues that SEG has at this time.
1. The recommendation of looking at the five things that were identified in
the Feasibility Report and require modeling studies to go ahead and push to
accomplish these, but simultaneously move ahead trying to put things on the
issues list.
Ben Brewton requested that the meeting summary of the February SEG meeting
be annotated to indicate that the SEG is still interested in further
explanation of how various issues were "adequately addressed."
It was suggested that a presentation on each issue is not needed, but a
reference list would be better.
· The facilitator suggested that issues as of close of business today will
be provided to GPA and they will provide references from the EIS as seems
to be desired by the SEG as a whole.
Robbie Harrison stated his concerns that impacts to SC property owners have
not been included as requested.
David Schaller stated that he is not aware the GPA has dismissed anything.
All the issues that the SEG representatives and the SEG as a whole want on
the table are on the table. GPA has taken nothing off the table.
Chris Schuberth -- Discussed the plan of action schedule that was
distributed last meeting.
Larry Keegan explained that the reports handed out with the planned actions
were to tell the group what was planned to do at that point in time.
Because no plan is stated in what was handed out in February does not mean
nothing will be done.
David Schaller stated that, in terms of procedure and formula, we need to
get to that point before the actual scientific work can be done in the
field. The project proponent, GPA, needs to know what the SEG wants done,
such as the form of the deliverables. Stated that he thinks that, as we
were structured originally, the SEG had five issues; and they were the
primary tasks to be evaluated by the group. Stated that these issues are
programmed, and GPA will look at them, but it may not be in this forum, the
SEG.
Ben Brewton stated that it is a natural resource issue and questioned why
it would not be addressed. How do we systemically determine what has to be
addressed, what needs to be addressed, and whether it is within the purview
of SEG? Also, how do we do that in working in a systematically thorough
base?
The facilitator suggested the group come up with some kind of list of
issues so that we can move on today and with the SEG's work.
Suggested that, if there are other issues known to SEG representatives
since the Tier I study, that they be made known and included in the list.
A motion was made to accept the minutes as drafted with the annotation to
indicate GPA will provide citations on where in the Tier I EIS information
can be found for those issues described as "adequately addressed."
Ben Brewton presented a question to item 3 on page 6 on the February draft
minutes. (There is no item 3 on page 6.)
Ben Brewton mentioned a notice in the Federal Register regarding the
Savannah Harbor final EIS and questioned its meaning. No one at the SEG
meeting was aware of the notice or had any explanation of it. GPA assured
participants that it is still proceeding with a Tier II EIS and will
prepare a complete document prior to construction.
Larry Keegan stated the Tier II EIS would be created in the same process as
the Tier I.
Ben Brewton inquired as to the status of the Final Tier I EIS.
Morgan Rees stated that there was a notice in the Federal Register some
time in August or September 1998 as a result of the GPA report and Tier I
EIS submitted to the Secretary of the Army in August 1998.
Ben Brewton wanted to be assured the work of SEG would be incorporated into
the Tier II EIS.
Judy Jennings questioned whether GPA would seek project authorization in
WRDA 99.
David Schaller replied yes, on the basis that GPA wears two hats as
discussed earlier. As the project proponent, GPA has a responsibility to
seek authorization.
The facilitator indicated that most SEG participants wear at least two
hats, and the entire group should recognize that. We--including GPA--meet
on the SEG platform at these meetings to do SEG business.
Ben Brewton questioned the funding of the project the way GPA is moving
ahead trying to obtain authorization while SEG is still working on issues
and before a Final Tier II EIS is complete.
David Schaller explained that the only funding GPA is seeking is to fund
the work of SEG at this time, and not to do any construction.
The facilitator suggested the group proceed to the proposed SEG guidelines
and the reports of the several SEG committees.
Questioned whether a schedule could be developed and made available to the
SEG members that shows a critical path to see where we are on that path.
Suggested that it be simplified--e.g. a one-page report. GPA agreed to
provide such a schedule.
New Business: Committee Reports
Modeling Technical Review Group (MTRG) report by Bo Ellis.
Reviewed the initial task statement of field data collection.
Gave a running history of the activities of the MTRG. The MTRG is a group
of technical representatives from agencies and other groups that would
prepare recommendations on draft task statements for a field data
collection effort to develop water quality data that would be used for
building models and establishing relationships for determining the effects
of deepening alternatives on salinity, dissolved oxygen, and chlorides.
MTRG recommended the posting of all documents produced on a web site to
expedite the review in distribution and information.
Also agreed to a schedule to try to complete the revised task statements by
April 1. On February 1, the web site was established, and a status report
was distributed to MTRG with all of the agreed upon revisions
MTRG recommended that the monitoring plan be furthered developed after the
start of the field data collection, which is scheduled to occur in early
April.
MTRG recommended follow-on model development tasks, which actually looks at
how the model will be assembled. These task scopes of work be developed as
early as possible.
Right now we (ATM) are in the process of revising task statements based on
the comments received. These are being sent back out to the MTRG to make
sure the wording captures all the comments and all the recommendations that
have been made.
The plan is to revise task statements next week, finalize the wording, and
sent to the SEG.
MTRG recommends that these tasks be implemented in early April.
Suggested that a presentation be made as to the specific variables that
will be addressed.
For MTRG web site access, the username is: "GPA", and the password is:
"GPA".
Stated that only consensus is only needed with the fieldwork. The model
development task has not been presented to the group.
Revised task will be posted on the web page.
Fred Beason questioned whether the tests would be best conducted with or
without agitation dredging. Concerned he will not be able to dredge his
docks during the testing period. It was explained that the MTRG had no
authority to prevent dredging.
It is only a recommendation that the test be conducted without dredging.
Stuart Stevens recommends that Bo proceed.
Ben Brewton -- questioned whether the modeling was being done in a
realistic manner to include all possible problems. He does not like the
group's being asked to approve something that does not yet exist. It seems
that certain things are being accelerated to meet certain time schedules.
Discussion indicated most SEG members believed that time schedules should
be met on time-sensitive scientific study matters.
The consensus of the group is for MTRG to proceed.
Beach Erosion Committee Report - Bill Farmer
The brief written proposal was submitted to SEG members to read and study
as information.
Distributed a copy of reports
Was mentioned that this committee report format was very useful to SEG.
Provided the committee's views of specific issues and the sort of studies
that were required to evaluate them and suggest mitigation measures.
Back River Restoration Group report -- Carl Hall, Ga. DNR
What will be the cumulative effect of the deepening?
2nd issue is what will happen to the Back River restoration project as a
result of the deepening.
The brief written proposal was submitted to SEG members to read and study
as information.
Communications Committee - Ben Brewton
Ben Brewton suggested that this be deferred until next month.
Cathy is to re-send the memo to remind people.
Next Meeting and Administrative Matters
The next meeting will be the first Tuesday of the month, April 6, at 9 am
to 1 p.m.
Suggested that the membership list be revised. Brewton stated that he
would be on this committee and requested that anyone interested should
email him.
The facilitator suggested an agenda be done ahead of time.
Suggested for things to be sent to Ben Dysart and cc to Cathy Vaughn
Suggested that it be stated what you want when you send in proposed agenda
items. For example, do you want to just have general discussion? Or do
you have specific material to provide to the SEG members for their
information? Do you want review or comments or approval of a work plan?
Do you wish to provide a status report? Do you want action or a decision?
Do you want to talk about or revisit previous topics? Or what?
With the SEG members being busy people with 4 hours to give to get the work
done as a group, you must have a timed agenda and know what you want to get
done. It was generally agreed that more structure was needed to produce
the most and best possible results at SEG meetings. The facilitator said
the SEG members would decide at the beginning of the meeting how much time
they want to devote to agenda items.
Submitted by:
Ben Dysart, Facilitator
3/20/99