May 4, 1999

Coastal Georgia Center, Savannah, Ga.

Meeting was called to order at approximately 9:00 am by Ben Dysart (SEG facilitator)

Facilitator requested SEG Members to write on paper quick views of:

• (a) the most beneficial potential result of the SEG's efforts for the environment, the resources, and people—if it achieves its important and challenging mission—and
• (b) the greatest potential barrier(s) to that benefit's being realized

and pass them in for compilation

• Results are compiled and reported at end of this meeting summary following actions, decisions, consensus, and recommendations of the SEG and SEG committees

David Schaller (Deputy Executive Director, Ga. Ports Authority): Requested opportunity to speak to SEG re: newspaper article "Ports documents attack Fish and Wildlife," Savannah Morning News, 4/28/99

• GPA is very embarrassed by the article and what is reported
• Comments and views cited in the article are not acceptable to or condoned by GPA and its leadership
• Doug [Marchand, GPA Exec. Director] has apologized to Sam Hamilton [USF&WS Regional Director]
• GPA values the role of all federal and state agencies and all parties involved with SEG and the project
• It's the duty and responsibility of GPA to act responsibly and be trustworthy in its dealings with all parties
• GPA and its leadership understand that trust and cooperation are very important
• GPA and its leadership value the SEG's role and inputs
• GPA acts on behalf of the citizens of the state of Ga., the region, and the nation

Facilitator: Asked SEG Members if they had any questions of David or any comments on either his remarks or the topic in general

Chris Schuberth: Thanked David for his comments

Judy Jennings: Thanked David for his comments

Facilitator requested SEG Members' action on 4/6/99 SEG meeting summary as circulated to SEG Members

Discussion by SEG Members

• Morgan Rees (GPA SEG representative): Will clarify any items needing it by next meeting
• Press Brownell: OK but agencies will clarify summaries as and if needed

Facilitator suggested capturing summary items as we proceed in meeting on flip charts and let that be basis of meeting summaries

• Go to bullet summary and collect items as you go through meeting
• Will be responsibility of speakers and SEG Members to make sure bullets capture what should be there
• Will capture all SEG decisions, consensus, and recommendations
• What's captured on the sheets gets cleaned up as needed and that's the summary
• Do you want to attribute views to individual speakers?
• Teri Leffek: Yes
• Ben Brewton: Capture all decisions, recommendations, questions, etc.

Morgan Rees: Reported on behalf of the Operating Guidelines working group

• Resolved the issues discussed at last SEG meeting
• SEG membership and SEG committees are fluid—can change over time

Facilitator: Operating Guidelines committee or work group members agree on Morgan's representation?

Morgan Rees: Recommend adoption of Operating Guidelines as presented and discussed today

Facilitator's note: This came up within other agenda items

• See various items following this during meeting for SEG Members' discussion re: "economics topic"
• SEG action items repeated from agenda items throughout summary to collect under this topic for information and convenience of SEG Members
• SEG consensus/decision: Judy and Morgan will meet on the economics topic and report back to SEG meeting next month
• Group also includes Patty, Neff, Corps representative
• Judy to chair
• SEG consensus: Wait for economics group to bring their recommendations back to SEG next month—not get ahead of their recommendations and can have more discussions then as/if needed

Judy Jennings: Question concerning "economic aspects" (next to last paragraph on p. 1 of Operating Guidelines)

Ben Brewton: Focus was on environmental impacts and cost of mitigation in that paragraph

• Working group didn't want the public to feel that SEG is the only public input opportunity
• Nor want public to think SEG is looking at everything

David Schaller: There are 3 different focus groups currently associated with the proposed deepening project: environmental, cultural, and design

• GPA will create a 4^th—economic
• Economic re-evaluation will come a little later.

Chris Schuberth: Is there cross-fertilization?

• Are SEG Members able to sit in on those groups?
• Clarify "focus groups" vs. "SEG"

David Schaller: Believes all are stakeholders—not just SEG

• All focus or task groups are stakeholders of the proposed deepening project
• Environmental—the focus and mission of the SEG—is not the only one of the 3 (now 4) with stakeholders.

Morgan Rees: GPA owes SEG a project schedule much more comprehensive than the one provided in February

• Maybe not on just 1 page though
• Where does economics need to be on the schedule?

Judy Jennings: Economics is a current question

Chris Schuberth: Need cross-fertilization between the SEG and the other focus or work groups

Ben Brewton: Operating Guidelines committee found this runs together

• Economic benefits, etc. are of interest—has been raised by several over time
• Work with Dave and Morgan on this
• Explain economic calculations
• Recommend Morgan and Judy—plus others—formulate plan to consider economics-related questions

Patty McIntosh: Add her to the economics group that will meet and report back to SEG next month

Ben Brewton: Volunteered Neff McIntosh to meet with economics group too

Morgan Rees: Invited US Corps of Engineers representative to join re: 203 and economic analysis

Bill Bailey: Yes, agreed to meet with group

Ben Brewton: Recommend one person be the chair of this economics group

Judy Jennings: Volunteered to chair

Facilitator asked SEG Members including the Operating Guidelines Committee to try to identify a short, clear focus for the SEG's efforts to help keep things focused and on track

Morgan Rees: First paragraph is the focus of the SEG's Operating Guidelines

Ben Brewton: Concurs with Morgan

• They consolidated lots of bits and pieces from earlier draft into that 1^st paragraph

Press Brownell: Short planning horizon in 1^st paragraph

• Need to think in terms of project maintenance long term
• Mitigation will run into the future
• Project authority is a long-term commitment
• Need long-term focus on environmental mitigation

Morgan Rees: Press’s comments are on target

• Was a paragraph on term or duration of SEG in old draft of guidelines
• Decided couldn’t be specific as to term
• Inference is SEG will exist for as long as it's needed
• Long-term view is implied in paragraph 1 by the Operating Guidelines Committee

Ben Brewton: In point (1-a-2), it's clear to him that impacts go on long time

• His opinion this relates to cumulative and continuing impacts
• For example, dredged material disposal impacts are greater than 20 years
• Documents or proposals right now only address it for 20 years, although the impacts continue on. [This bullet added 8/17/99.]

Stuart Stevens: Broadening focus [in any way including potentially adding economics to SEG plate] puts limits on additional studies

• Economics is or would be broadening the focus of SEG

Ben Brewton: SEG would focus on environmental aspects of economic matters

Ben Brewton: Appendix B of Operating Guidelines adopted is a cumulative record of all environmental impact issues mentioned

• Can add new environmental impact issues to it after each meeting
• Committees in Appendix A is after SEG decides it should be addressed and is active projects
• There are lots of other environmental issues
• SEG can’t cover everything
• Therefore SEG has to focus on the environment

David Schaller: GPA favors—as Morgan Rees indicated—an advisory group to advise GPA

• After SEG's mission is completed, GPA needs an advisory group on the environment open to public—so GPA can continue dialog on the environment with the public
• With private time with Judy, can better understand and see if modification is needed in the Operating Guidelines

Judy Jennings: OK

Patty McIntosh: Re: long-term monitoring

• Project or cumulative?
• [Due to numerous interruptions following Patty McIntosh's question and topic changes, her question seems to have been overcome by other speakers and questions. What follows is a verbatim transcript of what is believed to be the answer to Patty's question re: cumulative impact. This came later in the meeting under another discussion. This bullet added 8/17/99.]

Morgan Rees: One other point that goes to respond to Patty',s question that I meant to respond to before on cumulative impact - it is clear to me, and I am speaking on behalf of myself now as someone who has been involved in Federal project planning processes for years - years and years - that you must address cumulative impacts. It is a requirement not only of the Corps of Engineers, but NEPA regulations, and - so there is really no question in my mind that cumulative impacts will be done. There is always a question of how you do that and to what extent and that is where the difficulty comes. The fundamental answer is - yes, cumulative impacts must be done.

Ben Dysart: You said there is a question as to how you do it and what (inaudible)

Morgan Rees: Well the extent. There is always... I can't tell you how many debates I have been involved in on where you stop and where you start on addressing

cumulative impacts. So to me you tackle the issue up front and (inaudible)

Neff McIntosh: Operating Guidelines are inclusive unless others noted

• Can bring other issues to the table for discussion
• Impacts can be looked at
• Operating Guidelines Committee had inclusive drift in its deliberations

Morgan Rees: Concurred

Bill Farmer: SEG adopted the Operating Guidelines 2 meetings ago

• It's a living document
• SEG can revisit it as needed
• All SEG Members who were interested volunteered and served on the Operating Guidelines Committee

Morgan Rees: It’s a living document

• Reiterated the very inclusive membership of the Committee from SEG membership
• Time to move on

Operating Guidelines Committee recommend adoption of operating guidelines (4/29/99 revision) as presented and discussed today

Morgan Rees: Cumulative impacts must somehow be addressed

• Question is how it's done and the extent to which it's done

Facilitator's note: Regarding topic of trying to get SEG agreement on a short, clear focus for the SEG's efforts to help keep things on track, the following is repeated or provided here to give closure on agenda item

• First paragraph is the focus of the SEG's Operating Guidelines
• Operating Guidelines are inclusive unless others noted
• Can bring other issues to the table for discussion
• Impacts can be looked at
• Operating Guidelines Committee had inclusive drift in its deliberations
• SEG Members concurred

SEG discussion to clarify relative benefits of (a) committees and technical experts reaching essential agreement before making recommendations for approval/adoption by full SEG and (b) letting SEG do the coordination and discussing/debating everything at length as a committee of the whole

Larry Keegan (GPA contractor): There is a new web site for SEG materials

• SEG committee reports, SEG meeting summaries, and agendas
• Will be no editing of what's provided to Larry to put on Web site
• Will include SEG materials as well as the cultural and design areas
• URL is "www.sysconn.com/harbor"

Cathy Vaughn: This is in lieu of her sending everything to individual SEG Members by e-mail

• She will inform SEG Members that there are new items on Web via e-mail

Larry Keegan: Individual SEG Member correspondence can be 1 on 1—not through this web site

Ben Brewton: He recommends Cathy Vaughn maintain a complete record of all SEG-related documents

Facilitator: Concerning the cumulative impact agenda item

• Have already had some discussion on the topic today
• Won't reach closure today
• Without objection, will plan to have more discussion at next SEG meeting and move on now

Facilitator's note: There was additional discussion of cumulative impact within several agenda items at this meeting

Morgan Rees: Critical path schedule relating SEG mission and deliverables to GPA's proposed deepening project

• No update
• Stay tuned

Facilitator: Update on WRDA was requested

Morgan Rees: WRDA ’99 [the Water Resources Development Act of 1999] passed the House and Senate

• Now in conference
• He expects a final vote before Memorial Day

Facilitator: Update on the beach erosion issue

Bill Farmer: The Beach Erosion Committee met

• Committee received two proposals for study
• Considered whether they would fulfill need
• His opinion that the navigation project channel does have an effect on beaches
• (Reference provided by Chris Schuberth: George Ortell report—deepening of harbors intercepts coastal drift of sand)
• Cumulative vs. incremental impacts
• Chair (Bill Farmer) handed out copies of 2 proposals to SEG Members
• Want SEG recommendation to GPA in the June SEG meeting

Bill Farmer: Cont'd

• Requested interested SEG Members to join next meeting of Beach Erosion Committee
• The 2 studies are similar
• They analyze historic and incremental impacts
• One is basic coastal engineering
• The other uses satellite data
• Both include analysis
• Watson proposal is time sensitive—would need June go-ahead
• Olson proposal—available as needed
• Request SEG Members to review and be prepared to make recommendation to GPA in June SEG meeting
• Have been progressive deepenings over time
• Loss of sand—not clear which deepening caused what impact
• Lots of unknowns

Neff McIntosh: Re question

Morgan Rees: Coastal engineering is his expertise

• Deepening has effects
• There is a connection
• Don’t know what caused what of impacts
• Section 111 Corps of Engineers study on that is underway
• Is a summary of the 111 study available?

Bill Bailey: 111 looks at evaluating impacts

• Have existing authorized study of project-caused impacts
• Had effects
• Look at going up the harbor
• Not at entrance channel—where affects sand going down coast

Larry Keegan: Beach Erosion Committee has belief that existence of channel affects beaches

• But not enough scientific evidence to substantiate it

Chris Schuberth: Concurs with Larry

• Bo Ellis's coastal erosion report stated harbor intercepts flow of sand and damage has been done but not whether deepening will exacerbate or not

Bill Farmer: Open Beach Erosion Committee to other interested SEG Members

Stuart Stevens: What's the cost of the studies?

Bill Farmer: 95 and 100K$

Stuart: Is 1 year needed?

Bill Farmer: 1 said the incremental part can be done in ½ yr.

• Historical would take 1 year.

Larry Keegan: Not sure what’s encompassed

• 1 year is too long
• Other things will go beyond 1 year, so it’s OK

Stuart Stevens: Experts say a year

• Need to build into Larry’s planning process

Bill Bailey: No seasonal

Stuart Stevens: Is there anything that's cost-shareable—and can therefore be done?

Joe Schmitt: Can spend up to 100K$ on Section 111

• Only look at past projects
• Are we to analyze on incremental deepening or for whole history?
• Only authorized to do incremental
• Can only spend up to 2 million $ for mitigation of past impacts
• Corps of Engineers is participating both with Bill Farmer’s Beach Erosion Committee and SEG on effects of incremental depths
• Doing separately impacts of past projects
• Can spend up to 100 K $
• Then have to cost share

Larry Keegan: Spent time at last Beach Erosion Committee on need to consider Tybee realities on funding

• The exist channel project, a beach re-nourishment, the proposed new deepening project are all involved
• For what's needed for that area of coastline, have to get out of the Corps' separate stovepipes [that deal with the different pieces of the overall beach issue]
• The very real challenge is: Who pays for what pieces of what?
• Requires innovative effort to apportion the $—there are state and federal constraints

Bill Farmer: Other SEG committee's effort is focused on salinity, chlorides, and DO (dissolved oxygen)

• $s are being spent now
• Chloride and salinity studies were recommended to GPA
• They approved and spent $
• Beach Erosion Committee will make recommendations to SEG
• Work will be paid for by GPA or not be done

Morgan Rees: Corps' Section 111 could carry the burden

• Depends on authority
• This deepening project
• Have to decide where one stops and another starts
• Now GPA is paying 100% of some studies
• But there is an expectation by GPA of reimbursement
• GPA is funding ½ and financing ½
• Need equitable adjustment for funding
• GPA could help seek additional authority

Joe Schmitt: Law allows Corps of Engineers to go back to authorities—Ga. DOT

Stuart Stevens: So it can be funded?

Morgan Rees: What is related to this deepening project will be funded

• Need to look at equitable funding split

Bill Bailey: Salinity and chloride go ahead

Ben Brewton: Want to underscore what Morgan said: If needs to be done, will be done

• Expressed his view that stakeholders here—NGOs and public—expect that, if harbor had effects, they want it dealt with totally
• He wants project to stop if funding [funds so it can be paid for today] is a problem
• His opinion that absence of $ is no reason to not study an impact
• He does not desire for issues to be unstudied because of $ not available—while deepening project goes forward to create economic benefits
• He believes this project should deal with all impacts
• But he believes project not need to stop while GPA goes looking for the $

Judy Jennings: With Congressional authorization, this is the only project with this sort of funding

• Congress gave a $ number
• There’s issue of issues identified and what’s authorized in $ for project

Morgan Rees: Re: authorized funding

• Authorized is "construction" cost (and mitigation and design) only
• "Study" funds are authorized separately
• "Feasibility" not part of construction
• There's not a "bright line" in between "feasibility" and "construction" phases as defined by the COE.

John Saia: Are $ for this year

Joe Schmitt: But the Corps is not doing the study

• Once authorized, go to Section 204 into pre-construction and design
• Can pay for design
• Need resolution of Tier II

Chris Schuberth: Wants to underscore Keegan's comment

• A different component here
• [Need to be] creating connections between the Corps' several stovepipes

Bill Farmer: SEG members can meet with Beach Erosion Committee

Ben Brewton: Can spend any amount?

• Or 20% limit?

Morgan Rees: 230 million $ total, 145 million $ federal

• Who makes up the difference if—for example—a total of 300 million $ is spent?
• Congress has never denied cost escalation increase appropriations for a Corps project

Patty McIntosh: Re: SEG expectation that what we need studied is laid out in the Operating Guidelines

• Is GPA committed to fund it?

David Schaller: Pledged that SEG-identified issues connected with the deepening project and what must be studied will be studied to the limit of authorized $ (10.8 million $ in state of Ga. appropriations now)

• There is not an unlimited pot of $
• GPA can try to get additional $ from the Ga. Governor and Legislature
• Believed the 10.8 million $ is viewed as all studies required by law
• GPA can’t represent that SEG issues not connected with deepening can be funded

Ben Brewton: "Connection with harbor" vs. "connected with deepening of harbor"

• Are they the same?

Morgan Rees: Law requires dealing with cumulative impacts

• Not a bright line
• A judgement call
• GPA is committed to do the right thing necessary for the project
• Required under federal project planning and approval guidance

Ben Brewton: Could be that project-related or cumulative impact issues not fall under this

• If SEG identified legitimate harbor deepening issues—for this deepening project or cumulative—he feels there is a commitment to deal with it
• He believes this is not or should not be dependant on whether required by law or of funding availability
• It's his opinion that such matters are not consistent with GPA's commitment

Chris Schuberth: Referred to David Schaller comment at last meeting re: "Not to be constrained …"

• Committee had beach erosion proposal redone to include or increase emphasis on historic impacts

David Schaller: Made unequivocal commitment to do all required by law and to fund it

• An earlier meeting—used example of issue unrelated to deepening project and said GPA is unlikely to fund it
• However, if SEG believes there's a good justification to study it [even though not directly related to proposed deepening project], GPA will work or talk with you on finding $ somewhere
• When issues are identified, GPA will work with you to see they are resolved

Judy Jennings: Question which laws are applicable

Bill Bailey: NEPA

• ESA
• Cultural Resources
• Wetlands
• _____
• _____
• _____

Chris Schuberth: Is beach erosion out of the box?

Larry Keegan: Struggled for black-and-white answer on relevance to harbor deepening

• Interpretation is required
• Parts of topic—beach erosion—are pertinent to a deepening project
• Some are not applicable
• Can’t say everything involved with beach erosion is pertinent to the deepening project

Chris Schuberth: Law—Section 111

Larry Keegan: Gives Corps authority

• "Pertinence" requires lots of interpretation

Ben Brewton: In his opinion, this is a pressing nagging question that causes good-faith problems and deals with sincerity [of some parties]

• At previous meeting, GPA statement regarding issues and that all would be "addressed" was good
• But now he's hearing lots of qualifiers
• He looks for GPA to address all the issues identified by SEG
• May be impacts that fall between cracks on laws

Teri Leffek: Discussion has been intense—let’s take a break

[Break, then resume meeting]

David Schaller: GPA is not back-pedaling on anything

• Beach erosion is good example
• GPA is trying to help on that
• GPA is committed to resolving issues in good faith with mutual trust among all parties

Bill Farmer: Wednesday, 19 May, 10 am at Lockwood-Green offices in Savannah, Beach Erosion Committee meeting

• All interested SEG Members welcome

Ben Brewton: No report

• Haven’t met
• Web site effort by Larry Keegan, Cathy Vaughn, Lockwood Green, and GPA previously reported by others today
• He's letting dust settle

Carl Hall: Committee meeting held yesterday

Tom Meronek: Talked about adding sampling stations for this summer’s data collection efforts

• Committee meeting held yesterday—5/3/99—with nine members present
• Identified how many stations needed
• Was 1^st item dealt with at Striped Bass Committee meeting
• Velocity and depth—7 cross-sections in Back River for critical striped bass habitat to add into hydrodynamic model
• Want approval of this for programming into summer '99 work
• Next item (#2)—at last meeting, Corps 1135 study group wanting preliminary data for model runs
• Concern abut GPA’s funding
• Hydrodynamic model will be updated—issue of 2 different models
• Corps study would pay for running models at this time but GPA would pay for grid setup
• 1135 SOW Document
• Take some tasks with SEG proposal from 2 months ago
• Request approval for portion of two tasks (2 & 3 of original) with GPA funds—information won’t change
• Important for both 1135 and for harbor deepening
• 1135 wants to know what conditions existed before the tide gate and present habitat conditions
• Scheduling problem for Bo Ellis's ATM folks—tight schedule
• Can correlate today’s proposal with previous proposal
• Feel there’s advantage to them to do some modeling now
• Historical data and what’s there now
• Larry Keegan: He and Bo Ellis have worked/coordinated with Tom and Carl
• Ga. DNR wants some of their needs to be covered by harbor deepening project
• Need to have same model is important, but all model runs completed with the old model will be rerun with the new model
• Need some data for 1135 study
• Would not compromise modeling to be done next year
• In agreement that they can complement one another
• No inconsistencies

_______________: How does Larry deal with the contracting?

_______________: Larry, Bo, Carl, and Tom can work this out

• All on the same track

Tom Meronek: GPA said stuff would have to be done anyway

Carl Hall: Were on tight schedule getting this in

Ben Brewton: He's very supportive of this

Press Brownell: Recommend SEG approve it

Judy Jennings & Press Brownell: Re: short-nose sturgeon

• What's status?

Priscilla Wendt: What is status of funding Mark Collins's research?

• Ask Bo
• Time is critical for sampling coordination with ATM data collection

Larry Keegan: Contractual details

• Mark is used to grant $ and up-front $ funding
• Will take a request to GPA to do this
• Can he—Mark—invoice?

Bo Ellis: Mark requested to have $ in place by 15 May

Press Brownell: Recommend SEG approve task 314—short-nose sturgeon study as discussed in meeting

Carl Hall: Mentioned the idea of combining Striped Bass and Short-nose Sturgeon Committees into Fisheries Committee for reaction

• Interest?

Press Brownell: Have discussed

• Want to maintain striped bass focus on committee
• Have all agencies reported?
• Could cover short-nose sturgeon too

Carl Hall: Request Press to work on this

• Pursue this.

Press Brownell: OK

Larry Keegan: Striped bass 1135 and fisheries—keep separate

Morgan Rees: Topics included upstream water quality data, minimizing dredging during data collection, and upstream flow releases

• At end of last meeting (April), Jim Baker added issues
• Ended up with 10 issues.

Tom McAdam: Two issues remaining relate to EPA

• MTRG and Harbor Committee met

Morgan Rees: MTRG met 13 May

• All issues beyond minimizing dredging and upstream releases are 100% resolved pending putting it in writing

Ben Brewton: He got Baker e-mail on Friday [Apr. 30] saying there were some issues to be discussed at SEG meeting today

Morgan Rees: Re: minimizing dredging—has discussed this with some MTRG members

• Also talked with some dredgers
• Will resolve by June SEG meeting
• Re: upstream releases—Corps of Engineers staff contacts
• Will cooperate to extent they can
• Have reservoir operating plan
• There's a drought in progress, so some concern about ability to release optimal high flows
• But could get relation between chloride and salinity later at additional cost
• Comfortable will get data
• Clyo [gaging station] data upstream water quality data—settled in the interim
• All affected agencies are comfortable with this in relation to permitting
• No disagreement on what data need to be collected when
• Requested on behalf of MTRG Committee full SEG approval of tasks 311, 312, 313

Ben Brewton: Re: minimizing dredging issue

Morgan Rees: MTRG members at 13 April meeting, recommended this is good but would not defeat utility of model

Fred Beason: In no-dredging time period now—except for emergency dredging

Ben Brewton: Can data acquisition be extended to next spring?

Bo Ellis: No

• Need for hot period

Fred Beason: Pilots will request dredging for safe transit only—safety

Stuart Stevens: Need to know when dredging actually occurs in that period

Bo Ellis: Would like to know when

Fred Beason: Have to notify Corps by permit

Ben Brewton: He just now got input from CEO’s [his group—Coastal Environmental Organization] technical consultant by phone

• Was told that measures of salinity are meaningless unless you study mineralogy of mud

Bo Ellis: In MTRG, the members agreed that's important to effects on marsh

• But not to water quality which is what's being discussed by SEG here
• There is another task [not tasks under consideration by SEG today] on marsh succession, but nothing done on that yet
• Topic just raised is not part of water quality tasks [being considered by SEG today] that have been dealt with by MTRG members in their meetings and reported on web site and in SEG meetings

Ben Brewton: Reiterated his view that Bo was doing salinity study, but it's not adequate to determine effects on marsh

• Studies appear to him to be built around having a manageable model but not dealing with corollary effects
• Model is simplified [in his and/or his modeling expert's opinion]—not considered cumulative effects

Bo Ellis: It's a hydrodynamic model

• Won’t go to where shoaling and erosion occur

Ben Brewton: Will focus on main channel cause you to miss some secondary effects?

• Are we looking at a simplified model that won’t tell enough about all future effects?

Bo Ellis: Will calibrate model to today’s conditions

Ben Brewton: That’s another task then?

Larry Keegan: Yes

• In the design process
• To address erosion and shoaling activity

Ben Brewton: A hydrodynamic model

• Will it be used to take salinity and further refine changes?
• Can we get a good enough picture?

Bo Ellis: Will identify all scenarios needed to run

Ben Brewton: Give a summary of the 3 tasks previously recommended for full SEG approval for today

Bo Ellis: Chloride data collection (task 311)

• Task 312 is DO
• Task 313 salinity relation in water

Ben Brewton: The [Chamber of Commerce] Manufacturers Council interests and the conservation community have different interests in his opinion

Morgan Rees: Re: compensability interests

• This is a legal determination that lies with the COE
• Many federal projects out there—whether compensable or not—that are mitigated anyway
• It’s just a cost-sharing project

John Sawyer: Will you look to the City of Savannah and its customers to pay for things?

• Concern he’s expressed is—burden of proof is on GPA
• Don’t want some years down the road, say chlorides have gone up but can’t prove the cause
• City just wants to be made whole

Ben Brewton: You don’t know exactly what will happen

• What if models are wrong?
• How do you correct?
• Who pays?

Judy Jennings: Dissolved oxygen engineering solutions topic is on next month's SEG agenda

• Will "NED" be included under the economics work group?

Morgan Rees: Yes

Meeting adjourned 1:20 PM

Facilitator requested SEG Members to write on paper quick views of: (a) the most beneficial potential result of the SEG's efforts for the environment, the resources, and people—if it achieves its important and challenging mission and (b) the greatest potential barrier(s) to that benefit's being realized and pass them in for compilation