Started SEG meeting approximately 0900

Ben Dysart (SEG facilitator) asked the members to introduce themselves and tell what their expectations are for today's meeting.

Expectations, Desires, & Mindsets of SEG Members

at beginning of April 6, 1999, Meeting

• SEG needs to keep our eye on the ball--not on cosmic stuff
• Want to hear impact issue committee reports
• Should begin the partnering process to insure survival of the Port of Savannah and the Lower Savannah River's natural resources--want SEG not to fade away like most stakeholder groups do
• Find equitable solution to protect SC's and Georgia's shared natural resources associated with the proposed project
• Get to the action--protect water quality and all other natural resources in and along the Savannah River--move along with our SEG work--not be regressive
• Stay focused--get through our agenda for today
• Hear impact issue committee reports
• Identify additional impact issues without getting too far off the agenda--determine how best to deal with real progress on items already on the SEG's table
• Hear impact issue committee reports
• Make as much progress today as we did last month
• Get SEG feed-back on my impact issue committee's report
• Promote the health and welfare of beaches--look out for the beaches
• Give my impact issue committee report--get SEG's direction on next steps
• Hear impact issue committee reports
• Look for systematic answers to effective mitigation of all impact issue concerns identified by the SEG
• Stay focused on impact issue committees' objectives--want to see progress to achieve SEG's objectives
• Hear impact issue committee reports
• Hear impact issue committee reports--consider impacts of proposed channel deepening project on future maintenance dredging in harbor
• Observe movement of the SEG process--move forward with our work
• Wearing multiple hats issue--move ahead with SEG's work
• Deal with depths at berths
• Looking to do his part in accomplishing the SEG's work
• Listen and learn--put in his 2 cents worth on mitigation of impact issues
• Listen, learn, catch up on the status of and progress on SEG efforts
• Put meat on the bones--get to the science--collect needed scientific data--answer questions that have been raised by SEG on mitigation of potential project impacts (GPA executive)
• Approve SEG draft mission and operating guidelines--get action on impact issue committee reports (GPA's SEG representative)
• Reach definitive decision on draft SEG operating guidelines--reach decision by SEG on statements of work for field data acquisition tasks--finalize SEG meeting summaries from previous meetings (GPA contractor)
• Present impact issue committee report--obtain SEG agreement on overall technical approach on natural resources mitigation plan (GPA contractor)
• Wants to learn what SEG is accomplishing (press)
• Wants to listen to deliberations and observe the SEG process in action (Congressional staff)

Bottom Line from the Above According to SEG Members

• SEG members have a strong desire to hear, learn from, and act on impact issue committee reports
• Most think SEG hasn't been focused enough to date and hasn't made enough progress on how to achieve its mission
• Members are serious about SEG's mission
• Members want to make progress in achieving SEG's mission

Discussion on the problems of getting e-mail.

Cathy sent out a test mail to 105 on this list asking them to respond upon receipt, and only 49 replied. Everyone agreed that this is a problem.

• Cathy was assigned the task of resolving this problem.

• It was suggested to use the Port Authority's web site to post the draft and then final documents, be it meeting summaries or committee reports. That is a more universal availability than attachments to emails.

Ben Dysart extended an invitation to the group to meet with anyone after the meeting.

A draft agenda was distributed to the group. This was modified from the SEG member responses to the previous draft agenda sent out by Dysart by e-mail.

Discussion on how much time the group would like to spend on items on the agenda since there was such a large number of items to cover.

• Dysart suggested that where there are corrections to be made in the meeting summaries, that he does not see any need in going back and saying we changed our mind now, just reflect in current summary what was left out or changed views.

Feed back was requested on the offer made last month from GPA, that if anyone were interested in finding out about the items on the issues list being addressed in the EIS, all they had to do was request a meeting with GPA executives and/or managers.

It was reported that no one contacted GPA about this matter.

Last month there was a lot of discussion regarding the issues list.

• Mr. Farmer put the matter on the table about incremental mitigation and who is responsible for what and what about mitigation of things that turned out to be bigger or more extensive than projected in the past.

The group as a whole felt that putting a time limit on issues today would not be feasible at this time, but that they should give priority to the review of time-sensitive items.

Members agreed to proceed with the agenda as circulated.

Dysart inquired if anyone had any corrections, clarifications, or errors on the summary from last month (3/2/99).

• A correction was requested by Bill Bailey on the Stripped Bass Committee (page 8). He thought that it was suggested that a Stripped Bass Committee be formed, and it was not noted in the minutes.

• Bill Bailey made the recommendation that a Stripped Bass Committee be formed.

• The group reached a consensus with that recommendation.

Operating Guidelines Presentation by Morgan Rees

• The committee members are Bill Farmer, Jim Baker, Ben Brewton, Larry Keegan, and Morgan Rees.

A hard copy of the revisions will be distributed at a later date, because all of the committee members have not seen the latest version. A revised version of the guidelines was produced where we consolidated and removed the redundancies and clarified the focus. We tried to reflect that in the operating guidelines.

• Changes that were made
• Section 1 was "introduction" and section 3 was "mission". We combined the two "mission" and "introduction".
• The biggest change was to identify two principal deliverables and what is, in essence, the committee’s recommendation for the focus of the SEG.

1. The scope and content of scientific investigations and analysis to be performed pursuant to the development of the Tier II EIS
2. The impacts of the project and the resulting appropriate mitigation actions.

• Three appendixes (A, B, C) were added that were essentially living parts of the document that would more likely have to be changed as time goes on.
• Under the two general deliverables that were mentioned, there are a number of subsets; and, in fact, some of those subsets are deliverables in your current version. I took those out of the body of the guidelines and put them in Appendix A, because the actual work task, deliverables in the context, field data collection, and whatever it happens to be are going to grow and change as time goes. Rather than locking them into the body of the operating guidelines, they were included as Appendix A, then a list of those things which are now going on can be added to as time goes on. This is not a substantive change, but an organization change in how we deal with the deliverables.
• Consolidated a couple of the sections that talked about the principal functions, really no change there, just a consolidation.
• Created an Appendix C for the membership that can grow or diminish depending on the interest of the parties involved.
• Took the essential elements which were the five that we talked about and part of the guidelines and put them in Appendix B along with all the other additions.
• But we do have a full list of issues; and that will be in Appendix B, so it can be added to or deleted from as the SEG membership collectively determines.
• Revised and clarified "public involvement" and deleted the last section "Term" which never had any meat on the bone. It was just like a placeholder there, but we never really did decide how to identify how long the SEG is going to be in operation, and we decided that will become obvious as it evolves. We may continue for a long time or we may not, depending on a lot of unknowns at this time.
  

So, that is the essence of the recommended changes and, with the concurrence of the committee members after they review it, we recommend its adoption.

The SEG group decided to hold consensus until the committee has reviewed hard copies of the changes. The committee will get together right after today's meeting to work on the language and make a report at the next SEG meeting.

• Some concerns on the wording of the Principal Function section as it applies to the people from the agencies. Brewton presented the question "Is that something that ought to be in there as a function of the SEG member, that they go back and support decisions of this body within their agencies?" Some people have said that this may put them in conflict with their agency’s statutory responsibility.

• Stuart Stevens agreed that they can't go back to their parent agency and say that the SEG made a decision, therefore the agency has to support that decision.

• It was agreed that the committee needs to revisit that section of the operating guidelines.

GPA had agreed to examine the Tier I EIS comments and to do a couple of things.

1. Confirm or amend the list of issues. You may recall at the first SEG meeting a list was distributed of what I thought were the issues, and SEG has added to it a little bit and we updated that and we will show you what that is.
2. Provide specific references. There were some of the responses to comments that said "adequately addressed" and the location of the substance was not known in the report, so we agreed to go back and cite paragraphs, pages, and so forth to direct people to where these issues had been, we believed, "adequately addressed." For those issues which the report said "adequately addressed" and we could not find where there was any information adequately addressing them, we would provide this information. This is what we have done.

• Morgan found that all the issues on the issue list were addressed in the EIS at some place or other. There was in the beginning of the report, page 15 or 16, this list of what the EIS saw. It was in the introduction of the EIS.
• Beach erosion is not on here, but it is addressed later and it's incorporated in the report where that is addressed.
• Then the next section, section II is "Studies to be Done" and III is "Alternative Analysis," IV is the "Effective Environment" and V "Minimal Consequences." Depending on which aspect of which issue you are interested in, the answer could be found in different places within the EIS.
  

With respect to where things can be found in the EIS. There was a total of 94 comment letters. Many of them had multiple issues in the same letter. There were 804, or something like that, issues that were listed. Of those 804, it was found 14 that referred to being "adequately addressed" without having a page number or paragraph number. In the report I identified the individual comments by the person or group that commented and which comment number and these track with the comments numbers in the Enclosure H to the EIS. So if I want to track this report with the EIS document, you need to have the Enclosure H which is essentially the public piece of the EIS. So I went through and listed where all these things were "adequately addressed." There were two that said "adequately addressed" and I couldn't point to a specific page number where they were "adequately addressed." But those two comments are generic comments, and in order to respond to those comments, I really think the best that we can say it is that the report it self does. The Synergistic Dynamics comment had to do with having to comply with national maritime policy.

Brewton questioned why the Floridian aquifer was not on the major list of issues in EIS and stated that there were a couple of issues missing.

Morgan stated that the Floridian Aquifer was listed in the EIS and that the list that is in this report is taken directly from the EIS.

Morgan requested that they be forwarded to him to review

Fred Beason noted that on the list of concerns there is a Fort Pulaski erosion and also Fort Pulaski impact which is redundant.

Morgan explained the whole purpose on the SEG is to get at the questions raised. What we were responding to in that document was a different question, not to say that the question you raised is not a legitimate question. It is very much so, and that is why the SEG exists: to tackle what is everybody's consensus view of an adequate way to address the issues. This exercise was simply a response to concerns raised that some of the comments in Enclosure H of the EIS said that this was "adequately addressed," but left the reader uncertain how it was adequately addressed. Whether the piece of the EIS that addresses that issue is "adequate" is a different issue.

Rob Mikell questioned whether the SEG group was going to address the whole list of 805 issues and start going through it.

Morgan explained that there were that many comments, but many of them were the same comments, and the list of issues contained in the operating guidelines is probably closer to the number of real distinctly different comments or issues.

Brewton informed the group that GPA has supplied the complete list of references so now someone can look at it and try to make some sense of it. Then we can come back and list out any issues that we don't think we resolved or aren't already on the list.

Dysart explained that, if there is an issue that someone thinks has not been adequately dealt with, whether the Tier I EIS claims to have or not, this group has the opportunity to put it on their active list. David Schaller has said that some things need to be studied or form a committee or some kind of group to decide what kind of studies should be done. GPA has given the citations, and now you can go back and check on it. You can agree or not agree that it was "adequately dealt with" or still needs to be dealt with more or recommend studies.

David Schaller explained that there needs to be a specific definition to the word "inadequacy." If there are issues that GPA has said "adequately addressed" and provided a citation, and someone disagrees with this, they should also say that it is not adequate because it failed to address this issue in what way. So that we can get to the bottom of it, give us a call. We (GPA) ought to divulge all of the assumptions we used, and we will.

Judy stated she does not want to argue about whether or not an issue is "adequately addressed" as long as there is an agreement by someone at the table that says if an issue were not adequately addressed, then it can be addressed at the table.

Let the record note that GPA is in agreement with that.

No one at this time has contacted GPA requesting to get information or made an appointment to discuss any of these items.

Ben Brewton stated that he assumes that is a standing offer, once everyone evaluates this and has any questions, then we can come out and you will show exactly where and how.

There is a consensus on that.

Bill Farmer stated that the idea was to take any issue that was of concern (like salinity or chlorides) and say that in time and the impact on the salinity level, dissolved oxygen, or whatever would in due time lessen, but due to harbor deepening and whether it has been increasing through time. There is some maximum impact, like when the whole river goes salt. So if we say that is the maximum worst case our environment can be at, the project might move us from here to some other point throughout time. (Sketching on a flip chart). This is the incremental impact of the harbor project. The hypothesis is that the project will make it worse. It may not take it all up to the 100% worst case. But it is going to go from some lower percentage to a higher percentage.

• The issue is whether the current proposed project mitigation addresses only this particular growth or whether it has to take the level or worsens and bring it down some lower level to 0 or 50%.

For instance, the biggest impact was the impact on the Savannah water intake. So there is 46 million dollars allocated in the current project budget to address the impact on salinity level at the Savannah water intake. What that 46 million is going to do is lower that salinity level down to where it was before the project, or is it going to take it down to pure water somewhere?

• Other issues are should the project go to mitigate the entire impact or the incremental impacts?

In all the studies that are going to go on, are they measuring the increment in salinity or chlorides or whatever at one point in the river? What are we going to do with that information? The issue is what are we doing?

Press Brownell agreed that this is the direction the group needs to go. We recognize that there will be need for port development, and what we recognize on the other hand is the restoration of natural resources, water quality, habitats where possible. This is not something we are going to do on a short-term basis on this one little project

Chis Schuberth asked the question "Are there future deepening plans to go beyond 48 feet, and is it the end for the next 25 years?"

Morgan stated there are no plans at this time. The notion of additional deepening depends on a lot of unknowns.

Schuberth asked if, in terms of some geological absolutes, there are any structural limitations that would preclude any additional deepening beyond 48-ft to, lets say, 50 or 52 feet.

Morgan stated that he was not aware of any geological or physical limitations to deepening the channel further. The planning process looks at all the impacts and cost. There may be certain impacts which some people have indicated may in fact be already occurring that are not mitigatable. If this is the case, you may have some constraint on the project depth.

Bill Bailey stated that COE has, in the past, received requests to look at further deepening up the harbor.

Morgan informed the group that the COE planning guidelines and OMB requirements call for an analysis of the increment that Bill Farmer showed. There are other authorities available to deal with the whole thing.

SEG took a 10-minute break.

Jim Baker made a statement that there are other issues in the EIS to address and some expansion of the organization of the SEG and committees.

• Morgan stated that he has another appendix to deal with: the definition of the committees and will get that out to everybody.

It will go out to the committee members today.

• Larry Rogers recommended that they be made available on the web page and that everyone who is interested look at that, make recommendations, and have final closure at the next SEG meeting.

Nodding and raising of the hand, SEG members approved the recommendation.

Ben Brewton stated we did not get closure on the incremental impact item.

Dysart stated that he and Brewton discussed this during the break, that this is an important topic, and we are not going to get closure on it today or next time; but it is something that has to be part of the SEG continuing discussion. Reminded the group there are alternative ways of dealing with things and the SEG need not be constrained to just what OMB has on its mind. SEG needs to be aware there are alternative ways of dealing with pieces of the problem.

Ben Brewton stated the second thing is when we are talking about cumulative impacts, we can't identify every part of every impact. I think just because somebody did not have the foresight to envision an impact in 1966, if it is an impact of the GPA harbor operation or harbor deepening, then certainly it is something that GPA should feel morally obligated to look at. One other observation on this issue is time frame and incremental impact. The issues come up repeatedly about dredged material disposal and what kind of impacts it would have. I saw something from the COE that said we have looked at the dredge spoil issue for the 20-year life of the project. What concerns me is that, at the end of 20 years, GPA isn't going to let the channel fill back in nor will they quit dredging. So why only look at the impact of dredge spoil for a twenty-year period, if it is something that is going to go on perpetually? We need to make sure as a SEG our responsibility is that we look at the full impact of these types of things.

Press Brownell stated that there are two parallel issues: The long-term maintenance operation and on the other hand look for a parallel effort to try to restore productive habitats and natural resources. We should think about chartering this group to think about the possibility of also having a parallel effort, with state, federal, habitat, and water quality.

Ben Brewton agreed that we need to make sure we understand as we look at these issues and boundaries of the limitations on the studies or projections.

Judy Jennings presented the question "What is the future of the shipping industry?"

David Schaller explained that the last harbor deepening was commenced in 1991 and concluded in 1994. About 5 years ago this month. We are endeavoring now, speaking on behalf of GPA, to express all of our knowledge relevant to the industry and what's happening with trends and so forth right now. That is the best that we can do.

Critical Path Schedule by Morgan Rees

• Morgan Rees stated that we do not have a "critical path" showing how SEG activities and the overall proposed deepening project fit together in short form at this time. One was drafted, but did not look right. There is a general schedule on the website. The GPA project team will meet this week to work on it. This is a front-burner item.

Dysart suggested if it is agreeable with the body, he would like for us to proceed immediately to hearing committee reports. That is our priority now.

The report was sent to the SEG on March 11, 1999.

On March 11, 99 the revised task statement was put on the web page. Bo summarized the report:

MTRG made five recommendations:

These were the five recommendations sent to the group on March 11, 1999.

Bo Ellis is a coordinator of the MTRG who makes the recommendation to the SEG.

Discussion on recommendations

John Phillips informed the group that, based on the time periods noted those are the hottest months as far as dissolved oxygen. Will model take into account the effects of temperature?

Bo answered "yes."

Bo explained that it would be nice to know what the data says when dredging does occur, even though it does add another complication to the development of the model. That particular data set over the two and half-month period will be turned off at the beginning and turned on at the same time so you know when things are happening.

Fred Beason wanted to know who is going to administer and say "yes" or "no" to dredging. There are federal and state laws that govern when dredging is allowed based on DO. The COE determines when you can dredge relative to the federal project when a dredge is working. Is this proposal going to supercede the existing law, and will it in fact be the document we worked on in this window of time?

Bo explained that the MTRG did not develop a strategy on how this will be accomplished. They, simply as modelers, are putting forth their recommendations that would be preferable and leave it up to the SEG to work out the details.

Beason wanted to know how the COE would respond to that.

Bill Bailey stated the COE takes this as a recommendation; it was not envisioned to be policing force.

Fred Beason stated they are using the COE as a clearinghouse. They are currently using Federal and State laws as guidelines as to when to dredge and how to go about that. We have to do this to maintain under-keel clearance and safe navigation to avoid any accidents. We will have to bend some of those rules. Would like to know if SEG is willing to request the COE and State to bend those rules and can they, in fact, bend those rules. These are laws.

Stuart Stevens explained that there is a question of authority. There is a public process where the permits are being issued and so forth, and you have to operate within those guidelines or you have to go back through that process. I am not sure that we have the time to go through that process. What I don't know is whether the proposed window of dredging will fit those guidelines or not.

Fred Beason explained during the summer months, if the DO falls below 3 part per million, you do not dredge. This is a state rule. The COE in the current agitation maintenance dredging permits requires that no activities occur within 2,000 feet of a federal dredge. There is also a stipulation in there that the activities that may or may not happen have to have pre- and post-dredging surveys. So this has to be coordinated through whoever is doing that work, to make sure that you have a picture of what you had before you started the activities as well as when you finish. These are laws, and if we are going to suggest that we change them, that is fine. But we need to let the COE and the state know that, and then we can say can you bend that rule for this short period of time, so that we can all reach this common goal.

Ben Brewton questioned what is the period that there is a sort of dredging moratorium.

Beason stated that the time is March 15 - June 15. Short of an emergency, we try avoiding dredging 100%. The COE does not have a contract to maintain the channel during that window. Maintenance dredging at the berth occurs every 30-90 days.

Bo explained that between July 10 - September 1,1999, is when they are requesting dredging being avoided as much as possible.

• Stuart offered that the recommendation be put forth by the committee, but I will suggest that maybe the SEG should pass to GPA to get with the interested parties including the state and federal agencies and see if we can work out those details.

Dysart inquired if there was anything else to be discussed on the MTRG recommendations.

Jim Baker then stated the Chamber of Commerce’s Harbor Committee does have some comments on the modeling issues. There are some still unresolved issues. There is one that we think is critical on the model development. On the modeling, we need to have a good understanding of the upstream flow to the harbor. We think that is something that ought to be done as part of this proposed deepening project. We would like to get together [with the MTRG committee] to agree on how that might be done and who does it and who pays for it.

Bo explained that these comments came up in the meeting and we have had two groups meeting in parallel. One is the TMDL group that the EPA has put together to look at water quality standards and ultimately TMDL development in permit limits on the Savannah River. The other is the MTRG, which is looking at model development for this proposed project. Those issues were raised so there is a little bit of coordination back and forth between those groups. Originally the data collection effort was going to take weekly samples of the upstream boundary in order to calibrate the harbor model.

The Harbor Committee has recommended more extensive sampling up there, and at one time there was some thinking that the COE's DO study would actually provide that more extensive sampling and provide it to this modeling development task for this project. All that we need to calibrate the model is that original weekly sampling up there. Anything more extensive would be over and above what we need to calibrate the model. This was agreed to by the MTRG. We are prepared to revise the task statements.

Jim Baker explained that [he and the Harbor Committee believe] it is a critical input that we understand what is coming down river and what is going to be coming into the harbor in the model that you calibrate. You said that the MTRG agreed to that.

Brewton asked if that were included in the task statement.

Rob Mikell - Right now, it is not a part of the task statement. How far along is the DO study?

Ellis stated that if the COE DO study, which the Harbor Committee participated in and if they did provide a more extensive sampling, we will have to go back and collect that sampling.

Morgan explained that this goes back to one of the principals of the SEG, which was agreed too. There is a technical question about the data collection and whether the model will be valid or not. David said that in the MTRG report there's a recommendation from the MRTG that says it is enough to do a really good model. Jim's view is that the model will not be sufficient without the additional upstream sampling at the boundary. Jim stated that the issue is that, when you calibrate the model, you need to characterize the upstream flow. Morgan suggested to get together immediately after this SEG meeting to discuss this.

• Dysart recommended that the full SEG group move on to the other committees and the MTRG group bring a recommendation back to this body to take action.

David Schaller clarified the question of whether or not the data to be collected should be paid for by GPA since there is some question as to the necessity of collecting the upper boundary data more frequently than weekly as proposed.

Brewton thought the question is whether they have enough data to have a baseline to accurately determine what is associated with the deepening. It seems to me that there is debate about the need for data. If there is going to be an error made, it needs to be on the side of having too much data and too good a model rather than assuming that we don't need it. I don't know what the cost is in relation to the whole project. I don’t know whether this is a significant expense or not, but apparently it is.

It seems that the last issue that was brought up, we did not really solve coordination between the dredging, Corps, and the state agencies. Now there is another issue here. We are being asked, on the one hand, to approve these task statements as they are, but what we are hearing is that obviously all the details have not been worked out to the agreement of everybody involved or impacted. Somehow we need to address how we are going to resolve these differences of opinions. I am not comfortable with the SEG’s approving these task statements as adequate to do the job. (I am not saying do not) but I am hearing a debate between our expert parties or people that are impacted saying that everything is not yet addressed.

It seems like we need to have some mechanism where committees sit down and work out these details, and I guess that is what the MTRG was supposed to do, but it does not sound like we have a clear recommendation there or some debate what the recommendation is. Morgan stated that a piece of relevant information is how much is this going to cost and who pays. There are some legitimate points of discussion about whether it is really needed or not for the proposed deepening project. There is no dispute that the model will be better if we get the information. The question is "Is it needed for this deepening project or is it more needed for something else?" My question is if it were to be included in this project, what is the COE view on whether it would be cost shareable? Would the COE do it if they were doing the study?

Larry Rogers stated maybe we can do some additional testing just for one week at the beginning of the test period to see if there are significant difference between daily values in the river and maybe, in the middle of the sampling period, do it again and if it shows significance let it be factored in to make the model work.

Morgan stated Jim had previously said that the cost most be around 50 or 75 thousand dollars.

Ben Dysart suggested that we proceed with the meeting, and the parties can discuss MTRG recommendations and additional data at 1 p.m.

Morgan reemphasized that they [modeling parties] need to get together at the one-on-one level, and anyone else who would like to participate is welcome.

• Dysart presented the question if there are any recommendations from MTRG that are not contested and therefore ready for SEG action today.

• Bo stated "Yes, the regulating of the dam freely. Asking the COE to be ready to do this."

Dysart - Questioned who would like to proceed with other committee reports.

Members indicated they would like to proceed.

Stevens suggested that we listen to the next time-sensitive issues.

Stripped Bass report given by Tom Meronek

• The first item was the discussion of the back river outline. The proposal based on guidelines. We decided to not address that during our meeting. The SEG forum had not been really set up yet.

• The second item was discussion of information of the COE model.

• The most important thing was to whether or not to proceed with the model as it stands right now. (1998 model vs. 1999 model)

We decided we really can't use that for the SEG process, we don't want to get into using two different models. One now and one later to do different things.

There was a discussion on running the model outside of its range at 16,000 cfs. This is a task in our proposal. Maybe there needs to be some further discussion on it. This is the task that deals with checking the calibration of the model at 16,000 cfs, the model was initially calibrated at 3,800 cfs at 12,000 cfs. Steve Peene [member of MTRG] felt strongly that is the exact purpose of a model is to be able to project things outside of the range in the modeling. We have discussed this issue, and we are really satisfied that at least we are going to get some testing and checking of the calibration at 16,000 cfs. Some data is out there already available. There will be further discussion on this issue at a later date. The task may have to be revised first, but we are not at that point right now.

Within the SEG, we decided we did not want to use the modeling as it exists now to get any base line data.

We decided not to ask GPA to pay for any model runs with the model as it presently stands, but some funds maybe provided by the COE to get some base line data out of that model so that we have some information to look at this summer. However, same information will be collected again after the model is revised.

Another item that bears on what the MTRG is doing next week, is that we have requested a meeting next week. Bo, Steve will be there to look at adding some stations to do some velocity and depth profiles. So really since Bo had already mentioned in his report that the final field station had not been identified yet, anything that we discuss at our next committee meeting I assume can be added as additional work under that for the summer time. We would like to add to that if no one objects to it.

I have also discussed data that exist from the 1997. Data that already exists we may not have to pay for. This is an item that we will discuss at out next meeting. We have not revised the task at this time, because it is not necessary, we have quite awhile before we finalize the task. The only thing that really needs to be added at this time will be some of that additional data collection in the back river. I am not sure how much that will be.

Bo stated that from his understanding of what Steve said is that it depends on how you want to apply the model of the back river and the refinement of the grid as to how much data you need. Right now I think the feeling from the MTRG and from Steve is that we have in our data collection set adequate data to calibrate and project salinity in the back river. Further refinement for applying it to looking at the bathymetry changes or restoration of the back river. He did say that additional data would be valuable.

Ben Dysart stated that the committee recommends that certain additional data collection be added to the task statement on stripped bass. What does MTRG or SEG think about this?

Larry Keegan stated he did not think we are at the point of even having a graph tested to ask for approval of this. We have a little bit of time to add some additional data gathering points. If we could get an answer by the middle of this month or so, it probably would not hurt.

Bo Ellis stated that this could be a separate task issue that with a little bit of field data collection added.

Brewton stated that he supports Bo, it looks like every step of the way, we are doing things out of sequence and not getting things settled before we move on to the next thing. I am prepared to say as a member of the SEG that you should get it in order where we will have a detailed complete exact proposal for this group [SEG] to review in advance of the [SEG] meeting and to come in here then decide to approve it or not, or you will have to wait until next year or after.

Bo stated that, in fairness to the MTRG, they met and provided comments and all the task statement were revised and put back out for this group [SEG] and the MTRG for the week after the last MTRG meeting. We responded to all those comments. These issues have come in since the MTRG has taken any action. We issued our report and all recommendations.

Larry stated that there is some confusion here. MTRG is not sitting on the back river committee. The back river has some very unique needs and I don't think that there is any disagreement amongst the members of that committee that we are not yet ready to identify all those needs, but we all agree that they exist and almost in agreement that additional monitoring will have to be done for their needs. We have to resolve this next week or the week after. I don't believe the committee was asking you to approve anything, they were giving you a status report.

• Tom stated that the only thing we need to discuss is adding additional data stations which really, until we had our meeting and until we discuss with Steve, I had no idea that the model was not capable of doing the things that we were asking until that time. So that is why we are coming back now asking for ATM to add additional stations.

Morgan stated that his understanding on what the MTRG had said was that the upstream data was necessary, but it would be collected through the COE dissolved oxygen study. The COE subsequently decided that the COE was not going to collect the data. We do know that the COE has already identified the need for that data, relative to the COE DO study. If it were done under COE DO study, the COE would do it with cost-shared funds with the project sponsor. Likewise is a perspective that can be taken that if the work were done under the MTRG and the model study verification process, then it would be done as part of the deepening project and cost-shared accordingly.

• Made a suggestion that the SEG decide to include that information and it is not an SEG problem regarding whom pays for it, and the GPA and COE will work that out.

Ben Brewton stated that Morgan's idea is fine. That is the approach that we need to see taken on these kinds of questions

• Morgan stated that we really need to bring these things to closure. We are dealing with an issue and need to deal with it in a little more detail. I think that we have dealt with the collecting of the upstream data. We will collect and worry about paying for it with the COE and settle it at the end of the project with who pays what. Is that agreeable?
• The request for additional data to be acquired in the back river. Is that recommendation is okay? Will be incorporated into the MTRG. We agree. It will be done.

Judy stated that she is having a problem with the modeling technical review group. Wants someone to explain who is on the committee.

GPA, DNR, EPA, and CEO are on the MTRG committee.

Requested that in the future that everybody be in agreement before they go over a status report or recommendation with the SEG.

• There were four recommendations:

• Upstream data collection
• Back river data collection
• Which has been settled. Morgan stated that we have agreed to do the additional monitoring location and frequency.

I heard the recommendation that the MTRG coordinate the dredging.

• Ben suggested a committee be formed.

• Morgan stated that he recommends that they get some folks together who are interested in the position and pursue it and try to accomplish a balanced approach that may or may not be the maximum approach that the MTRG is recommending, but the question before the SEG is whether we want to tackle that.

Brewton stated that, once they do that, the group needs to come back and give the SEG some assurance that there is an agreement about how that is going to work and that there is agreement that the data collection will be valid within the scope of that agreement before the SEG has all the facts that it needs to approve that path for data collection.

At the same time, Fred and his bunch may be asked to give up something and the model may be asked to give up something.

Morgan presented the question to SEG "How do you want to maximize the variables?"

Dysart stated that he heard that it will be highly desirable for dredging to be minimized, and to the extent to which it is minimized, that would improve the validity and value of the modeling effort. There is nothing absolute about that. MTRG seems to be very clear what they said. They have not said how to do it. There seems to be some kind of group that can get together and can come back to SEG on how this will be implemented in a reasonable way.

David Schaller stated that he did not appreciate the complication involved. The MTRG said that no dredging while we are taking the samples is best. They would appreciate it if there were no dredging, but they are powerless to say that there will be no dredging. The only people that can stop dredging are Federal and State authorities. So it is a voluntary thing. Perhaps somebody can write a letter to all the people who have property on the water and who are involved in dredging, advise them of what we are doing, and ask for their cooperation if that is possible.

Ben Brewton explained that his concern is that one of the reasons that we are here in the SEG is because GPA is saying to us that they want to hear what our concerns and complaints are up front so that we don't pop up six months or a year from now. The SEG is being asked to say we are in agreement if we collect this data, and it will be adequate for us to answer questions and address our concerns. However, there is a variable in there, which is to what extent we can get the cooperation and compliance from the other parties in the port to have a dredging moratorium while this goes on.

Gerald Miller stated there are times where data gaps will be present, and then they are made known to the decision-maker and they use their best judgement to make an ultimate decision. On a project like this, there will probably be some significant unknowns.

Bill Bailey explained that the MTRG was saying that data collection would still be adequate if dredging occurred.

Morgan in response to the recommendation of the MTRG, we get the affected people together to do the best we can in terms of minimizing dredging during that period.

• Ben Brewton stated that he concurred, but we need to add one thing to it. I think that you need to involve in that effort the people who the quality of that data would affect, such as the agencies.

• Bo states that he recommends that the task statement be accepted by the SEG. Realize that GPA and the Chamber’s Harbor Committee will get together or the COE. Also, everything else should be fine as long we take on a committee to work on the dredging.

Brewton questioned about the other issue, about the dam releases.

• Morgan stated that the recommendation is to the SEG for GPA to contact the COE, and they [GPA] are willing to do that. We will work as best we can with the COE to get them to coordinate the dam release with the needs for the study to optimize the value of the studies.

Brewton stated that we are still approving things based on information that is yet to happen.

Morgan stated that all SEG is approving is the recommendation from the MTRG for the SEG to take some action and we are agreeing with the MTRG recommendation.

Brewton informed the group that he was not comfortable approving the past statements subject to different items that are yet to be worked out.

Ellis stated that everything has been worked out, and GPA is agreeing to provide that data either through themselves or the COE.

Baker stated that are there some other comments that they [the Chamber of Commerce’s Harbor Committee] will give. There are some other small issues that will be given to you [the MTRG].

Brewton stated that he would be willing to concur with the temporary interim approval of MTRG recommendations such as you can move along with it, but I want it to be clear on the record that I am not comfortable in giving a final signoff that this is perfect and will address everything that we want to know. I don't want to impede the work at all. I just want to make sure that qualifier is on there.

Dysart questioned the consensus of the group. There have been assurances on the record that efforts will be made to get conditions that will make the modeling effort most valuable. Are you comfortable with this?

Judy inquired who was Bo Ellis speaking, for and that she could not tell whether he is speaking for ATM or MTRG? MTRG has at least two members in the room and ATM is one.

Bo stated that he was speaking for the MTRG, and if SEG is sending something back to the MTRG he needs to know it. The MTRG on March 11, 1999 posted recommendations.

Brewton asked: What the SEG is just giving sort of a interim shake of the head and say yes, move along with all these things you talked about and resolving the dredging issue and additional data collection, etc., but let’s wait and get another report out of the results of these negations and coordination next month at the SEG meeting, before we actually put on the record that the SEG is 100% signed off and approved every detail of these aspects. In other words just let say move ahead.

Dysart questioned who are the other members of the MTRG present and did they have anything else to say.

Most of people on the MTRG are people involved in the modeling and are not members of the SEG.

Brewton stated that what SEG is asking is for these extension of the MTRG perhaps, this effort that GPA is going to coordinate about the dredging, and dam releases, a more positive implementation plan with the additional monitoring to proceed. Having this group’s [SEG’s] interim approval, then to come back at the next meeting to specifically outline how those things are going to be addressed or incorporated into task statements and data collection statements. Concurrently, we are asking those of us who do have representation on the MTRG to poll our representatives such that we can give clear feedback to the group and say yes, we are comfortable with what our guys have told us. Next month we will try to bring all of this together.

Morgan stated that the composition of the MTRG, in terms of technical expertise and people, in addition to the agencies, represents much more technical and model development expertise. This does not necessarily include coordination of the COE or when the dam releases should occur or coordination with the regulatory agencies and the terminal operators when they dredge. Dredging and dam releases are more of a management exercise than a technical exercise. I would like to suggest getting past this.

• Recommend that GPA take on responsibility and look at all these unresolved things and ask the MTRG to deal with those technical issues about additional samples and other concerns of the Chamber’s Harbor Committee. GPA will work with whoever is interested in coming to closure on the dredging stuff and COE releases. We will take each of the MTRG's recommendations and implement solutions and report to the SEG next month.

Brewton stated that he agreed. Stated that what he is looking for is to hear from Jim Baker, Larry Rogers, and Stuart Stevens, that yes, the MTRG has addressed satisfactorily or made as reasonable attempt as possible to address the concerns, complaints, suggestions that we had made in previous comments.

Dysart asked the SEG if they had an opinion on the MTRG issue as discussed.

There was broad consensus on giving SEG interim approval.

• Brewton asked that one thing be done in the interim. There were six pages of COE engineers' analysis of the GPA Tier I EIS that Morgan was going to give us a report on today. A lot of people have not seen that. Can we ask GPA to somehow post that report on the web site or either e-mail it. Larry will take care of this. GPA will get that information out.
• Proposed that the other New Business items be carried to the next meeting.

• Rob Mikell requested that the letter from the COE to Doug Marchand, which includes the Secretary’s report, be distributed.

• Brewton asked that copies be made and distributed at the meeting. Morgan stated that he would give the letter to anyone who asks for it.

Meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:30 p.m.

Submitted by

Ben Dysart, Facilitator