Aquifer Committee

Stakeholders Evaluation Group

Third Meeting Held September 22, 2000

Minutes of the Meeting

Approved Electronically COB Tuesday, 17 October 2000

 

A regular, third meeting of the Aquifer Committee was called to order at 12:00 Noon, on September 22, 2000, at SEPCO, Bay St. Savannah, GA.  The chair, Chris Schuberth, called the meeting to order; Don Ernst was present as secretary to officially record the meeting and prepare the minutes.

 

3.1                 Committee discussed modification of the agenda.  Proposed was to amend the Purpose of the Aquifer Committee statement from the previous four (4) bulleted items to two (2) bullets.  Discussion followed as to the wording of the bullets and it was agreed upon by consensus that the Purpose Statement be amended to read:

 

·         Identify the concerns regarding the potential effect upon the Floridan Aquifer of dredging the Savannah River navigation channel to the maximum depth required to maintain a project depth of -48 MLW.

·         Recommend to the SEG, the scope of scientific or engineering investigation(s) and analysis(es) to address these concerns.

 

3.2           Shoaling patterns were discussed and GPA and USACE representatives indicated that a definite dredging depth could not be given without modeling; a definite dredging depth could not be given in regards to over-dredging or maintenance dredging in addition to the project depth.  The question was posed to USACE as to the exact depth of dredging. USACE responded that prior approval is required for over-dredging to exceed the project depth for advanced maintenance and other reasons, and further explained that the existing 42 foot authorized channel is dredged in placed as much as an additional 8 feet, which USACE considers to be an acceptable standard practice. Over-dredging for advanced maintenance and other reasons requires prior approval.  USACE agreed to report back to the committee as to whether there is any policy, law, or regulation that establishes a maximum value for overdredging, advanced maintenance, or other contingencies that might permit dredging beyond the authorized depth.

 

3.3                 The minutes of the second meeting were brought before the committee for acceptance.  Further adjustments are necessary.  Rather than discuss, the minutes would be adjusted via e-mail and were tabled to the next (fourth) meeting which is scheduled at SEPCO, 1 December, 2000, 12 Noon at which time they will be presented to the committee for approval.

 

3.4                 All committee members were provided with hard copies of three (3) memoranda: (1)  the "Scientists' Signatory Memorandum"- Jim Henry, et al; (2) Proposed "Scope of Work" prepared by the City of Savannah- Harry Jue and HydroVision; and (3) the "Camille Ransom Memorandum"- Camille Ransom.  Documents are attached.

 

3.5                 It was agreed to use the USACE 1998 report as the starting point for more studies.” There have been new technologies, updated interpretations, and additional information acquired about the geology of the area in general and the mouth of the Savannah River in specific so that an informed decision, at this point, cannot be made based on the 1998 report.  Included in the new information is the regional study of a fracture (joint) system that defines the Miocene cap rock.  It was noted that fractures were found in the same Miocene cap rock in SC and eastern GA; however, the Savannah River area of concern has not yet been studied for similar fractures. John Cox, ATM, noted that he had not examined any samples from the Savannah River area of concern, but had personally examined “several hundred” core samples from Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina without observing any indication of vertical cracking.  It was pointed out that porosity should be studied rather than joints.  Camille Ransom of SCDHEC noted that if joints were significant in the Miocene confining layer, then salt or elevated saline levels should be present in the wells and he has not observed that evidence.   Additional commentary by Rick Krause of HydroVision indicated that although there has been long-term aquifer testing going on since the late 1880s, one could not draw the conclusion that a lack of saltwater in wells indicates that no saltwater intrusion is taking place.  He continued to say that saltwater could be migrating through the sediments overlying the Floridan and may be at some undetermined depth in the sediments, but at some vertical distance above the Floridan.  Leakage/saltwater  intrusion could already be taking place in the Floridan and that it is very likely that we do not observe it because: (1) dilution by lateral freshwater flow in the Floridan may mask the intruding saltwater, or (2) there may not be wells in the area of the intrusion, or wells from which samples are taken, and thus there would be no observation of the elevated salinity—or both. GA EPD/DNR is supportive of investigating and resolving the question of fractures since any fractures pose potential pathways for saltwater intrusion into the aquifer.  Also stated is that it is the State's policy that the project needs to be beneficial to the State and that the project follows good engineering practices.  The question was asked of the Committee, "Who thinks further studies are necessary?”  All members present responded in the affirmative.  A unanimous consensus was reached that further studies are required.

 

3.6                 Discussion regarding S&ME's (Quoming Lin) excavation (2.10) noted that the depth of the excavation could have been confined only to the Holocene or possibly Pliocene layers and that such an excavation depth would be insufficient to penetrate the Miocene and therefore determine the presence or the absence of a fracture pattern.  It was also noted that the Miocene is not a homogenous stratigraphic unit and that peeling away of it brought on by additional deepening may well be the “last straw.”  Noted also is that excavation in the construction project referenced by Quoming Lin started at a higher elevation and did not extend as deep as the present channel dredging.

 

3.7                 Recommendation that a point pump test be conducted at the cone of depression at Savannah's pump station to see if salt is present in the water.  Noted that lab-derived data is standard practice and accepted by the EPA and other federal agencies.  Noted that in situ field data tests be done to study the core permeability.  The City of Savannah’s position is that the deepening project will not fly based on unresolved questions.  The City of Savannah is investing too much time and money and wants to get it right.  USACE concurred with the formation of the Aquifer Committee to seek what further studies are necessary and stands behind the 97-98 study.

 

3.8                 SCDHEC (Camille Ransom) noted South Carolina has published studies showing water is moving vertically.  He pointed out that additional work was conducted by SCDEC-USGS during the offshore drilling project as part of Georgia’s Sound Science Initiative.  Also, SCDHEC has committed funds to complete a corehole for additional study.  GSU hydrologist Jim Reichard noted Hydrovision's report is based on sound science.

 

3.9                 Mallory Pearce, Councilman from the City of Tybee Island, noted that he would take the "Scientists' Signatory Memorandum" to City Council for endorsement and pointed out that Tybee Island is on the leading edge of saltwater intrusion. He noted that water is more important than future revenues generated from a deeper harbor.

 

3.10              It is restated again to use the USACE 1998 report as the starting point for more studies.  It was also noted to use the "Camille Ransom Memorandum" and "Hydrovision" reports (2.3) as additional baselines.    Noted was that Dr. Bill McLemore of GA DNR stated that that his agency does not accept modeling data from private firms; only recognizes and uses USGS-designed models.

 

3.11              It was suggested to form a sub-sub committee of experts.  Rather than form such a sub-sub committee, it was agreed for all experts currently seated on the aquifer committee to open discussion as to what kind of recommendation(s) or proposal(s) should come from the aquifer committee through initial email communication to be distributed to the Aquifer Committee and openly posted in a special section of the SEG web site.  The deadline for these communications is Friday, November 17.

 

3.12              Committee agreed to meet again at SEPCO, 600 E. Bay St., Savannah, GA, at 12:00 PM, 1 December, 2000.  The meeting adjourned at 2:45 PM.

 

 

3.13              Attendance Record:

               

Jim Baker	Ben Brewton	John Cox	Don Ernst	Kenny Dumas
Bill Farmer	Tony Foyle	Charles Griffen	Darrell Greenwood	Ken Heitzke
Chris Hemingway	Judy Jennings	Harry Jue	L.T. Keegan	Rick Krause
Patty McIntosh	Bill McLemore	Mrs McLemore	Michelle Nooney	Robert O'Kelley
Julian Pafford	Dorothy Payne	Mallory Pearce	Douglas Plachy	Camille Ransom III
Jim Reichard	Fred Rich	Chris Schuberth	Cardwell Smith	Trip Tollison

               

Thanks go to Harry Jue and The City of Savannah for the lunch provided and Julian Pafford for the use of their main conference room at SEPCO’s Bay Street headquarters.

 

Addendum –

Comments Stated by Bill McLemore Not Incorporated Into the Body of the Minutes

 

 

(1)                 EPD supports some focused additional study beyond the Tier 1 studies performed by the Corps of Engineers in 1998.  EPD notes that HydroVision’s (HV’s) review of the Corps’ 1998 work did not uncover any specific errors; rather HV recommends a program of additional studies.  EPD believes that Corps 1998 work along with numerous previous studies (including some previously unknown studies performed by engineering consultants) and the SSI studies provide a substantive technical foundation for any additional study. 

(2)                 EPD supports study that (a) is directed at the issue of leakage of salty water through the Miocene confining unit, underlying the channel bottom, into the Upper Floridan Aquifer; and, if (a) is found to occur, then (b) is directed at estimating dilution between entrance locations within the channel and nearby wells.  EPD believes that recommending study that has other purposes is not the appropriate charge of the Aquifer Committee.

(3)                 EPD supports the gathering of relevant objective measurements in lieu of subjective analysis.  Based on issuing/denying many thousands of environmental permits as well as defending its decisions in court, EPD has learned that reasonable experts will generally agree on decisions based on objective measurements and will commonly disagree on decisions based on subjective analysis.  Such disagreements ultimately resolve around the appropriateness or lack thereof of the governing assumptions supporting subjective analysis.  This means that study using subjective analysis commonly does not result in answers; rather the end result of subjective analysis typically is a recommendation for even more study (i.e., paralysis through analysis).

(4)                 EPD supports study that conforms with Georgia laws and policies including, but not limited to, Georgia’s EPA-approved policy on ground water.  EPD further supports study that is cost effective and does not repeat other ground-water related work (i.e., the SSI) or duplicate the mission of other agencies (i.e., EPD)

(5)                 EPD supports study that leads to answers rather than merely identifying additional questions.  For this reason, EPD specifically recommends that the Aquifer Committee identify the relevant questions that should be answered prior to discussing a scope of study.

 

 

 

 

Chris Schuberth, Chair

 

Don Ernst, Recording Secretary