1 2 3 4 5 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6 7 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 8 9 APRIL 1, 2003 10 9:00 A.M. 11 MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 12 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 5 I N D E X 6 7 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3 8 INITIAL EXERCISE ------------------------------ 5 9 OLD BUSINESS ---------------------------------- 6 10 MITIGATION DISCUSSION ------------------------- 47 11 BEACH EROSION REPORT -------------------------- 58 12 AQUIFER COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ------------- 64 13 PEER REVIEW STATUS ---------------------------- 65 14 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT ----------------------- 82 15 COMMITTE REPORTS ------------------------------ 118 16 ECONOMICS WORKING GROUP REPORT ---------------- 121 17 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 125 18 19 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 66 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 (THE REPORTER: I'm appearing here today on 3 behalf of my employer, Tom Crites & Associates. My 4 office was requested by Georgia Ports Authority to 5 provide a court reporter today at 9:00 a.m. at this 6 address. 7 At the instructions of my employer, I wish to 8 disclose that, other than accepting to serve as 9 your reporter, we have not entered into any other 10 contractual agreement with any party involved in 11 this case.) 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's call the meeting to 13 order, and we'll hope that a few other people 14 remember their way to the meeting and join us soon. 15 Let's proceed with looking at the agenda. 16 First of all, let's go around -- let's have 17 introductions. Okay. Sam, why don't you tell us 18 who you are and who you are representing. 19 MR. BOORER: I'm Sam Boorer. I'm vice-chair 20 of the Sierra Club for the State of Georgia. I'm 21 in charge of conservation and a few other things. 22 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia Sierra. 23 MS. RAHN: Lucille Collins Rahn, Sierra Club. 24 MR. STAFFORD: John Stafford, Ogeechee Audubon 25 Society. 4 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, citizen. 3 MR. MARTIN: Ramon Martin, Georgia Department 4 of Natural Resources, Fisheries Section. 5 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Beach Task Force. 6 MS. THRAN: Ann Thran, Georgia DNR, 7 Permitting. 8 MR. DONALDSON: Bill Donaldson, El Paso 9 Global, LNG. 10 MR. BROWNE: Tommy Browne with Savannah 11 Pilots. 12 MR. SUTLIVE: Charlie Sutlive, Savannah 13 Maritime Association. 14 MR. McCUTCHEN: John McCutchen, Southern 15 LNG. 16 MR. BROWNING: Donnie Browning, U.S. Fish and 17 Wildlife Service. 18 MR. PLACHY: Doug Plachy, U. S. Army Corps of 19 Engineers, Savannah District. 20 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 21 Authority. 22 MR. ELLIS: Bo Ellis, Applied Technology 23 Management. 24 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, Lockwood Greene 25 Engineers. 5 1 INITIAL EXERCISE 2 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia Ports 3 Authority. 4 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for Georgia 5 Ports. 6 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 7 Authority. 8 MR. BERSON: Georgia Conservancy. 9 MS. LEFFEK: Stevens Shipping. 10 MR. DYSART: I'm Ben Dysart, SEG facilitator. 11 You should all have a copy of the draft agenda for 12 the meeting today. I hope you've had a chance to 13 look at it. It reflects the items people have 14 requested to be put on the agenda, as well as 15 continuing items that have been carried over from 16 previous meetings. 17 Is there any change you would like to make in 18 it or anything you would like to put on the agenda? 19 Then I take it that this is acceptable, and 20 obviously all of you members can make any changes 21 as we go along. 22 It is our intention to try to adjourn by noon 23 today. Chris has asked to make sure we don't 24 adjourn before he gets here like we did one time. 25 I don't anticipate that will be a problem. 6 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 You have had an opportunity to look at the 3 transcript of the January meeting. Is there any 4 comment, or any corrections, or anything you would 5 like to put on the record relating to the January 6 2003 meeting transcript? Seeing no comments, we 7 will consider that to be approved then. 8 Let's proceed on into old business, things 9 that have been carried over or things that are, 10 essentially, regular items that have been requested 11 by the members. First of all, Morgan, how about 12 giving us an update on matters -- 13 MR. REES: Okay. Thank you, Ben. 14 MR. DYSART: -- on behalf of GPA. 15 MR. REES: Actually, Larry is going to do 16 that, but I have a couple of comments I would like 17 to make, and really a request to the participants 18 to think about what I'm going to say. 19 The last several times we have done these 20 presentations, internally we've wondered about how 21 much detail to go into, how much to present, and 22 how much to not present, because we don't want to 23 get too long and too boring and talk about things 24 that maybe people don't have a specific interest 25 in. 7 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 But if you check the transcripts, the last two 3 presentations have elicited almost no response from 4 anybody, and so we wondered whether that was an 5 effective way to do things or not. 6 We talked about other ways to do it and 7 discussed, you know, a balance between a level of 8 detail and summary presentation, and we would 9 rather not make a long, boring presentation, but by 10 the same token, we want to make a presentation that 11 is useful to the participants in the SEG. 12 So that's the fundamental question we're 13 wrestling with. So while Larry is presenting the 14 status, please keep that in mind. We note that the 15 -- all the information that Larry is going to 16 present is already on the harbor deepening 17 website. 18 The update report is posted, typically, a week 19 or so ahead of the SEG meeting, and even in 20 those areas where a summary is made, there is a lot 21 more detail on the harbor deepening website, in 22 terms of committee report minutes, and a number of 23 other pieces of information that are on the 24 website, you know. 25 So we don't want to spoon feed stuff that you 8 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 already know, but by the same token, we want to be 3 sure that everybody has an opportunity to ask the 4 questions that they have, and to probe deeper where 5 they need to probe in whatever particular area of 6 interest. 7 We've been saying for a long time that as the 8 field studies come to completion, we will have 9 presentations of those studies at these meetings, 10 and we intend to do that. Right now, none of them 11 are quite ready, but certainly within the next 12 month or two, many of them will be coming online. 13 The temporal and spatial distribution study, the 14 South Carolina DNR portion of that is posted on the 15 website. The University of Georgia portion, the 16 final report is being reviewed and it should be 17 available very soon. 18 Beach Erosion study is undergoing in the ITR, 19 independent technical review within the Corps, and 20 when that is done that will be available for 21 presentation. Fish and Wildlife Service resource 22 utilization and tidal wetland studies are available 23 in hard copy, but not they're not available 24 electronically yet and they will be soon. 25 The point is there are a number -- three or 9 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 four other studies, these will all be coming 3 available within the next month or two. So we need 4 to think about how we pull those into these 5 meetings as well, in terms of presenting 6 information and eliciting some response and 7 reaction. 8 So I guess the bottom line is, think about the 9 content of our report to you folks, and whether we 10 need to continue to do the same, or make it 11 shorter, or make it longer -- what would be more 12 useful for you folks. So with that, I'll ask Larry 13 to give you the update. 14 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. It's the same outline 15 we've been using before. I'll just go through on a 16 summary basis, but please if you have questions, if 17 you need something clarified interrupt me and let's 18 bring them up. 19 On the agency coordination area, fisheries and 20 water quality and some sediment placement were the 21 activities where there was things occurring. 22 Fisheries made a good deal of progress in 23 deciding the habitat suitability index models and 24 their criteria, suitability criteria, and what they 25 were going to be. 10 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 American Shad is not decided, nor is 3 Shortnose Sturgeon yet. As I understand it, 4 Southern Flounder's suitability criteria were 5 agreed to, and of course, Striped Bass has already 6 been agreed to. 7 So that group has two more species to deal 8 with, and I think then they will be in a position 9 where they will be ready to go, once we have the 10 modelling to support prediction of the input 11 information to those suitability indices. 12 Water quality, we've been working with EPA and 13 USGS quite a bit in determining how to finish 14 calibration of the dissolved oxygen or water 15 quality model. 16 Attached to the report you'll see a memo, that 17 was from Jim Greenfield of EPA and Danny 18 Mendohlson who is ATM's lead on the dissolved 19 oxygen model, with their status and recommendations 20 of what to be done to complete the calibration of 21 the dissolved oxygen model. 22 That's, as I understand, been sent to the 23 other agencies in what you've heard us call the 24 SMART for review and acceptance, and we anticipate 25 that this is the sequence of events that will take 11 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 place leading to the water quality model. 3 Now, when we've got that approval, we don't 4 anticipate a water quality agency coordination 5 session until after the SMART has a meeting, 6 probably in April, which we'll look at interim 7 progress up to that point. It's not scheduled yet, 8 we don't have that firmed up -- waiting for the 9 federal agencies on the SMART to decide when they 10 want to do that. 11 In addition to that one memo, also appended to 12 the report on the website is a second one that is 13 titled Understanding the Dissolved Oxygen Dynamics 14 of the Savannah River Estuary. That's from Paul 15 Conrads of USGS and Jim Greenfield of EPA. 16 That discusses a methodology to possibly be 17 used to evaluate the data that was collected to 18 support both the hydrodynamic and water quality 19 model. This is relatively new -- the technology 20 isn't mew but the application of it to this kind of 21 water quality model is pretty -- pretty new in the 22 business. 23 And it's an application of -- I want to get 24 this right here -- data mining techniques to 25 analyze the data. 12 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 I won't presume to explain data mining, but as 3 I understand it, it has been in use for quite some 4 time now in business. And that's how somebody like 5 Wal-Mart decides what you might be interested in 6 next, by looking at the data they have of what the 7 customer is buying. 8 Applying these techniques to the data we have 9 for the estuary could disclose relationships or 10 trends that are not apparent. This is still, if 11 you will, in the evaluation cycle trying to decide 12 with EPA and with USGS should it be done, does it 13 have to be done. We're affixed very early in that 14 process. It's pretty interesting. It's sort of 15 complex, but it will give you an idea of the type 16 of work that's going into of being able to predict 17 conditions of dissolved oxygen conditions. 18 I suggest whoever might be interested could 19 spend a little bit of time looking at that. In 20 addition to that very, very recently we've gotten 21 some feedback from the Engineering Research and 22 Development Center, is that right, Doug, about 23 sedimentation modelling. 24 I haven't even had a chance to finish 25 digesting it yet, but it lays out from ERDC their 13 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 opinions about how to do that modelling. So we now 3 have to take that and look at setting up the scope 4 of work, confirming it for that, and then deciding 5 who will do it, and how long it's going to take, 6 and those sorts of things. 7 As soon as -- as soon as it's okay, I'll put 8 that information up on the website. I just need to 9 run that by Doug and the district. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Larry, can I jump in before you 11 go too much further? 12 MR. KEEGAN: Certainly. 13 MS. JENNINGS: I don't want to micro manage 14 this data mining technique, because I heard you say 15 you don't know details, and it would go over my 16 head anyway, but I mean, is it an application that 17 has value before the models are completely 18 calibrated? 19 MR. KEEGAN: That's the intent, as I 20 understand it, that it would fit in the sequence of 21 if it discloses some previously unrecognized 22 relationship or trend in the data, then that could 23 be valuable to making the calibration go not only 24 faster, but perhaps yielding a more accurate 25 calibration. We don't know that it will. 14 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 MS. JENNINGS: It's a potential tool to aid in 3 calibration? 4 MR. KEEGAN: It sounds like it, yeah. 5 MS. JENNINGS: It's a new word to me. 6 MR. KEEGAN: Well, I have to say privately 7 what I think of data mining, but it's a magic 8 science to me, frankly. 9 We have used the technique. We've employed 10 it, and in fact we're doing it right now in part of 11 the development of the marsh secession model 12 process. I'll talk about that a little bit later. 13 There's been some of it done already for Fish 14 and Wildlife Service to be able to normalize data 15 for the drought conditions back to non-drought 16 conditions, and there's some more going on I'll get 17 to in a minute. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Thank you. 19 MR. KEEGAN: Plan formulation, still working 20 in two areas to finalize the economic analysis and 21 get all of that scope of work pinned down. There's 22 been a number of folks who have been called to 23 active duty and come back and that sort of thing. 24 That's made it a little difficult to deal with 25 just because they have been absent. We're trying 15 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 to work around it. That's why it seems to be 3 taking quite a long time. We still have one 4 discussion up in the air, and that's how to do the 5 commodity forecasting, and what that boils down to 6 is should it be done in what I'll call a 7 traditional method with beans and kaolin and wheat, 8 whatever, versus TEUs. 9 In other words, is TEU the commodity we should 10 be looking at or should it be further broken down. 11 That's working its way to decision. 12 Alternative screening is still putting data 13 together for that. The district has started to 14 draft a scope of work to contract it out, and 15 that's undergoing revision now. I haven't seen it 16 back yet. 17 What that will do is look at some of the 18 preliminary alternatives and put information 19 together about them that will allow some screening 20 to go on. It's just part of the whole planned 21 formulation process. Yes, ma'am. 22 MS. JENNINGS: That's new to me. I understand 23 traditional commodity forecasting, but I don't -- 24 that is kind of a new concept. Have you seen it 25 employed; where did you get it from? 16 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 MR. KEEGAN: Seen what employed? 3 MS. JENNINGS: The concept of using TEUs as 4 the commodity forecast -- as the measurement of -- 5 MR. REES: Most of the harbor deepening 6 studies that the Corps has done over the past, I'm 7 guessing now maybe 8 to 10 years where the 8 principle kind of trade is in containers, has been 9 done on a TEU basis. 10 The dilemma is that, traditionally Larry said, 11 the projections of future trade were done on a 12 commodity by commodity basis, but the nature of the 13 business has changed since the real dominance of 14 containerization and globalization of trade that to 15 try to break down the different commodities that 16 are carried in individual containers gets to be an 17 extremely lengthy and intricate process that 18 involves a lot of assumptions that are uncertain. 19 And the bottom line is that it's -- the trade 20 is so transient, if you will, it changes so rapidly 21 these days that a better, more reliable way to look 22 to the future is how busy the port is, in terms of 23 containers rather than in terms of what the 24 individual commodities are within the containers. 25 Think, for example, the phenomenon in the 17 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 Savannah area with the regional distribution 3 centers, and the containers come in with who knows 4 what kind of commodities, and Wal-Mart will bring 5 in whatever is selling at the moment. 6 And so the more important factor is how busy 7 is Wal-Mart, rather than what it is specifically 8 that they are selling. So that's the dilemma we're 9 working on. We haven't resolved it yet, but that's 10 the fundamental concept behind the issue of whether 11 you use commodities or numbers of containers. 12 MS. JENNINGS: I grasp the concept pretty 13 quickly why Savannah would be interested in it, but 14 I just -- 15 MR. REES: Well, we did check. We did check, 16 and all the recent studies were done based on the 17 projections of numbers of TEUs rather than the 18 individual commodities. 19 To be sure, if there is a commodity that is 20 not shipped in a container, then you do the 21 traditional commodity projections, but where you 22 are dealing with containers that have a really wide 23 range of commodities, then the question is which 24 route, so we'll resolve that soon, I hope. 25 MS. JENNINGS: Interesting. 18 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 MR. KEEGAN: Your card is still up. 3 MS. JENNINGS: No more questions -- no answers 4 either, so go ahead. 5 MR. KEEGAN: Getting into the analysis and 6 evaluation hydrodynamic and salinity model, I think 7 we are very, very close to having approval on 8 calibration of that model. 9 We had to open, if you remember from the last 10 report, an evaluation of some suggestions from ERDC 11 that might have led to improvement in the model. 12 That evaluations has been done. 13 The conclusions and the supporting info have 14 gone back to ERDC and those conclusions were there 15 is no substantive improvement for many of those 16 suggestions. We are awaiting for ERDC to look at 17 that and respond. 18 Similarly Dr. Alexander, we think that we have 19 answered his questions and comments, and we're 20 waiting to hear back from him -- I'm sorry -- Bo 21 just pointed out to me I had the wrong name. It's 22 not Clark Alexander, it's Jack Blanton. I'll 23 correct this. 24 He was Georgia DNR's, one of Georgia DNR's 25 representative to the MTRG. If he's agreeable and 19 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 Georgia DNR is satisfied, then that will wrap up 3 that portion. 4 Now, on the assumption we get all of that here 5 fairly soon, we anticipate that the first usage of 6 that will be to rerun the same projections that we 7 did in the Tier I EIS, what I'll call geographic. 8 They're not for any specific impact evaluation 9 but just to look at the change. Hopefully, that 10 will yield some insight into what we'll be dealing 11 with. 12 It's also an outstanding request from Fish 13 and Wildlife Service for quite a while now to give 14 them those sort of runs. So we're hoping to do 15 that soon, after we have the calibration complete. 16 I'd give you a date when I think that will 17 be done, but I just don't have a good estimate. 18 I talked briefly about dissolved oxygen and I 19 talked about the water quality coordination. 20 Again, there are two memos attached that 21 pertain and both of those are working their way 22 through the evaluation to see what we do. 23 Marsh secession model, it's important to 24 understand that when I say marsh secession model, 25 I'm really talking about several components that 20 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 will fit together to allow prediction of change in 3 the marsh areas. 4 That will work like this; we'll use the 5 hydrodynamic and salinity model to predict 6 conditions, let's say for the sake of discussion 7 water level in the river. 8 And then there is a component that's being 9 developed by USGS and Advanced Data Mining, 10 Incorporated to take that prediction and translate 11 it to a -- what the condition will be in a 12 particular marsh area. 13 Then that goes into another component that 14 Fish and Wildlife Service and Dr. Wiley Kitchens 15 developed that is a multi-variant statistical 16 analysis model. And I can't even spell it much 17 less explain it. But the preliminary has been 18 done. 19 And finally what comes out of that is a 20 decision tree that says here's the kind of species 21 that will result. And that then goes into a 22 GIS-based interface so that you can see the 23 results. 24 The prototype of that without the data mining 25 piece, to make the linkage from hydrodynamic and 21 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 salinity to marsh condition, was demonstrated about 3 mid March I guess it was, and that's very, very 4 promising. 5 There's some additional refinement to do. 6 We're waiting to get that sorted out, what all that 7 refinement will be, and then we'll go on. Like I 8 say, USGS and Advanced Data Mining are still 9 working that one component for the whole sequence. 10 I've listed some of the types of things we 11 think are likely to have to be included. We get it 12 all put together then we'll, I think, have a very, 13 very valuable tool for use in evaluating for what 14 happens or what will likely happen with the 15 wetlands. 16 We've already talked about fisheries. Nothing 17 new on hurricane surge. Other analyzes hydraulic 18 and sedimentation modelling, I think I've mentioned 19 that already. We've gotten some guidance from ERDC 20 about what that needs to entail. 21 Ship simulation, we're expecting the report of 22 the ship simulation modelling literally any day -- 23 I think it might even be in now, I don't know -- to 24 see what that will say. 25 Bank stability, we've got some engineering 22 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 analysis starting -- I think that's probably in 3 progress now. Dredge material physical analysis, 4 that's finishing up, a data report being put 5 together by the district. 6 Sediment quality determination, there's a 7 draft sediment quality analysis plan that's with 8 the various federal and state agencies to settle on 9 what needs to be included, and the district was 10 trying to get those people to the table to finalize 11 that so we can finalize the plan. 12 When I last talked to Bill, Bill Bailey about 13 it, he was still searching for a common day that 14 they could all, at least, meet by telephone to 15 discuss it. He didn't have it slated yet. 16 Cultural resources, nothing quite to report 17 yet. A few things are getting close outer, inner 18 harbor, magnetometer surveys, reports are being 19 prepared on both of those, I believe. The report 20 of archival research on CSS Georgia is in 21 preparation, and I think the plan for actually 22 diving and investigating the CSS Georgia site, 23 which will be the first time, I believe, that's 24 actually happened at all is just about finalized, 25 if not already finalized, and going to contract. 23 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 It's in contract now, isn't it, Doug? 3 MR. PLACHY: Right. 4 MR. KEEGAN: That plan was put together with 5 some really impressive folks, people who have 6 experience working on the Monitor recovery, the 7 Hundley recovery. It's a national park service 8 dive team, who routinely works the Arizona site in 9 Pearl Harbor, so that's pretty exciting to some of 10 us. 11 And the other piece that's attached is a copy 12 of the schedule as it stands now. No real change 13 there, and I'm open to any questions. Yes, sir. 14 MR. BOORER: Two questions; back on your 15 sedimentation model you commented on. 16 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. 17 MR. BOORER: Can you tell me how far out in 18 the ocean that's going to look at the impact? 19 MR. KEEGAN: It's going to look at the extent 20 of the project, the inner and outer harbor, bar 21 channel and inner harbor, as I understand it, is 22 that right, Doug? 23 MR. PLACHY: This specific model just looks at 24 the channel itself. It's used to determine where 25 there would be build-up and dredging costs to 24 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 maintain the project over a period of years. 3 There are other things that cover the other 4 types of sedimentation, movement of sand, et 5 cetera, but this one is specifically looking at the 6 channel to help determine maintenance costs. 7 MR. BOORER: So we're not looking at the 8 sediment -- the plume -- 9 MR. PLACHY: No. 10 MR. BOORER: -- the plume of sedimentation 11 that comes out of the river. 12 MR. PLACHY: No. We're looking at what 13 actually is predicted to settle in the channel that 14 would have to be dredged. 15 MR. BOORER: My interest lies with the plume. 16 Do we have anything that's looking at the impact of 17 sedimentation, based on harbor deepening, as to how 18 big that's going to expand the plume of 19 sedimentation coming down the Savannah River 20 impacting the ocean and the marsh wetlands down? 21 MR. PLACHY: That would be in the shoreline 22 studies. 23 MR. ELLIS: Doug, for the most part, 24 sedimentation is going to increase in the harbor, 25 when you widen the channel and decrease velocities, 25 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 more of it's going to fall out of the harbor and 3 less offshore, but the offshore sediment transport, 4 especially the fines that are transported offshore 5 are really handled by another model that the Corps 6 has done, but as far as project impacts, it's fully 7 anticipated that sedimentation will increase at 8 certain places in the harbor. 9 MR. BOORER: I want to go past the river. I 10 want to look out into the ocean. You say the 11 shoreline study? 12 MR. ELLIS: There might be a slight decrease 13 in the sediments that are transported from in the 14 harbor offshore. 15 MR. BOORER: You say there's going to be a 16 decrease. I say there's going to be an increase. 17 Have we done a study, that I can read, that's going 18 to show me how we're going to impact Georgia's 19 coastal marsh lands and the ocean as a result of, 20 and you're saying this sedimentation model doesn't 21 discuss that at all? 22 MR. PLACHY: That's not the purpose of this 23 model. 24 MR. BOORER: I understand the purpose. Is 25 this model going to cover that at all, not I 26 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 understand it's not its purpose, but is it going to 3 cover it all, and if not, what study have we done 4 or what modelling have we done? 5 MR. PLACHY: It would part of the shoreline 6 erosion study of which the beach erosion study is a 7 component of that. 8 MR. BOORER: That's getting into beach 9 erosion. I'm talking about the sedimentation. 10 MR. PLACHY: I understand. 11 MR. BOORER: Okay. So is there something I 12 can read that's already done, or is there something 13 ongoing that I can look at to answer my question? 14 MR. KEEGAN: Doug. 15 MR. PLACHY: I don't think so. 16 MR. KEEGAN: It occurs to me that maybe, maybe 17 what ERDC has provided will, at least, in part 18 answer the question. I don't know, but I would 19 suggest that when we get that put together and 20 finalized, in other words, the scope and 21 description of what it's going to do, you take a 22 look at it and see if that answers your question or 23 not. 24 MR. BOORER: Okay. That's which one? 25 MR. KEEGAN: That's sedimentation -- what do 27 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 we call it -- sedimentation model. 3 MR. PLACHY: Sediment transport. 4 MR. BOORER: Can I get with one or both of you 5 later to find out exactly what study and where I 6 can find it. 7 MR. KEEGAN: Sure, of course. You said you 8 had a second question. 9 MR. BOORER: Second question, you spoke about 10 a marsh secession model. 11 MR. KEEGAN: Yes. 12 MR. BOORER: I'm sure everybody in this room 13 is aware of what's happening to our coastal 14 marshlands throughout the Gulf of Mexico and the 15 Atlantic coastline with the marsh die-offs. Is 16 there anyone not familiar with the marsh die-offs 17 that's going on? 18 In my knowledge, the latest I have read on it, 19 they have no earthly idea what's causing it. Some 20 people are saying red tide. Some people are saying 21 -- what are those little shells -- periwinkles are 22 causing it. 23 They're coming up with everything. I think 24 some people say the tides on the moon are causing 25 it. No one knows what's causing it. So my concern 28 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 is, y'all are doing a marsh secession model. Right 3 now we have marshland -- marsh die-offs going on. 4 I'm really concerned that we're doing all this 5 studying of our marshes and the impact of what's 6 going on, and our marshes are dying off. I'm 7 concerned that I really think we better find out 8 what's killing the coastal marshes of America. 9 I don't know if it's happening anywhere else. 10 I'll say America, at least, the Gulf coast and 11 Atlantic coast marshes. And until they can figure 12 out what's causing that to die off, who knows. It 13 could be harbor deepenings that are causing it. 14 I don't know and nobody knows. So my concern 15 is I think we better take into consideration this 16 is happening. We better find out -- let the 17 scientists work until they can find out what's 18 causing the marshland die-offs, and then go on with 19 our study. 20 I'm concerned we're going to be doing a study 21 here, and looking at all this stuff -- that's fine. 22 I agree with us doing it. We're saying, is what 23 we're doing impacting the marshes? Right now we 24 know the marshes are all dying. And so we better 25 find out what's killing the marshes before we -- 29 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 MR. KEEGAN: I think the die-off is occurring 3 in salt marsh, isn't it? 4 MR. BOORER: Tidal marshes. 5 MR. KEEGAN: But in marshes that are 6 characterized by a species that are in saline 7 environment; that's where the die-off is occurring. 8 MR. BOORER: Well, it's happening up the 9 rivers. Dave, you probably know better than I do. 10 MR. KYLER: As far as I know, it's all tidal 11 marsh. 12 MR. BOORER: Yeah, tidal marsh. 13 MR. KEEGAN: The marsh secession model I was 14 speaking of is a tool aimed at looking at the fresh 15 marsh that exists -- 16 MR. BOORER: Okay. Okay. 17 MR. KEEGAN: -- and trying to evaluate what 18 will happen. 19 MR. BOORER: We're talking about different 20 marshes then. That answers -- 21 MR. REES: Let me belabor that one more minute 22 and make sure we understand. Dave, you said tidal 23 marsh, and we're talking about freshwater tidal 24 marsh, as opposed to saltwater tidal marsh. I just 25 want to be sure everybody is on the same wavelength 30 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 here. 3 MR. KYLER: I meant saltwater. 4 MS. JENNINGS: The species that's been 5 affected is the spartina -- 6 MR. BERSON: Spartina and junckus, 7 J-U-N-C-K-U-S. 8 MR. BOORER: That's interesting. Down in the 9 Gulf of Mexico, that one is not being impacted down 10 there that is being impacted here. There's quite 11 an issue going on right now. Okay. So this is 12 strictly freshwater? 13 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. 14 MR. DYSART: Will. 15 MR. BERSON: I guess -- that was not my 16 question. I was just going to say one of the 17 things that is being looked at that Sam mentioned 18 is the effects of drought has, basically, altered 19 the salinity calculation in these marshes. 20 So when we talk about the digging a deeper 21 channel, and we're doing -- the marsh secession 22 model is looking at the impact of additional salt 23 in the system, so I'm not sure they're connected. 24 I'm not sure they're disconnected. 25 We don't know what's killing off the marshes, 31 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 but one of the thoughts is the drought is one of 3 the underlying factors, and the production in 4 freshwater flow has amplified the effect of tide 5 and salt. 6 So the two may not be so dissimilar in what 7 we're looking at in the actual estuary. So I can't 8 speak to if it is or it ain't. It's not exactly 9 apples and oranges, in terms of a concern. But the 10 reason I put my card up was to ask, in the ship 11 simulation and sedimentation model, are y'all 12 looking at iterations between 42 and 48, or what's 13 the depth that you're running ship simulations at? 14 MR. KEEGAN: Ship simulation was run for 15 existing 42, 44, 46, and 48. 16 MR. PLACHY: Yeah. It was looked at for all 17 depths. 18 MR. KEEGAN: Right. Sedimentation, we 19 anticipate will do the same. 20 MR. PLACHY: Yeah, we'll do all depths. 21 MR. DYSART: Larry. 22 MR. KEEGAN: Back to you, sir. 23 MR. DYSART: All through. Any further 24 questions, comments for Larry? 25 MR. BERSON: Just one. For our next meeting, 32 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 it sounds as if to put data mining in a really 3 shorthand, this is really sort of dangerous, but my 4 understanding is that data mining links -- how can 5 I put this exactly -- it doesn't imply causality. 6 That's one thing about data mining. It links 7 things that seem to be similar groups, but it 8 doesn't infer that something is causing these 9 things to be in the group. 10 I think we've heard that several different 11 aspects of modelling are going to rely on data 12 mining, it might be pertinent to get somebody that 13 can give a better description than I just gave. I 14 don't even know if it's right, but I would love to 15 hear more about it. 16 MR. KEEGAN: We can certainly ask Paul Conrads 17 from USGS to come and talk about it. He's been 18 here once or twice before. He's by far the best 19 person to probably give you that. 20 MR. BERSON: I think that will be helpful in 21 understanding. It seems to be a nexus of several 22 different modelling efforts. It would be well to 23 understand the advantages it brings. 24 MR. KEEGAN: I'll be happy to talk to Paul and 25 see if he can set it up. 33 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 MR. DYSART: Judy. 3 MS. JENNINGS: When we talk about the 4 sedimentation, the sedimentation study, and marsh 5 secession, and shoreline erosion, and beach 6 erosion; I'm just assuming that you said something 7 earlier, Larry, about multi-variant statistical 8 analysis. 9 I'm just assuming that somehow all these 10 things do get hooked together. Sam asked about the 11 plume, so it's not in the sedimentation study and I 12 see why. 13 MR. KEEGAN: Well, it may be. I think we need 14 to get that so you can look at it and see if it 15 deals with what you are interested in. 16 MS. JENNINGS: This is a broad, generic 17 question here. I understand how much science and 18 minutia goes into each one of these models, way 19 over my head. 20 But my concern would be what is the mechanism 21 for putting it altogether into a dynamic picture, 22 is it a multi-variant statistical analysis 23 somewhere. Sometimes Bo, I think your 24 presentations are really cool and you can make it 25 all move around, under various circumstances. 34 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 I'm just wondering is there a tool that takes 3 -- I was able to remember five of the studies right 4 there, and say how -- what information that gives 5 you about -- about the big picture starting at 6 Garden City ending up, probably, at beaches south 7 of Tybee even. 8 It seems to me it, seems to me you have enough 9 information and data analysis to have it, or is 10 there an attempt anywhere to put it altogether into 11 one of those pretty little color moving pictures? 12 MR. KEEGAN: Let me take a cut. Maybe Doug 13 will want to add something to it. We've been 14 talking for quite a while now about how do we -- 15 what do we do to do exactly what you are talking 16 about; how do we evaluate all this information 17 so that we're not looking at this little piece, 18 that little piece. 19 I think what we're leaning towards pretty 20 strongly is development of a -- you've heard this 21 before -- a geographic information system that 22 literally allows you to compile information about 23 pieces of geography, and layer it, and display it, 24 and look at it, and evaluate it. 25 We think that that kind of tool is the one 35 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 that will allow exactly what you are asking about. 3 The district has taken some steps towards planning 4 how we do this, and how we make it so all the 5 different players can interact, how do you control 6 the data, what are the standards, where are servers 7 that maintain it, and who can access it. 8 It's pretty thorough work and we have to 9 finalize that before we get too far. As we have 10 everything literally from places where core samples 11 are taken for dredge material physical analysis to 12 predictions of the kinds of vegetation that will 13 result in the marsh. 14 The thing that ties it altogether is its 15 geographic information, so we think that's the way 16 to go. I think that's the way we're going to go 17 pretty strongly. We have to do that fairly soon, 18 before we get inundated by information and just 19 can't process it fast enough. 20 Even with that, there is a wealth of 21 information available right now today that would 22 all have to be put in a common standard to be 23 entered in that, a significant amount of work, 24 probably what did the study show, Doug, 8 to 12 25 months just to get over that initial data entry 36 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 stuff. 3 But the benefit at the other end is it would 4 be the first time there will be a tool to show all 5 the stuff and look at it. Do you want to add 6 anything, Doug? I think that's what you're talking 7 about, Judy. 8 MS. JENNINGS: Yes. I had no big timetable to 9 it. 10 MR. KEEGAN: We're trying. 11 MR. DYSART: Sam and David. 12 MR. BOORER: Larry, where I'm coming from on 13 my question is I'm very concerned about how far out 14 or if there is going to be any impact of what we're 15 doing to the ocean area. 16 I mean, we all know that the Right Whale 17 calving area is in this area. We know the best -- 18 the birth of fish and saltwater marine economy of 19 the area is based out of the coastal marshlands of 20 Georgia. 21 I'm just concerned that we all know how far 22 the sedimentation from the river now is impacting, 23 and if he deepen it, if it's going to -- if the 24 plume is going to impact it any further out. 25 That's where I'm coming from. I think we all want 37 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 to know, not just me. 3 We all want to know if that sedimentation 4 plume is going to impact the fisheries, the crab, 5 the shrimp in Georgia. I think we'd go to bed 6 and sleep better at night knowing it's not going 7 to. But I think we need to know it's not going to. 8 That's where I'm coming from. 9 MR. DYSART: Dave. 10 MR. KYLER: I just wanted to comment on the 11 previous comments related to marsh die-off, see if 12 we have some clarification, if it could be 13 clarification reached about observations previously 14 made and their implication for the work to be done 15 in analyzing the project. 16 As I understand Will's remark, which I think 17 is right on target, and that is that the effects of 18 this project on the regime of freshwater and 19 intermixing with ocean water could simulate some of 20 the same conditions that drought has resulted in, 21 in broader areas that are unrelated to any harbor 22 project or harbor operations of this harbor, or any 23 other necessarily, that are believed to be at least 24 one possible explanation for the marsh die-off. 25 That being the case, should we be at least 38 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 looking at ongoing studies through the research of 3 DNR on the marsh die-off, and tracking those 4 results in comparison with the hydrological 5 modelling for this project to determine if there 6 are any justifications for concern about these 7 kinds of impacts. 8 And if so, let's reach that, you know, 9 decisive point and take that into the form of an 10 action for the people who are responsible for those 11 tasks. Does everyone understand what I'm asking? 12 MR. KEEGAN: I'm not sure who you're asking. 13 MR. KYLER: I'm asking the group if there's 14 consensus on the marsh die-off issue, and its 15 possible relationship with hydrological dynamics 16 that would affected by the project at various 17 depths, because I think the previous observations 18 alluded to that, but we didn't reach any decisive 19 agreement on what should be done about it. 20 MR. DYSART: Any thoughts within the group on 21 that? 22 MS. JENNINGS: My initial thought to it goes 23 back to my previous question about how all of the 24 models tie together, and once we have that picture, 25 then you have a piece of geography to work with. 39 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 And you might be able to determine if any of 3 those situations occur within the geography. If 4 they don't, you might ask another question as to 5 how -- as to what we think is the affected 6 geography that might interact with what we know to 7 be affected by marsh die-off. 8 Do you know what I'm saying? If there are no 9 examples anywhere near the port, I don't know that 10 we could talk about it. If our map of geography 11 shows that there is, then clearly it's a valid 12 question that would deserve an answer. 13 MR. KYLER: Well, I think that the observation 14 you're making, if I understand it correctly, is 15 related to historic hydrological factors as those 16 that would produce marsh die-off. 17 What I'm talking about are the future actions 18 that may mimic whatever conditions that have 19 already been produced in these marsh die-off 20 problems in other places. 21 MS. JENNINGS: Right. 22 MR. KYLER: That would therefore require 23 tracking and emerging research, not just looking 24 at what we already know. What we already know 25 essentially is zilch on this topic. 40 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 MR. DYSART: Any other comments relating to 3 David's topic? Will. 4 MR. BERSON: I think it's fair to say that 5 harbors have been expanded before without marsh 6 die-off, and droughts have happened before, 7 apparently, also without marsh die-off. 8 There's a missing piece of the puzzle here we 9 don't understand. I want to be as clear to GPA and 10 the Corps that we're not saying that harbor 11 deepening is going to cause this, but you are doing 12 studies that are looking at how a deeper channel is 13 going to affect the salt wedge. 14 If drought is related to what's happening, it 15 really doesn't take a very large leap to think that 16 the harbor -- proposed harbor activities might 17 mimic that same activity. 18 So I'm concerned, I'm really concerned that we 19 find out what the actual missing piece of the 20 puzzle is, as much as I am the potential 21 relationship to the Savannah Estuary. I guess what 22 I'm saying is, I think we need to look to our 23 friends at DNR to try to find out where the state 24 of the investigation is now and look forward. 25 This is a bona fide new issue, in my opinion, 41 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 because it has emerged since we started doing the 3 SEG investigations. I'm not saying there's a 4 smoking gun here at all because there clearly 5 isn't, but this is a new phenomenon, and our best 6 guess is it is related to the same sort of effect 7 the harbor deepening would mimic. 8 So having said that, I guess, we just have to 9 concede what we don't know right now, and concede 10 that there might be some sort of relationship to 11 what we're proposing. 12 MR. DYSART: Sam, your comment on this topic. 13 MR. BOORER: The reason I brought this issue 14 up is, and I'd like to lay it on the table, is not 15 necessarily that it has anything to do with the 16 issue we're discussing here, but I bring it to the 17 table only to ask that all of us here, and I'd like 18 the SEG to have it as an issue that we're watching. 19 So as it gets resolved by other people in 20 other places, we do exactly what we just said, and 21 that is we see if this -- if it has any impact on 22 what we're doing here. 23 And all I'm asking is that off to the side, 24 this group watch this issue, and as it gets 25 resolved we see that the resolution doesn't impact 42 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 us at all, then fine and good. 3 But if we keep this issue on the side and 4 watch its resolution, and if part of the problem is 5 something that concerns us, then we take it into 6 account. That's all. 7 I was concerned, you know, it's going on other 8 places. It's not going on here, as far as I know, 9 but I know the issue is spreading. It is 10 increasing in Georgia, and I don't know if we have 11 any coastal marshes here that have been impacted or 12 will be impacted. 13 But I'd like this group to just watch this 14 issue, as we see what's causing it. Then take a 15 look at is this harbor deepening part of the 16 problem -- probably not -- and that's fine then. 17 MR. DYSART: Do you want to talk about this or 18 do you have another topic? 19 MR. OFF: I would like to point out the ATM 20 study on beach erosion has a section on sediment, 21 and one of its conclusions is the Savannah River 22 source for littoral material is zero. 23 I don't know whether this answers any 24 questions or not. Essentially, this is what 25 they're saying. Of course, they're saying it in 43 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 about two inches of writing. If anybody is 3 interested in reading on sediments, it's all 4 written here. 5 MR. BOORER: I'll read it. Thank you. 6 MR. DYSART: Any other discussion on this 7 matter? Okay. You're through, Larry? 8 MR. KEEGAN: I'm through with the report, but 9 on the discussion, I'm not sure what the end point 10 is that we reached, if any. 11 MR. KYLER: I tried. 12 MR. DYSART: I think the topic was raised, it 13 was discussed. Sam indicated that he thought that 14 it was something that should be watched. That's 15 what I heard. Now, I did not hear any particular 16 request for action, any specific action. David. 17 MR. KYLER: Could we get a little more 18 specific than say watch, who is watching it under 19 what circumstance. CRD, the Coastal Resources 20 Division of DNR since they're funding research will 21 be the first to know what those findings are, if 22 any. 23 That liaison with this committee would be the 24 source of information. The question is, is it 25 directed to a committee or different people on the 44 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 committee or directed to the whole SEG. I don't 3 know the answer to that. I'm looking toward that 4 as the consideration. 5 MR. DYSART: Do you have any idea when the 6 Coastal Resources Division would have something 7 they could share 8 MS. THRAN: I think everything you mentioned 9 today, periwinkles, the drought, that's about as 10 far as we've gotten. Skidaway is working on it. 11 Savannah State is working on it. We're working on 12 it. 13 MR. BERSON: Louisiana is working on it. 14 MS. THRAN: They have not found the answer 15 yet. 16 MS. JENNINGS: The observation earlier that 17 there's so much information available to this group 18 right now, it's going to take 8 to 12 months to 19 input it in order to integrate it, it would 20 indicate there is a lot of information. 21 There's a lot of information coming out of 22 this group that has been used for just about 23 everything including what to cook for dinner on 24 Sunday. I mean, the DO, the beach erosion issue, 25 there's so much data coming out here, surely there 45 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 could be some patterning between the agencies. 3 All this stuff is on the website. Wouldn't it 4 just take a curious person to scan it and see what 5 was said? That might be helpful, with an agency 6 person who actually knows it. I mean, none of the 7 material we're producing here is proprietary, is 8 it? 9 MR. KEEGAN: Are you asking me? 10 MS. JENNINGS: Anyone who knows the answer. I 11 don't see just quite how it can be, but since it's 12 being shared -- 13 MR. KEEGAN: I guess, if I might, I think 14 what's being discussed is that in going on with the 15 analysis for the deepening project, we remain aware 16 of what develops in the marsh dialogue question, 17 and certainly I think that's not a problem to say 18 yeah, we'll do that. 19 But what I'm missing is I don't think there is 20 a whole lot of information about what even 21 potential causes might be for that. There is some 22 information about where it's being seen, but that's 23 about it. 24 So as far as information to include in what 25 we'll look at, I don't think it exists yet. We'll 46 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 have to keep looking to see if something comes up. 3 There is a wetlands -- wetlands coordination effort 4 included in the project management plan, which 5 incorporates the State of South Carolina and State 6 of Georgia DNR and federal agencies, so there is a 7 mechanism to stay aware of that. 8 MR. BOORER: That's all I'm asking. 9 MR. KEEGAN: We have to see what comes out of 10 the efforts to figure out what's going on. 11 MR. DYSART: David. 12 MR. KYLER: Can we at least get a definitive 13 commitment by DNR to get a report, to this group, 14 as soon as something is available on research 15 MS. THRAN: Sure. Jan McKinnon is our 16 contact. I can get with her. If she has anything, 17 I can bring it to this group. 18 MR. KYLER: Do you have any ball park guess as 19 to when something may be emerging from the 20 research? 21 MS. THRAN: It's like asking when the war is 22 over -- just kind of getting nowhere with it. 23 MR. DYSART: Are you asking for a written 24 report or are you saying you would like somebody 25 to -- 47 1 MITIGATION 2 MS. THRAN: Maybe an updated version. 3 MR. DYSART: -- simply provide a status of 4 where things are now. 5 MR. KYLER: Either really, even a presentation 6 when there's enough to be presented then. 7 MS. THRAN: When there's enough to be 8 presented, I guess. 9 MR. DYSART: Further discussion? Okay. Have 10 we finished -- we have finished the first agenda 11 item under old business. Okay. There seem to be 12 several items involving Chris that he's involved 13 with or has requested, so I would suggest that we 14 skip over to the mitigation discussion, whatever 15 discussion you want to have on that continuing 16 item, and Chris should be coming in any time now, 17 and then we can proceed to several of the others. 18 Any comment, discussion, anybody want to say 19 anything about mitigation? I think there's been 20 an agreement that's something you wanted to talk 21 about, to some extent, on a continuing basis at 22 meetings. Who would like to comment first? Will 23 was nodding his head. 24 MR. BERSON: I actually don't have anything to 25 say -- April Fool. 48 1 MITIGATION 2 MR. DYSART: Bill Farmer. 3 MR. FARMER: When I first looked at the list 4 of mitigation concerns that the Corps put together, 5 I was quite pleased because it seemed to be very 6 thorough and went beyond the items which the beach 7 erosion committee had under consideration. 8 I would like to issue to the Corps a 9 compliment for doing a thorough job, with regard to 10 beach erosion concerns in the mitigation study 11 report. 12 MR. DYSART: Any further comments, discussions 13 about mitigation? Sam. 14 MR. BOORER: Is that beach erosion study on 15 the website? I apologize for not knowing. 16 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir, it is. 17 MR. KYLER: Can I say something procedural? 18 MR. DYSART: Yes, sir. 19 MR. KYLER: For the memory impaired which I am 20 the first to admit I'm a part of, might it not 21 help, since we're meeting so seldom, to have some 22 sort of summary presented at the meeting, 23 especially for those not at the previous meeting, 24 for those who are memory impaired, about where that 25 discussion was left, because otherwise we're all 49 1 MITIGATION 2 responsible for going to and getting an equally 3 thorough briefing from the website, which I don't 4 think is a very reliable way of keeping the 5 discussion going. 6 It seems to me items like this, that have 7 central importance to the mission of this effort, 8 should be provided in some sort of summary to 9 remind people where we last were in the discussion 10 and what items remain unresolved. 11 MR. DYSART: Who could do that right now? 12 MR. KYLER: That's the problem. 13 MR. DYSART: Teri. 14 MS. LEFFEK: I'll jump into the fray. My 15 recollection is that it was an ongoing item. We 16 were given a list from the Corps. We looked at the 17 list. We made some additional suggestions. It was 18 left as an ongoing piece of work that we would come 19 and we would revisit everytime we met and see if we 20 had something to be added to the list. So that was 21 my recollection. 22 MR. BERSON: I'll jump in. I guess the Corps 23 arranged to have a presentation by a gentleman -- I 24 can't recall his name at the moment -- on -- 25 MR. REES: Aeration. 50 1 MITIGATION 2 MR. BERSON: -- aeration -- to deal with 3 dissolved oxygen. But other than that, I don't 4 think we've really discussed any other thing on the 5 list. 6 MR. DYSART: Bill Farmer. 7 MR. FARMER: The mitigation thoughts started 8 out we ought to start looking into the future, as 9 far as what kind of mitigation studies might be 10 necessary, what kind of mitigation alternatives 11 were open to us, and that sort of thing. 12 We had a big, long discussion as to how to get 13 that started. One thought was each study area 14 would come up with their own list. That went away, 15 and what happened was the Corps was asked to 16 generate a composite list of all possible 17 mitigation concerns and they did that. 18 I think the status of where we are now is that 19 each area, whether it's fisheries, or oxygen, or 20 beach erosion, whatever takes that list and looks 21 at it to see if there are additional items to be 22 added to it. 23 In the meantime, the Corps is making plans 24 on what to do with that list and how to attack it 25 and how to resolve all the issues on it. I think 51 1 MITIGATION 2 the ball is in our hands now, since the Corps has 3 done the initial work. 4 I think we're being asked to feedback to the 5 Corps our thoughts, and then when that's finished 6 then the Corps proceeds and does their thing. 7 MR. DYSART: Has the Corps list been modified 8 since the one that was originally prepared? 9 MR. PLACHY: Not that I'm aware. 10 MS. LEFFEK: At the meeting. 11 MR. PLACHY: At that meeting. 12 MR. DYSART: Judy. 13 MS. JENNINGS: The last thing Bill said, I 14 think my stumbling problem everytime we get to 15 this, is it is a conceptual list. 16 All I can do is look at it and only vaguely 17 shake or nod my head. I have no concept of how to 18 evaluate it. Since that is the Corps' job to do, 19 what is the procedure, process, progress for any of 20 that in terms of more concrete, definitive, 21 decision-making evaluation? 22 I'm glad to look at it all day and go yeah, 23 that could be cool, wow, that's kind of neat. 24 Maybe that could work. But I don't know how to do 25 it with anymore science than that. 52 1 MITIGATION 2 MR. DYSART: Teri. 3 MS. LEFFEK: I think that point was brought up 4 before, and that's one of the reasons why we left 5 it as a conceptual and a brainstorming activity. 6 Brainstorming activity is just that, a 7 brainstorming activity. 8 We need information on the impacts from the 9 studies to actually evaluate the mitigation 10 proposals on that list. So I don't really know 11 there's any action that could be taken with it at 12 this point, pending further information. It was 13 just something to get the ball rolling. 14 MR. DYSART: David. 15 MR. KYLER: I have a combination of nausea and 16 deja vu, deja vu induced nausea. It seems to me 17 the last time we talked about this, again working 18 with a skeletal memory structure here, I suggested 19 and possibly others suggested and I agreed, that we 20 need to do more than have a list. 21 We need to have some sort of analytical device 22 that enables us to cross-correlate both the 23 correlative and complementary effects of different 24 mitigation measures, and the possibly contradictory 25 effects of mitigation measures. 53 1 MITIGATION 2 Typical example would be does the mitigation 3 effort intend to compensate for the adverse effect 4 of one type of function or impact may adversely 5 affect another type of impact that's known or 6 suspected for the project. So it just seems to me 7 we need more of a matrix than we need a list. 8 MR. DYSART: You're talking about the 9 synergistic and antagonistic? 10 MR. KYLER: Yeah, and even to some extent 11 maybe we're at a bit of a preliminary assessment as 12 to the extent of the cost and relative benefits of 13 various items on that list, in terms of their 14 ability to offset adverse impacts, and to avoid 15 creating adverse impacts. 16 MR. DYSART: You're talking about a matrix -- 17 are you talking about the matrix involving 18 mitigation measures and issues? 19 MR. KYLER: Maybe even a multidimensional 20 thing to look at both the impacts on the intended 21 effects on the adverse project impacts, to the 22 extent to which they can be mitigated, and the 23 effects of mitigation measures on one another. 24 Some are complementary and some are not. Some 25 are substitutes -- several -- and some cannot be 54 1 MITIGATION 2 used that way. That's the kind of analysis I'm 3 assuming the Corps would get into. I was assuming 4 likewise, based on the discussion here today and 5 what I remember about the mitigation in the past 6 meetings, we're being asked not only to ask to the 7 list but suggest analytical ways of addressing this 8 whole issue. 9 MR. DYSART: Will. 10 MR. BERSON: That actually sort of feeds into 11 the question that I had sitting here. I kind of 12 thought this was on our continuing list of old 13 business because studies were going to be arriving 14 imminently, and therefore we would have a reason to 15 talk about mitigation with respect to the result of 16 studies. 17 But it also brings up another question, I 18 think the Corps is probably best situated to answer 19 or Larry and his folks, which is I'm assuming that 20 these models and the other work we're doing allows 21 for plugging in a mitigation measure at the end, in 22 the analytical framework, to see what the actual 23 result is. 24 I don't know that I've actually asked that 25 question. As I was sitting here, I thought it was 55 1 MITIGATION 2 a decent one to ask. Assuming we applied the 3 conceptual list, once these study results are back, 4 do they actually fit? Can you plug it in or do you 5 have to sort of extrapolate and give an estimate of 6 what it's going to do, not a model estimate? 7 MR. DYSART: You want to respond to that, 8 Larry? 9 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah. We've -- the plan that 10 we've got is to do what I think you just asked, 11 Will, to look at impacts, based on whatever the 12 predictions are that we get out of the model, make 13 a prediction about those impacts, and then look at 14 ways to mitigate them. 15 If those things involve, for instance for 16 discussion, some modification of the flow regime in 17 the river to plug that back into the appropriate 18 model, including the runs to look at impact for all 19 the species, rerun, and look at the result; I think 20 either the last status report or maybe the one 21 before, there was a flow chart attached that sort 22 of showed you that, how we go around that. 23 And if not, I'll look and see if I can't get 24 one out so you can look at it. But that's exactly 25 what we plan to do, is to use the models to look at 56 1 MITIGATION 2 mitigation actions that are appropriate to be 3 looked at in that way. 4 MR. PLACHY: Larry, I brought a large-sized 5 copy with me. We can lay it out here on the table. 6 When we take a break, people can take a look. It's 7 the one that's posted. 8 MR. KEEGAN: That's it. That's what we want 9 to look at. 10 MR. BERSON: I guess I just want to say the 11 fact that I'm not saying anything about mitigation, 12 doesn't mean I'm not interested. It's just I don't 13 know what to say until I see the study results. 14 MR. KEEGAN: Take a couple of minutes when we 15 get a break. 16 MR. DYSART: Which is getting close. Teri, 17 your card is up. 18 MS. LEFFEK: Springing off Will's last 19 comment, you know, Dave's question is a valid 20 question that needs to be addressed. I just think 21 maybe we're putting the cart before the horse. How 22 can we sit down and look at a matrix and evaluate 23 all the options, when you don't have the impacts, 24 which has been brought up before when we talked 25 about this. 57 1 MITIGATION 2 We have to have impacts in order to evaluate 3 the mitigation options. I think the concern is a 4 valid one. I think it needs to be addressed. I 5 think it's premature at this point. That's why we 6 talked about the list as being a conceptual list 7 and a brainstorming technique, and not something we 8 actually sit down and evaluate right now. 9 As Will said, I can't evaluate all those 10 things. I don't have the information to evaluate 11 them yet, and the Corps doesn't have the 12 information to evaluate all those yet. 13 MR. DYSART: David. 14 MR. KYLER: Brief response. I don't think I 15 was presuming we did have enough information to do 16 it. I thought part of the task before us was the 17 Corps was supposed to suggest the type of analysis. 18 Once the information was available, it would 19 be applied to evaluate mitigation -- just thoughts 20 on how we approach the subject, once the facts 21 could be more definitively analyzed. 22 MR. DYSART: Before we take a 10 minute break 23 for the record, David, would you and Chris 24 introduce yourselves. 25 MR. KYLER: To one another? 58 1 BEACH EROSION REPORT 2 MR. DYSART: No, to the group. 3 MR. KYLER: I'm Dave Kyler with the Center for 4 a Sustainable Coast. 5 MR. SCHUBERTH: I'm Chris Schuberth with the 6 Chatham Environmental Forum. 7 MR. DYSART: Rob. 8 MR. MIKELL: Rob Mikell, DHEC, OCRM. 9 MR. DYSART: Anyone else who has come in? 10 Okay. Let's have a 10 minute break. 11 (Short Break) 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. We've had a request. Bill 13 Farmer has a tee time approaching, and he's 14 requested to give his report for the Beach Erosion 15 Committee. I'd call on Bill now. 16 MR. FARMER: They moved me up, Lou. 17 MR. OFF: Okay. 18 MR. DYSART: Bill Farmer. Okay. Bill Farmer. 19 MR. FARMER: The Beach Erosion Committee met 20 on the February 13th, and we started reviewing the 21 beach erosion study that ATM had completed. And 22 the study concluded that beach erosion on Tybee 23 Island is currently about 320,000 cubic yards of 24 sand per year from natural processes, and that the 25 planned harbor deepening project is forecasted to 59 1 BEACH EROSION REPORT 2 increase this rate by about 12,000 cubic yards of 3 sand per year, which is about a 4% increase. 4 And we talked about whether the model needed 5 to be exercised to determine a sensitivity 6 analysis, based upon what assumptions are made and 7 what values are actually put into the equations and 8 such, but we did not make any conclusions on that. 9 We plan to discuss that at a future meeting. 10 We also discussed the idea of what kind of 11 peer review occurred in the study, and what had 12 happened in that regard was that GPA had asked the 13 Beach Erosion Committee what kind of peer review we 14 wanted, and we gave them a couple of names, namely 15 Erik Olsen and Dr. Clark Alexander that we thought 16 should be involved in scoping out the study and 17 what should be done and that sort of thing. 18 Those two individuals did participate with ATM 19 and GPA in determining what to do and how to do it. 20 The idea there was to eliminate or reduce the 21 fussing that normally occurs at the end of a study, 22 where some experts say they should have done this 23 differently, they should have done this in 24 addition, they need not have done this, whatever. 25 The idea was to try to get all the experts, 60 1 BEACH EROSION REPORT 2 that had a stake in the process or had a interest 3 in the process, to participate in it, so that when 4 the final report did come out there would be some 5 sort of consensus. 6 So this is what was done, and the current 7 status is that the final report is now being 8 reviewed by, at least one of these guys, Erik Olsen 9 to determine if he agrees with the report and 10 whether it came out the way he thought it might, 11 that sort of thing. 12 Once the Beach Erosion Committee gets those 13 comments back from Erik Olsen, and the City of 14 Tybee Island, then the committee will meet and 15 determine what its recommendation will be to the 16 SEG regarding the full study. 17 We also discussed the status of House Bill 18 1021, which is a new law that requires beach 19 quality sand from harbor dredging projects to be 20 placed so as to benefit adjacent beaches. And the 21 act had an effective date of June, 2003. 22 What has happened so far is the department -- 23 Georgia Department of Natural Resources has 24 requested NOAA, who apparently has control over the 25 Georgia coastal management plan, to update the plan 61 1 BEACH EROSION REPORT 2 to incorporate the requirements of House Bill 1021. 3 This is currently under consideration and 4 under process. And that's the basics of what has 5 happened with the Beach Erosion Committee. 6 MR. DYSART: Any questions? Bill said he was 7 going to duck out and let Lou answer all the tough 8 questions. Comments, questions for Bill concerning 9 the beach erosion area? Okay. If not, thank you 10 very much. 11 Okay. Is there any further discussion that is 12 needed on the mitigation topic, or did we simply 13 talk about it enough and move on? Judy. 14 MS. JENNINGS: I apologize. I was being late, 15 now I've lost Bill Farmer. 16 MR. DYSART: Lou will handle all the tough 17 questions. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. Lou I am -- I am a 19 little confused about the where the beach erosion 20 study is; are we waiting on the City of Tybee? 21 MR. OFF: I'm not sure I understand the 22 question. 23 MS. JENNINGS: The City of Tybee is having 24 Erik Olsen review the final report to provide 25 comment. The Beach Erosion Committee will defer 62 1 BEACH EROSION REPORT 2 consideration of the beach erosion study report 3 until the City of Tybee provides input to the 4 committee. 5 MR. OFF: Right. That's underway. I 6 understand there's also a review by the Army Corps 7 of Engineers on the study. 8 MS. JENNINGS: Did we hear about that? I'm 9 sorry. I was late coming back in the room. I was 10 the only one that didn't get it. 11 MR. OFF: All I know is that the Army Corps of 12 Engineers has put in some comments. They have not 13 been answered yet by the people doing the study. I 14 don't know the status of that. 15 MR. PLACHY: Yeah. We did a review last year 16 and we're waiting to resolve the comments. 17 MS. JENNINGS: Because I read this before I 18 came in, I actually read the committee report and 19 honestly still felt that I wasn't sure exactly 20 where that was, except waiting on the City of 21 Tybee. 22 It left me not entirely understanding where 23 this was with the Corps. I mean, it says a lot 24 about the City of Tybee. 25 MR. PLACHY: Basically, I think we talked 63 1 BEACH EROSION REPORT 2 about -- 3 MS. JENNINGS: I'm not sure who's made 4 comments and whose resolution is pending. I can't 5 tell whether it's the researchers that commented 6 and resolutions are pending, or whether you made 7 the comments and their resolution is pending. 8 MR. PLACHY: As we talked about at the prior 9 meetings, we have an independent technical review 10 process of the ITR. We took that beach erosion 11 study last year and sent it to our folks at the 12 Engineering Research Development Center Coastal 13 Hydraulics lab. And they reviewed it and provided 14 a set of comments back. 15 Those comments need to be addressed. Once 16 they are addressed, then we will know where we are 17 on that study. As far as we're concerned right 18 now, the study is not done until we resolve the 19 comments. 20 MR. DYSART: Further comments. Now, was there 21 anything hanging on the mitigation or did we have 22 our discussion? Okay. So we'll consider that 23 as concluded. 24 Now, let's go back to the second item under 25 old business, the status of the Aquifer Committee 64 1 AQUIFER COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 2 Recommendations continuing discussion on that; is 3 there anything that needs to be said about that? 4 MR. PLACHY: Unfortunately, we haven't 5 finished and resolved the decision document yet at 6 the district. It's kind of frustrating how long 7 it's been taking. Until that's done, we won't know 8 what specific studies are going to be recommended 9 to GPA. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. That's the status. Next 11 item, is the future of Aquifer Committee. As I 12 understand, that was supposed to be a continuing 13 item. Any of these things that are continuing 14 items, if the body wants them to be taken off, what 15 not, is there anything to be said about that? 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: Not to be taken off. 17 MR. DYSART: Um? 18 MR. SCHUBERTH: Not to be taken off. 19 MR. DYSART: Not to be. Okay. Anything to be 20 said about that today? Seeing no comments, we'll 21 move on. Top of the second page, Chris requested 22 discussion about peer review process. And I don't 23 know to what extent -- extent to which that 24 merges with the other item, and that's why I put it 25 there. Who wants to talk about that? Chris. 65 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 MR. SCHUBERTH: Yes, thank you. Thank you for 3 deferring this discussion. Most of you understand, 4 I think, my overall feelings about peer review. 5 I've voiced it on multiple occasions. I've been 6 accused of making the original statement, fox 7 guarding the hen house, but at least it was taken 8 in humor. 9 I ran through the minutes of the last meeting 10 and on page 42 there was a discussion that emerged 11 between Bob Scanlon, who unfortunately is not here, 12 and Doug Plachy about Bob's concern. 13 He's wondering who the group for the Aquifer 14 Committee was who is going to assess these 15 recommendations. And it kind of came back, and I 16 may be all wrong, it kind of came back it was going 17 to be, basically, the same people that wrote the 18 recommendations. I said something here -- 19 MR. PLACHY: Chris, for the review of the 20 work? 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: Let me just -- let me just 22 read what was in the transcripts. No -- this is 23 you Doug -- no, it's the interagency coordination. 24 Wait a minute. 25 I had a specific question, Bob Scanlon, 66 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 follow-up which I think Doug may have addressed. I 3 want to clarify and make certain. I was wondering 4 who the group of the Aquifer Committee was and you 5 stated is it basically the same group that was 6 together before the complete group. 7 It was the USGS and the resource agency. We 8 had the folks from Georgia Southern, Rick Krause 9 was in there; is it that same group or a subset of 10 that group? 11 No -- this is Doug saying it's the interagency 12 coordination. It's those that have regulatory 13 responsibility in regards to the aquifer. So it's 14 the State of Georgia DNR, and it's the State of 15 South Carolina, I think, DHEC, and Mr. Mikell said 16 DHEC, Camille Ransom. Doug says Camille Ransom and 17 USGS, those are the three agencies we're working 18 with to put the plan into place. 19 MR. PLACHY: Correct. 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: Those are the three that have 21 to accept or be in agreement with what the outcome 22 of the process is, but they're the group that's 23 basically -- in fact, we're talking to get feedback 24 in regards to who would be the independent 25 reviewer, it wouldn't be anybody of that entity. 67 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 MR. PLACHY: Right. 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: It's going to be someone 4 outside, a specialist in hydrogeology, et cetera, 5 aquifers, and so forth. Bob goes to say, I can't 6 speak for Chris Schuberth, but the Aquifer 7 Committee, this group actually asked to disband 8 itself following the report. 9 I would think with this information we might 10 want to rethink that. I'd like to talk to Chris. 11 I'd like to put that on the agenda. That would be 12 the future of the Aquifer Committee as far as 13 reviewing this. 14 I'll take this -- and so Bob and I had talked, 15 several of us had talks. As we were talking, the 16 tragic Shuttle disaster occurred, and on February 17 16th, just in connection with this discussion, 18 there's no comparison between the two, and there's 19 no reflection on any of the agencies, their 20 qualifications, the University of Georgia, ATM, 21 anyone -- there's no reflection. 22 I'm talking about the process, the process we 23 call how we conduct science. On February 16th, the 24 New York Times, I know it's now in the dumps as far 25 as what's going on in Iraq, but it nevertheless is 68 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 a paper that has some national recognition. 3 The investigation of the Columbia disaster 4 moved into a new phrase last week. A special board 5 took charge of the inquiry and Congress began its 6 own hearing. These are important steps to broaden 7 the inquiry beyond NASA's own technical 8 investigations, but we remained concerned that the 9 board still lacks the independence needed to give 10 its finding maximum credibility. 11 So I brought this before the Chatham 12 Environmental Forum, and the membership agreed that 13 we really need to make a public statement, and so 14 I'm going enter into the record a letter that was 15 hammered out by 14, 15, 16 organizations of 27 16 people, 9 from industry and business, 9 from civic 17 and government, which I sit on that 9, and 9 from 18 the environment. 19 And this was dated March 25th. It's addressed 20 to David Schaller because he's basically in charge 21 of this process. 22 A concern that has been shared with our 23 membership involves the manner in which the GPA and 24 the Army Corps conduct the evaluation and 25 assessment of several scientific studies related to 69 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 Savannah Harbor expansion. 3 Assessing the credibility of scientific 4 studies was discussed at the latest Stakeholders 5 Evaluation meeting on January 7th, which I just 6 read a little bit of. 7 Under the subject peer review discussion, 8 testimony specific to this discussion is described 9 on pages 20 through 45 of that formal meeting 10 transcript. 11 Central to the discussion at SEG is that an 12 appropriately recognized committee, the Aquifer 13 Committee, conducted a series of meetings over a 14 period of about three years. The purpose was to 15 bring together individuals interested in whether 16 incremental deepening of the Savannah River Harbor 17 would adversely impact the Upper Floridan Aquifer. 18 Since this committee had developed into an 19 exceptionally large group of about 45 individuals, 20 a subcommittee of professional and academic 21 geologists, hydrogeologists, and groundwater 22 engineers, referred to as the Working Group, 23 additionally convened several times for about a 24 year. 25 A professional hydrogeologist chaired the 70 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 Working Group subcommittee. After several 3 face-to-face meetings, coupled with electronic 4 exchange of technical information, the Working 5 Group unanimously agreed to six recommendations. 6 The Working Group was not unanimous on whether to 7 include an additional two recommendations. 8 After a lengthy discussion of the 9 conclusions presented by the Working Group, the 10 Aquifer Committee agreed to place before the SEG 11 all eight recommendations. Only one voice 12 dissented to this agreement. 13 The chairperson of the Aquifer Committee 14 requested and it was agreed to by SEG that a report 15 regarding the status of the eight recommendations 16 be agenda item at each future SEG meeting. This 17 request has been honored. 18 Based on the exchange of information at the 19 January, '03 SEG meeting, it appears that a 20 decision has been reached independently of the SEG 21 that the eight recommendations will be assessed and 22 evaluated by specifically three individuals. 23 It is important to state that each one of the 24 reviewers has been an engaged and active 25 participant of the Working Group. See pages 41 and 71 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 42 of the official transcript. 3 It is the position of the Chatham 4 Environmental Forum that any scientific study, and 5 in particular any scientific study that involves an 6 important and possibly controversial issue such as 7 the impact harbor deepening may have on the Upper 8 Floridan Aquifer must be subject to independent 9 third-party peer review. 10 According to the language stated in the 11 Science Policy Handbook titled Peer Review 12 published by the US Environmental Protection 13 Agency, Office of Science Policy, one, peer review 14 is a documented, critical review of a specific 15 agency major scientific and/or technical work 16 product. 17 The peer review is conduct by qualified 18 individuals or organizations who are independent of 19 those who perform the work, but who are 20 collectively equivalent in technical expertise, 21 that is peers to those who performed the original 22 work. 23 The peer review is the conducted to ensure 24 that activities are technically adequate, 25 competently performed, properly documented, and 72 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 satisfy established quality requirements. 3 Extrapolations, alternative interpretations 4 methodology, acceptance criteria, and conclusions 5 pertaining to the specific major scientific and/or 6 technical work product and of the documentation 7 that supports them. 8 And peer review may provide an evaluation of 9 a subject quantitative methods of analysis or 10 measures of success are unavailable or undefined. 11 More generally, peer review is one of the most 12 important evaluative tools available in the 13 sciences. Peer review separates "gray literature" 14 from literature that enjoys scientific endorsement. 15 It provides objectivity and access to 16 observations that are based on unique perspectives, 17 and precludes self-diagnosis. In the same sense 18 that contractors are not qualified to inspect 19 buildings of their own construction, authors are 20 not qualified to assess the validity of their own 21 written document. 22 Based upon what has been stated herein, we ask 23 if it is even possible for someone who provided 24 peer input on the one hand to subsequently become 25 an independent reviewer of the same work product. 73 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 That basically happened -- this is a side 3 comment -- that basically happened with the Beach 4 Erosion report that then goes back to the same 5 people who wrote the original report. They did a 6 restudy. The restudy shows virtually no change. 7 So here it goes back to the same people. 8 The answer is simply no, since that expert is 9 no longer independent of the process, but is 10 instead a contributor to the product. The Chatham 11 Environmental Forum serves in an official, 12 independent advisory capacity to the mayor and 13 aldermen of the City of Savannah, county chairman 14 and commissioners of the county chairman. 15 Individual membership is by appointment. Nine 16 decision-making individuals represent the 17 environmental sector, nine represent the business 18 and industry sector, and nine represent the 19 government and civic sector. CEF operates through 20 a consensus. 21 CEF has focused on the importance of 22 preserving the Floridan Aquifer for more than a 23 decade. Since 1997, our members have been involved 24 in the development and implementation of Georgia's 25 Environmental Protection Division's Interim 74 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 Strategy for Managing Salt Water Intrusion in the 3 Upper Floridan Aquifer and the Sound Science 4 Initiative, which were initiated to address this 5 issue. 6 As citizens and businesses that depend on 7 the Floridan Aquifer for our very existence, we 8 have followed the progress of these initiatives 9 with great interest. 10 CEF, Chatham Environmental Forum, considers 11 proper "peer review" an essential component in 12 scientific methodology. A peer review or peer 13 assessment or peer evaluation or whatever 14 equivalent term may be applied, conducted by 15 persons who participated in developing the 16 recommendations under consideration can have no 17 validity. A review of this kind certainly does not 18 meet the criteria of the Science Policy Handbook 19 noted herein. 20 On behalf of the Chatham Environmental Forum, 21 I am asking that the GPA, Army Corps of Engineers 22 consortium issue an official response specifically 23 addressing, in a timely manner, the concerns 24 outlined in this letter. And it is signed for the 25 membership by the current chair of the forum which 75 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 is Patty McIntosh. 3 So this is the original, and if anybody would 4 like to lay claim to the original, I just leave it 5 here because that is what we are entering into the 6 written record. My commentary is here by virtue of 7 the transcript. 8 This is my only comment, and it's not strange 9 to many of you here that I have a concern about the 10 process. Please make sure it's understood it's the 11 process and not the individuals who are part of the 12 process. 13 I have no problems with Clark Alexander, no 14 problems with Erik Olsen. I have no problem with 15 anybody who is a professional in the business, but 16 if they are part of the original product, they 17 cannot also be peer reviewers. 18 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Comments, response, 19 questions, discussion? Doug Plachy. 20 MR. PLACHY: Chris, I guess I'm confused 21 because I don't understand what your point is here. 22 On the study that we're talking about for the 23 aquifer, the reviewers are going to be selected by 24 the states, and those people have no involvement in 25 this project or process at all right now. 76 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 They're going to be independent, external 3 people who I don't even know who they're going to 4 be yet. That's who the technical reviewers are 5 going to be. It's not going to be anybody that's 6 been involved in any of the process up to this 7 point. So that is truly an independent, technical 8 review, and that's what we've always planned. 9 That's what we stated on the record back in 10 August, when we met with headquarters in the ASA's 11 office. They all agreed to that process. That's 12 what we're going to do. 13 And the second point on the beach erosion 14 study, I'm lost there too because we did do an 15 independent technical review. It was done by the 16 folks at West, Bruce Ingersol and his staff, and 17 none of those people had anything to do with 18 putting together the beach erosion study. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: See, I wasn't there -- 20 MR. PLACHY: But there again, we have another 21 technical review of a product. So the Corps, in 22 our process, in our quality control process of this 23 whole project, we have put this framework in place. 24 In fact, on this project, we have a more 25 thorough and external independent review process 77 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 than in any other project in the Corps. Most Corps 3 districts, on projects, have the person sitting in 4 the cubicle next to the person who did the study do 5 the technical review. We're not doing that. We're 6 going at least outside of our district, and in some 7 cases even outside the Corps to find the best 8 qualified person to do technical review. 9 So that's what we're doing. I'm very proud of 10 what we've set up and what we agreed to do. So I 11 guess I'm very confused as to what the point is 12 here, because we are doing exactly what you're 13 stating in this whole letter about having something 14 independent, et cetera, et cetera. That's exactly 15 what we're doing. 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: That's fine. I'm glad it's 17 stated on the record. That's exactly what I wanted 18 to make sure, is that there's independence in the 19 process in which studies, scientific studies, are 20 being assessed. I've talked about blind reviews, 21 double blind reviews. Those of us who are familiar 22 with this know exactly how this all works. 23 It's very, very difficult to get your -- a 24 preferred viewpoint on a topic past critical 25 review. I think this has not really been the case 78 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 previously. 3 When I speak about the beach erosion study, 4 ATM published the first study in 1997. It was read 5 and it was -- there were criticisms leveled. 6 Independently of ATM, two people stepped forward to 7 say that this is what they could do. Erik Olsen 8 was one of them. Chuck Watson was another. It 9 would have been wonderful if someone from 10 California did something like this, but it doesn't 11 go that way. 12 So the second restudy went back to ATM. I 13 became very cynical at that point because what's 14 the use. You're dealing with a system that is huge 15 bureaucratically, and to affect any kind of change 16 is not easy. I began to see, and I may have 17 misinterpreted, Doug, and I appreciate you 18 straightening me out and clarifying, the same thing 19 happening with the eight recommendations that came 20 forward from the Aquifer Committee. 21 This letter, I wrote part of it, but other 22 people wrote part of it. So the language that's in 23 there to emphasize the methodology is important, 24 not the folks who are carrying out the project, 25 whether it's Fish and Wildlife, whether it's any 79 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 other agency, whatever conclusions are drawn by 3 their eminent researchers is reviewed independently 4 by people who don't really know what's going on 5 here, for the appropriateness of the science and 6 for the appropriateness of the conclusions. 7 That's my concern. That's my concern. I want 8 to make sure that this doesn't get lost through, 9 you know, through the shuffling of this. Now 10 you're saying the beach erosion study, this was 11 done by company XYZ. I didn't even know that. 12 That's the first I've heard of it. You can 13 say to me, you better come to class more often and 14 then you would know what's going on. 15 Well, you can't always come to class. I do 16 read the wonderful transcription, but you tend to 17 nod off a little bit when you start reading through 18 all this stuff to find the gist of -- the kernel of 19 information. 20 I just want to make sure that five years from 21 now, we're dealing with and continue to deal with 22 the process and not with specifics of who did and 23 who didn't do. 24 MR. DYSART: Larry. 25 MR. KEEGAN: I just want to add a little bit 80 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 of clarification. What Mr. Schuberth has said 3 about who did the beach erosion study is correct. 4 What he neglected to tell you and what Bill Farmer 5 told you earlier was there were two people chosen 6 by the members of the Beach Erosion Committee to do 7 a review. 8 They were selected by the committee. They did 9 their review. They're Erik Olsen and Dr. Clark 10 Alexander. 11 So there was review by people other than the 12 company that did the study, in addition to the ITR 13 that the Corps subjected it to. I just wanted to 14 make that clear. 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: That's right. But at that 16 time, it was being discussed, I had suggested some 17 people outside of the loop. Erik proposed one of 18 the studies, before it went back to ATM. Chuck 19 Watson proposed a study before it went back to ATM. 20 I said I think there should be other 21 reviewers. We were chatting and talking. I could 22 see the discussion was going in the direction that 23 these are individuals who are qualified. They are 24 both indeed qualified; friends, colleagues. 25 I have no problem with it, but I still think 81 1 PEER REVIEW STATUS 2 we would serve ourselves better if a truly blind, 3 truly blind study could be made or evaluation or 4 assessment could be made of some of the conclusions 5 drawn in these studies. 6 There are any number, for example beach 7 erosion, there are any number of highly regarded 8 oceanographic institutions around the country. 9 During the thick of our discussion with who's 10 qualified to be on the Working Group of the Aquifer 11 Committee, one of the leading groundwater 12 geologists was mentioned, a guy whose name I can't 13 remember. His family name begins with the letter 14 V, and I've subsequently find out he's one of the 15 -- he's being asked to look into the concern that's 16 being raised in this SEG body regarding who is 17 working the groundwater problem as an independent, 18 totally independent reviewer. 19 I had a concern then that this was a person 20 who was going to join the Aquifer Committee, which 21 grew to about 50 people as it is on its own, but 22 that is the independent. 23 Someone who has never sat in this room, 24 someone who has never really talked to anybody 25 sitting in this room and says, here we've got a 82 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 document that we would like to look at to publish 3 as a scientific publication in the Geological 4 Society American Journal, for example. 5 MR. DYSART: Further comment? Seeing no name 6 cards, the matter has been brought before the body. 7 Discussion has taken place. Sam. 8 MR. BOORER: I'd just like to thank Chris for 9 your efforts and all the work you did in all this 10 time. 11 MR. SCHUBERTH: Thank you. 12 MR. DYSART: Next item, implications of the 13 National Academy's report on Corps of Engineers' 14 peer review, so forth. Is that -- who wishes to 15 speak on that? 16 MR. BERSON: I guess I will. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. 18 MR. BERSON: With three months between 19 meetings, there's really no excuse for not doing 20 one's homework. I have actually reread this 21 report. 22 I actually have a couple of questions. I 23 guess the first is for Doug, and that is what has 24 the Corps done, in terms of giving you direction 25 either from headquarters or how ever they come 83 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 down, in terms of applying this report? 3 MR. PLACHY: To date, I believe headquarters 4 is in the process of setting up this independent 5 panel that would be making recommendations on which 6 projects would require special external reviews. 7 That's all they have done. They have not 8 actually acted, as far as I know, acted on any 9 project. When we had our meeting back in August 10 with headquarters, and the deputy to the assistant 11 secretary, we were knowledgeable about the content 12 of this report, and that is why we made the 13 decisions at that meeting to ensure we truly do an 14 external, independent review of the aquifer, the 15 H & S model, and the economics. 16 And those were the three, -- from their 17 standpoint -- those were three most critical pieces 18 of this whole process. They wanted those 19 specifically treated with an external technical 20 review, which is what we've done. 21 The other reviews, like I said, we're still 22 doing external independent reviews outside of the 23 district, be it another district or someplace else 24 in Corps, USGS, et cetera. 25 So basically what I'm saying is we anticipated 84 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 what may come out, that if this board did exist and 3 they looked at this project, what would they say 4 needs to have some special attention. So the 5 deputy to the assistant said, these are the three 6 things. That's what we all agreed to do. 7 That's about the best we can do at this point, 8 until this board stands up and they may say you 9 need to do some special on XYZ. We don't know. 10 MR. BERSON: Have you any sense of what the 11 time line would be for them to make that 12 determination or evaluation, and how does it fit in 13 the project schedule? 14 MR. PLACHY: I think, and this is my recall 15 from seeing some message traffic, they were going 16 to make it effective on projects that were not past 17 a certain stage. In other words, they weren't 18 going to make any projects go back and redo 19 anything, because it would cost money and slow down 20 the process. 21 But I don't know for sure. In other words, 22 they may say projects that go into feasibility 23 starting with an FY 04, I'm not sure because, 24 again, I haven't seen anything yet. 25 MR. BERSON: Of those three that you had 85 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 mentioned, have you decided how you're going to 3 determine who the reviewers actually will be? 4 MR. PLACHY: On the H & S model, that was 5 done, and in fact we're almost through with the 6 whole review process. We're awaiting sign-off 7 from the Corps side. There was one -- I think a 8 couple things left to field with Jack Blanton. 9 MR. KEEGAN: Waiting for his response back. 10 MR. PLACHY: His response, and then we're 11 done. Jack Blanton, of course, being the external 12 technical reviewer. We also had folks from USGS 13 which was an external review, as well as our own 14 special staff out of West that did the review. 15 On the economics, we haven't gotten to the 16 point of determining who that would be. We haven't 17 gotten started on the new economic analysis. We're 18 just now doing some data gathering in preparation 19 of it. 20 Like I said on the aquifer, we have asked the 21 States of Georgia and South Carolina to give us the 22 name of who they would prefer that we use for the 23 review, and we will then let a contract to have 24 that done. 25 MR. BERSON: Okay. Here's one of the things 86 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 that concern me a little bit, as far as the process 3 goes, and that is -- and maybe this is something to 4 think about in terms of the economics and the 5 aquifer. 6 One of the things this report says is that 7 external reviewers ought to be selected, not by the 8 Corps. 9 MR. PLACHY: Right. 10 MR. BERSON: And I would think the SEG would 11 be a logical place to get input on that or at least 12 to run those particular folks by the SEG, in order 13 to get the maximum amount of input on that sort of 14 decision. In that sense, I'm not quite sure that 15 using the recommendations of South Carolina, since 16 it will be the same people that were on the Aquifer 17 Working Group really fits the bill. 18 I don't know quite what to do about the 19 hydrodynamics, and frankly that's probably the most 20 critical point of the whole evaluation is the 21 validity of the model. I guess I want to state 22 that I'm concerned because whatever the Corps is 23 going to apply to itself, as a result of this 24 report, the recommendations clearly lay out what 25 independent review is. 87 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 And I understand that West is uniquely 3 qualified in some respects, but to say that that is 4 in any sense an independent review of the Corps' 5 work just really doesn't fly. 6 If you would like to make the case that it 7 does, I'm willing to hear it, but it does sort of 8 seem like your own agency is evaluating your own 9 work. And even independent -- and even another 10 Corps district evaluating Corps' work is really not 11 independent. 12 MR. PLACHY: It depends on how you want to use 13 the term independent. 14 MR. BERSON: Uninvolved as a matter of who you 15 report to. 16 MR. PLACHY: Not independent of an 17 organization but independent of the entity that did 18 the work. 19 MR. BERSON: Answering to the same boss means 20 you're not independent, and ultimately that's 21 what's happened. 22 MR. DYSART: Morgan and then Chris. 23 MR. REES: Two points for what it's worth, 24 number one, the EPA manual specifically says it's 25 okay to have another person within an agency or 88 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 another group within the agency to do the 3 independent review, as long as that person is not 4 in the same chain of command. 5 I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong, 6 but the EPA manual says that. The second point is 7 that the Corps, the administration, has put in the 8 budget for fiscal '04, money for the Corps to 9 implement the provisions of the National Academy 10 report. 11 And in presenting the budget in testimony 12 recently, the Corps said they will develop 13 legislation, proposed legislation to complete the 14 National Academy report. So all that stuff is 15 working. 16 MR. BERSON: Well, here's my concern, when we 17 brought up independent review before and it was 18 some time ago, the answer was well, we can't really 19 do anything on that because the National Academy is 20 coming out with this study. 21 Now that the study is out and most of tenets 22 we were pushing before have been validated by the 23 study, the hydrodynamic and salinity models have 24 already been independently reviewed, and there was 25 the question as to why. 89 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 I guess my question is, I'm glad the Corps is 3 moving forward. I think there's a lot to recommend 4 this report, but in the meantime, how does this 5 project fit into the mix, and will other things 6 have been inappropriately reviewed while waiting 7 for the Corps to implement this study? 8 MR. DYSART: Chris. 9 MR. SCHUBERTH: I just in this little 10 discussion, Doug says it all depends how you define 11 independent review. The second bulleted item in 12 the letter I had read, the peer review is conducted 13 by qualified individuals or organizations who are 14 independent of those who perform the work, but who 15 are collectively equivalent in technical expertise 16 to those who performed the original work. 17 And this is why I kind of get dismissed, and I 18 understand why. I have no problem with it. I get 19 dismissed when I talk about blind review, in which 20 the reviewer knows who wrote the article, but the 21 person who wrote the study does not know who 22 reviewed it. 23 And to avoid any complications there's the 24 double blind, and that's the preferable one, where 25 neither the reviewer knows who produced the work, 90 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 the research, and wrote it up, and the author of 3 that work doesn't know who reviewed it. 4 It usually goes to four or five different 5 people. We really need to go some of these 6 international journals like JAMA, the Journal of 7 the American Medical Association, to truly 8 understand what is meant by independent review. 9 And whether the author likes it or not, it has 10 to address those criticisms, those concerns, those 11 questions, those differences of opinion, otherwise 12 that work will simply not be published. 13 Now, we're much looser here. It's understood. 14 I mean, this is not a major, but there are some big 15 issues, especially controversial ones. There's 16 nothing wrong with controversy. Science thrives on 17 controversy. I mean, we'd still be thinking the 18 earth is the center of the solar system if it 19 wasn't some radical cleric that comes up and says 20 no, the sun is the center of solar system, and 21 people were put to death of because of that belief. 22 We're not in that situation, but we do need 23 some mechanism, some process needs to be 24 introduced, and I'm glad it's there already to some 25 degree that independent review means exactly that, 91 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 independent. 3 MR. DYSART: Will. 4 MR. BERSON: In terms of the hydrodynamic and 5 salinity model, for example, let me just back up a 6 little bit. If I read my body language correctly 7 this is causing David Schaller agita, and in my own 8 defense, in response I guess what I want to say is 9 very clearly, we asked about peer review before. 10 We've asked for it for a long time, and this 11 is not a late breaking issue that we're bringing 12 up. 13 While these studies are moving forward, we're 14 seeing review that's probably not appropriate. 15 Jack Blanton is, in fact, part of the MTRG, so why 16 is he reviewing the hydrodynamic and salinity 17 models? 18 It ought to be someone who had nothing to do 19 with discussions of the MTRG. That's very plain. 20 And I want to say that we kind of told you so 21 before, and now we were told we had to wait for 22 report. 23 Now we're told you may have to wait for the 24 Corps to decide which projects it's going to 25 include. How much more is going to go by the 92 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 board, and we're going to be saying the same thing 3 I'm saying right now, which is we've been bringing 4 this up for a long time, and we've gotten put off, 5 and is it going to be after the economics is done 6 or after the aquifer is done. 7 And again, the principle is really very plain, 8 and all it does, frankly, is give GPA greater 9 assurance and the Corps greater assurance that the 10 studies they have done are acceptable. It means 11 not doing end of the process work. 12 And I would think that's in everybody's 13 interest, and I've said that from the very 14 beginning. 15 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 16 MR. REES: A little earlier, Doug admitted to 17 some confusion about what Chris had to say. Now I 18 must admit total confusion about what you've just 19 said, Will, despite the fact we've gone over the 20 issue as you correctly point out for a long time. 21 But I'll go back and again check myself and do 22 my homework. My recollection is when the issue 23 first came up two, two and a half, three years ago, 24 how ever long ago it was, we had several very 25 lengthy discussions in the Operating Guidelines 93 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 Committee. 3 Those discussions were reported back to the 4 SEG. The bottom line of those discussions was we 5 had laid out what we thought the review was for 6 every issue that was raised by the SEG -- for every 7 issue. We listed them. We said here's what they 8 were, here's who reviewing them. 9 And from that list there were several that 10 were pointed out that probably need special review, 11 whether we call peer review, independent review, 12 whatever we end up calling it. Those were the 13 aquifer, economics, beach erosion, and one other. 14 MR. PLACHY: There was a lot of things being 15 reviewed. 16 MR. REES: I know those were the ones pointed 17 out. We said okay. That's fine. We will treat 18 them individually and not in the normal way the 19 government project development process treats them. 20 We will raise those, as Chris said, sometimes 21 you need to look at things that are of particular 22 special interest and concern, and we agreed. I 23 mean, I don't think -- I don't remember we ever 24 disagreed with any of that stuff. 25 We spent a lot of time in the SEG meeting 94 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 itself talking about the nature of the MTRG, who 3 was on the MTRG, and whether that provides adequate 4 level of assurance of independence. And I agree 5 with Chris that we really need to understand what 6 we mean by independence. 7 So I went back to the EPA manual to talk about 8 it, since Chris and the Chatham Environmental Forum 9 cited the EPA manual as a basis for their concerns. 10 The EPA manual to me, maybe somebody has a 11 different understanding, to me says you've got to 12 get the peer reviewers involved early in the 13 process, and you've got to get them to help you 14 formulate the work that you're going to do. 15 In the case of the MTRG, for example, they did 16 that, but Bo and his company, ATM, did the work. 17 Now it's time to go back and get those folks to say 18 whether they did it right or not. 19 To my way of thinking, the MTRG is set up 20 totally consistently with the EPA handbook on peer 21 review. I don't see any difference in the way the 22 EPA has set it up. 23 The economics, we haven't chosen an 24 independent reviewer yet. As Doug said earlier 25 with the aquifer, the Corps is already committed to 95 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 having somebody else outside the Corps do the 3 review. We've made the same commitment with the 4 Economic Working Group and economic analysis. 5 On the Beach Erosion Committee, somebody may 6 take exception to whether those folks were 7 independent or not. The reviewers were selected by 8 somebody other than the Corps. The reviewers were 9 selected completely consistently with the EPA 10 manual. So I'm confused why you think we're not 11 doing what we're supposed to be doing. 12 MR. BERSON: Not -- having been in those 13 meetings in the Operating Guidelines Committee, we 14 should mention that your position was the resource 15 agency review is fine. 16 Our position was the reason the resource 17 agencies are on the MTRG is that they're going to 18 have to sign off on the actual model, so it makes a 19 great deal of sense to have them in on the 20 formulation of how the model is working, how it's 21 calibrated. 22 That's what my understanding all those 23 discussions are about. That's because they have a 24 decision point to make; yes, does the model work; 25 no, the model does not. That does not qualify 96 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 them, that does not mean they're independent 3 reviewers. 4 In fact, they are not. By definition they are 5 not independent reviewers. We said from the very 6 beginning in Operating Guidelines meetings, as a 7 matter of fact, I think Teri can certify we were 8 at complete loggerheads as to what independent 9 review was. 10 We said it ain't the resource agency because 11 they answer to people who answer to people. There 12 are too many commonalities there and it's not 13 independent. 14 So we've been very clear about this from the 15 very beginning. So if you're not clear about why 16 that's unacceptable, folks that have input into how 17 the model is designed, and how it's calibrated, 18 should not be the ones who also say yes, of course 19 all these assumptions make sense. 20 They're the ones who made the assumptions. I 21 assume they think they're good assumptions, but we 22 need somebody wasn't involved, wasn't in the room, 23 and says yes, those make sense. They were doing 24 the right thing. Otherwise, who knows what the 25 model is going to say. 97 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 MR. DYSART: Judy, Chris, and Morgan. 3 MS. JENNINGS: You know it seems to me like 4 one of reigning issues here is confusion. I say 5 that because I've gotten fuzzy on what technical 6 reviews have been done and by whom. 7 Here Chris, who has put a lot of time and 8 energy into a couple of issues, was unaware of 9 literally certain reviews that were done. But 10 besides the confusion and, you know, we talk about 11 the matrix, whatever, it might just help even a 12 voluntary, I don't care who, would just sit down 13 and go through and sort it out black and white, say 14 this is what was done and by whom. 15 But I'm trying really hard not to micro manage 16 independent peer review except to say, in my 17 experience, it's as common and ordinary in good 18 science as data collection. I actually -- Will, 19 sorry to tell you, did take your advice and read 20 most of that NAS report. The glaringness of 21 independence that you cannot get away from it; for 22 instance, if a study or project is to be 23 independently reviewed, the process for reviewers 24 is election, and the reviewers themselves must be 25 as independent of the Corps as possible. That is, 98 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 the process for selection of reviewers should be 3 conducted by an organization outside the Corps. 4 The reviewers should not be employees of the 5 Corps, and reviewers should be free of conflict of 6 interest. If you read this 100 or so pages, it 7 goes on to say don't recycle yourselves. Don't 8 work for the Corps one day and ATM the next day or 9 something like that. 10 It's very specific about what does constitute 11 independent. Having said that, I think possibly in 12 this circular conversation we've had about ITR, 13 we're losing track of -- of other parts of the 14 process. This group has spent a good deal of time 15 talking about the structure, the extent, the 16 depth of a review. 17 Early on in the study, it says that an ITR 18 could consists literally of never a face-to-face 19 meeting, of a day or two of face-to-face meetings, 20 or something much more complicated than that. 21 Some of our studies are a lot more 22 complicated. Some may not be. I think you could 23 structure independent review, and this spends a lot 24 of time talking about cost. And that's part of the 25 equation. 99 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 I realize GPA has spent a lot of money and 3 they are continuing to spend money. I don't think 4 anybody here is insensitive to the request that is 5 being made, but I'm keenly struck by the fact that 6 those with strong concerns about the issue either 7 we've lost some of the information in our memories 8 or we just didn't have it. 9 I don't think the confusion over the word 10 independent can be any plainer than the way the 11 NAS study states it. 12 I think we need to remember that a review 13 doesn't have to be doing the study over again. A 14 review does not mean that. So these are things 15 that strike me that don't come up everytime we talk 16 about it. A review doesn't mean redoing the study. 17 It doesn't have to mean that. 18 MR. DYSART: Chris. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: Let me just make two points. 20 One is to comment back to Morgan's comment that in 21 the other study that I referenced it says, the 22 independent reviewer should be engaged early in the 23 process, and I'm not sure I fully understand that. 24 I think what's being said is that someone who 25 understands independent review would guide the 100 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 original study to address the kinds of questions 3 that may come up by truly independent reviewers. 4 Judy used a good word, recycle. I can't 5 imagine that those people who are drawn into the 6 process early in the development of the study then 7 become, five years later, the independent reviewers 8 or become part of that team of independent 9 reviewers. 10 I can't imagine that's being said. The second 11 comment is that the Aquifer Committee produced 12 recommendations. We struggled with the right word, 13 recommendations, and there were eight of them. 14 Now, there's no study. Sound Science is doing 15 the study. There's no study -- eight 16 recommendations for what kinds of questions brought 17 forward by the experts we should get answers to. 18 There was unanimous agreement of six of them 19 and there was not unanimous agreement for the other 20 two. It went back to the Aquifer Committee, the 21 entire Aquifer Committee, not just the Working 22 Group, the entire Aquifer Committee said yes, I 23 think the other two recommendations bringing the 24 total to eight are legitimate. 25 There was opposition but we couldn't meet to 101 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 change any thinking, so eight went forward. So 3 it's these recommendations for studies that are 4 being acted on. 5 Now, you can't technically call that a review. 6 It's going out, I guess, to other folks who will 7 say, are these reasonable recommendations, and if 8 so why, and if not why not. 9 If there are why nots, then those should come 10 back to the Aquifer Committee, particularly to the 11 Working Group. 12 So we're really talking studies that have been 13 completed, literature cited, and we're talking 14 about recommendations that I projected up on the 15 screen that were simply bulleted items with no more 16 than 10 or 12 words in each item. 17 MR. DYSART: Morgan and Teri. 18 MR. REES: I'm still confused. Will, I got to 19 tell you that I know in internal discussions within 20 the team, if you will, we have taken very seriously 21 the issue of peer review. 22 We honestly believe we have gone well beyond 23 the standard process. We have gone the extra mile. 24 We have read -- instead of reinventing the wheel, 25 sitting around and saying to ourselves what do you 102 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 mean by peer review, how do we define independence 3 or whatever, we've gone to the literature available 4 on the subject, including the National Academy 5 report, including EPA manual. 6 We think we are consistent with all of that. 7 That's why I'm confused. We have really, I think, 8 tried to go the extra mile to do independent peer 9 review in a way that we can be proud of and hold up 10 as an example of how to do it. 11 We think we have done it in a manner 12 consistent with the literature that's available. I 13 don't know where to go from there. 14 MR. BERSON: Let me ask you this, would you 15 say that somebody -- in the case of the 16 hydrodynamic and salinity model, would you say that 17 someone that worked on the MTRG is an appropriate 18 reviewer of the decisions of the MTRG; is that 19 independent? 20 MR. REES: What I tried to say a minute ago, 21 rather than to sit around and make up our own 22 definition of peer review, to go by what the 23 literature says, and I would say the literature 24 says yes, that's okay. 25 Whether you agree with that or not, I don't 103 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 know, but that's what the literature says to me. 3 If the literature -- a lot of people have done a 4 lot of thinking about this. We're not going -- 5 we're not the kind of people to make up new 6 science. 7 We're going to follow what the smarter people 8 have already made up. And that's what we're trying 9 to do. 10 MR. BERSON: Let me put this in process terms. 11 If -- I frankly don't understand why you don't get 12 this. We're at a serious disconnect on this point. 13 The upshot of it is you kind of have two choices. 14 You can do an independent review that brings 15 everybody on the MTRG along, or you invite the SEG 16 to go out and do its own independent review, and 17 then you have dueling reviews. Frankly, I think 18 the former is preferable for all concerned than the 19 latter. That's what I've been trying to argue for. 20 But if you're not going to get it and you're 21 not going to involve the SEG at all in the 22 independent review situation, then your forcing 23 hands I don't think you want to force. 24 MR. REES: I know there are other cards up. I 25 would like to respond to that because we really 104 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 think we have involved the SEG. Look at the 3 independent review that has been done. 4 The beach erosion study. The independent 5 reviewers were selected by people not in the Corps, 6 not in GPA, not even in the SEG -- well, that may 7 be a stretch. 8 They were selected by people outside, people 9 with no stake in the outcome of the process, Beach 10 Erosion Committee folks, the reviewers were 11 selected. The economics haven't been selected yet, 12 so I don't know that we can say anybody has ignored 13 the SEG. The aquifer folks haven't been selected 14 yet. 15 There's a very clear commitment that that 16 selection will be made outside the Corps and GPA. 17 Everything you just accused us of I would say we 18 are innocent. 19 MR. BERSON: The most critical portion -- 20 MR. REES: We have sought and used the EPA -- 21 the SEG recommendations. 22 MR. BERSON: And the hydrodynamic and salinity 23 model. 24 MR. REES: Again, I'm going to go to go back 25 over the transcript. We talked a lot about that 105 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 issue, who were the right people to be involved and 3 what yielded the level of quality. 4 At the time I don't think we were talking 5 about the independent or external peer review. We 6 were talking about -- I'm trying to recall the term 7 Ben Brewton used -- and I'll look it up, but it was 8 to give the SEG the level of assurance that the SEG 9 needs that the product is of the level of quality 10 and scientific integrity that is needed. Words to 11 that effect. I won't say that's a quote, but 12 that's a paraphrase. 13 That's what we tried to do. We had at least 14 two long discussions about that, and you know how 15 long ago it was because Ben Brewton was involved in 16 it. But that was done early on when we were 17 dealing with the -- with how the MTRG was 18 constructed. 19 And personally, I thought at that point that 20 issue was settled. When we talked about peer 21 review in the Operating Guidelines Committee, we 22 may have talked about the MTRG. I don't recall. 23 The point is, I don't recall we talked about 24 it in the MTRG -- I mean in the Operating 25 Guidelines Committee. We did talk about the 106 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 aquifer. We did talk about economics. We did talk 3 about a whole long list of other things. 4 We agreed to every one that anybody suggested 5 we pull out of that list and give special attention 6 to. On each one of those, the SEG has the call, at 7 least makes the recommendation and the 8 recommendation was adopted in beach erosion. We 9 don't know what's going to happen in aquifer and 10 economics. 11 I think we're doing everything everybody has 12 asked of us. I would like somebody to say, instead 13 of me trying to prove myself innocent, somebody 14 to bring a specific that says you didn't do what we 15 asked you to do. I haven't seen that yet. 16 MR. DYSART: Teri. 17 MS. LEFFEK: I just have a comment and my 18 understanding or my view of the situation could be 19 incorrect. I feel like we're talking about two 20 different things. 21 The EPA manual says one thing, and that's what 22 we used because that's what we had available to us. 23 Now we have the new report. I have not read the 24 report and I will go read it after this discussion. 25 It sounds to me as though what's in the report 107 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 by the National Academy supersedes what's in EPA's 3 report. EPA is talking about EPA. This report 4 specifically addresses the Corps. Am I not 5 correct? 6 So I would assume that is what we need to go 7 by as to what to use in looking at independent 8 review and how to define independent review for 9 this project and this discussion. 10 MR. DYSART: Doug was next. 11 MR. PLACHY: Mine goes way back. I looked on 12 my card. In the project management plan which has 13 been published out there for the public, in 14 appendix P is a listing of all of the work products 15 that are being done, the entity that's involved 16 with them, and then in that matrices the ones that 17 are going undergo independent technical review are 18 specifically identified. 19 That document has been out there a long time. 20 So I think based on discussions we've had here and 21 previously in the last couple of weeks, we're going 22 to expand more on those that are going to be ITR'd, 23 in terms of identifying the entity et cetera, et 24 cetera, in more detail. 25 When we did the planning on the project, we 108 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 identified those items that were going to be ITR'd. 3 One of those was the beach erosion study. That's 4 never been a secret that was one of the ITR items. 5 That was why my card was up. It goes back a ways 6 in the conversation. 7 MS. JENNINGS: I'm sorry. What appendix? 8 MR. PLACHY: Appendix P. 9 MR. DYSART: David, Sam, and Chris. 10 MR. KYLER: Teri made a point I was going to 11 make. I want to emphasize the significance of 12 that. The EPA standard is not the same as the 13 Corps. If you conform with EPA, that would not be 14 conforming with the report issued for 15 application under water resources planning for the 16 Corps. 17 The National Academy report, page five -- I 18 have not read the whole report. I have read two 19 chapters maybe 18, 20 pages. Page five of the 20 executive summary says the following, the highest 21 degree of credibility of external reviews will be 22 achieved and the responsibility for coordinating 23 the external review process is granted to an 24 organization independent of the Corps. 25 This is not conducting the review process. 109 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 This is coordinating the review process. So 3 obviously that standard has not been met here no 4 how ideal the intentions are on the part of people 5 at the Corps who are trying to achieve more 6 independence than has been the case in the past. 7 More power to them in what they've tried to 8 do. So the fact is they have this emerging 9 standard. I thought this whole issue in this forum 10 was pending the outcome of this report. 11 Now we seem to be making, I would say, 12 somewhat of a disingenuous attempt to apologize for 13 what's gone before by standards other than these. 14 Another thing that needs to be emphasized, I think, 15 in the overall conceptual approach that the NAS 16 study makes clear is presented in a graph. 17 I read the executive summary and chapter four, 18 independent review principles and consideration, 19 because it's very hard to print this out from the 20 website page by page. I had to make a strategic 21 choice of what would be more useful. 22 This chapter is quite germane, but they 23 graph project impact magnitudes with project risks, 24 and anything obviously which ranks higher on either 25 lists scales, certainly on both scales, deserves a 110 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 more complex and thorough treatment by an 3 independent external review. 4 I think this project would scale well into the 5 upper grade and area of that graph, the upper right 6 quadrant, and therefore justified a more serious 7 look at applying these principles in the census. 8 The one criticism I do have of the report, as 9 I read it -- as I say what I read was a sampling 10 of the whole thing. I apologize if I 11 misrepresented the overall impression one might get 12 by reading the whole thing. 13 The word credibility comes up a lot more than 14 a word like accountability or like accuracy or like 15 actual impacts. No doubt this is meant to be a 16 decision-making tool. It's fine to facilitate 17 good decisions that are attempting to balance all 18 interests, but to me credibility means perceived 19 balance or perceived accuracy, not necessarily real 20 balance or real accuracy. 21 It's more of a perception of public relations 22 interpretations of a process than I would hope 23 scientists are attempting to get at. What I would 24 do, to augment the approach as I interpret it from 25 I what I sampled reading, would be emphasize the 111 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 accountability of process, as enhanced by, among 3 other things, looking at the actual impacts of the 4 project after it occurs, using that information as 5 feedback to improve not only the science in the 6 future, but this kind of process for future 7 decision-making so it more accurately reflects the 8 real world, not just trying to grease the skids of 9 decision making. 10 MR. DYSART: Chris, did you have another 11 comment? Sam has one. Teri -- my view is that the 12 views have been put on the table, and we're 13 obviously not going to reach a resolution on this 14 today. 15 I would suggest that those who have their tent 16 cards up, we've kind of reached a point where 17 there's been adequate discussion for this time. I 18 am probably going to sense an interest in 19 discussing this next time. 20 So why don't the folks who have their name 21 tags up comment, and if there's any burning final 22 comment from principles, we'll have that and then 23 move on to committee reports. Teri. 24 MS. LEFFEK: I guess that was my point. Where 25 do we go from here? I know we talked about this in 112 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 the operating Guidelines meeting. 3 This information is new information to me. I 4 do think the topic is germane and relevant. It 5 needs resolution. We did make a decision in the 6 Operating Guidelines Committee. I don't think we 7 ever resolved the issue. 8 I know Will and Dave still had concerns. I 9 will read this report. I now have concerns. I 10 think the issue needs to be resolved. How it's 11 resolved at, I don't know. It does need to be 12 resolved. 13 MR. DYSART: Will. 14 MR. BERSON: I'd like to think by my demeanor 15 and the statements in this committee, I've proven 16 myself to be a moderate, amenable person. I told 17 you, Morgan, in Operating Guidelines we had an 18 issue -- we so have an issue here. 19 Let me just give you a theoretical. Moving 20 forward assuming this all goes to nasty. 21 MR. REES: Goes to what? 22 MR. BERSON: All goes to nasty. 23 MR. KYLER: It's not an acronym. 24 MR. BERSON: Are you comfortable, going before 25 a judge, talking about a model you had reviewed by 113 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 someone who was involved in the formulation of that 3 model, as opposed to someone who had nothing to do 4 with it, who can give an impartial critique, 5 possibly a negative one? 6 I personally wouldn't want to be in that 7 position, but that's where you're heading. So let 8 me be very clear about this. It isn't going away. 9 We don't agree. We've got to solve this issue 10 unless we want to get to a very bad spot further 11 down the line. We let it go in Operating 12 Guidelines and that's how we got here today. 13 MR. DYSART: Chris. 14 MR. SCHUBERTH: Let me just put a note of 15 humor here, if I may, if that's possible -- no. On 16 the agenda, the last bulleted item, future of the 17 Aquifer Committee, its role and conduct in the 18 future, heaven forbid not reviews but commentary. 19 So let's just change the word reviews to 20 commentary, and that's been requested by Bob 21 Scanlon. 22 MR. DYSART: Unless Sam comes back, I would 23 suggest Morgan have the final comment. 24 MR. REES: I just want to respond again to 25 Will who seems to have thrown the gauntlet down. 114 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 Just -- you did come through loudly and clearly in 3 the Operating Guidelines Committee. 4 What I tried to say a minute ago, perhaps I 5 wandered too much in my discussion. I went back 6 and looked, in great detail at both the National 7 Academy study and the EPA Science Handbook, and I 8 honestly believe what we are doing is consistent 9 with both. 10 If you think not, we need to talk about where 11 it's not consistent and how we can fix it. I did 12 take very seriously not only yours but Chris' and 13 other peoples' comments on the nature of peer 14 review. 15 I tried to say earlier, we really think we're 16 doing the best kind of peer review done on any kind 17 of project anywhere. If that's not enough, if we 18 need to go beyond the National Academy study, if we 19 need to go beyond the EPA manual, then let's see 20 where we have to go with it. 21 Everything we're doing including -- all due 22 respect to your personal judgment -- including the 23 MTRG and how the MTRG functions, those are not 24 inconsistent with the EPA Manual or the National 25 Academy study in my judgment, but we can talk about 115 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 it. 3 MR. DYSART: Sam. 4 MR. BOORER: I apologize for being called out. 5 That's taken care of. The comment I wanted to make 6 before I left is my experience when you get into 7 discussions like this, and you hear both sides, my 8 experience is both sides are right -- both sides. 9 And what I'd like to ask is would it be 10 possible, either the two of y'all getting together 11 between now and the next meeting of the SEG would 12 be to list the projects, I think there's five or 13 four -- beach erosion, economics, aquifer, H & S 14 model -- is that all we're talking about those four 15 -- maybe a fifth? 16 MR. REES: No, no. As far as I'm aware, that 17 covers it. 18 MR. BOORER: That would come off the Appendix 19 P project management plan would have that list. 20 Would it be possible to list the projects and maybe 21 list who did the project or who is doing the 22 project, and then come over here and list who did 23 the peer review or is going to do the peer review, 24 or in two of the cases, economic and aquifer, it 25 hasn't even been decided, so that we can look at -- 116 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 I think Morgan you said the H & S model it's 3 already been discussed. The SEG did approve. 4 You think the minutes are going to reflect the 5 SEG did approve who's going to do the peer review, 6 maybe we can have a copy of those minutes. 7 MR. REES: I'll just make one clarification. 8 We weren't talking -- we weren't using the term 9 peer review at the time. 10 I think what I said was we were talking about 11 a product that would be satisfactory to the SEG, in 12 terms of its quality and reliability for reaching a 13 decision, words to that effect. 14 We weren't talking about the peer review. At 15 that time I can say really clearly I thought that 16 issue was behind us. 17 MR. BOORER: If you and Will could maybe 18 discuss what's going to be presented next time, we 19 can better define where we have this disagreement. 20 I think the bottom line concern is the future of 21 the selecting of the future peer reviews for 22 economic and aquifer. We'll all be in agreement at 23 that time who is going to be doing it in the future 24 ones. 25 MR. REES: If I may volunteer somebody else to 117 1 NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT 2 help, they are other people besides Will who have 3 some -- what was the term about heartburn -- agita? 4 Okay. I would offer, anybody else who wants to 5 participate. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Morgan, can we just schedule a 7 meeting of the Operating Guidelines Committee -- 8 MR. REES: That's good. 9 MS. JENNINGS: -- where most of the mouths are 10 going to come from anyway. 11 MS. LEFFEK: That's fine. 12 MR. DYSART: I sense a consensus that the 13 Operating Guidelines Committee would be the 14 umbrella this would take place under. This would 15 be a part of their report from whoever wants to 16 present that. 17 I think a comment I would make, there has been 18 an evolution in the terminology. I think from the 19 very beginning the emphasis has been on quality 20 products, credible science to inform, difficult, 21 challenging, inform the public policy questions, so 22 that thoughtful trade-offs can be made in the real 23 world. 24 So the credibility and the quality of the 25 science and the investigations has been a goal and 118 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 attempt of the body collectively from the very 3 beginning, regardless of what specific phrase was 4 used. 5 I think that -- that was a very good 6 discussion. We look forward to it the next time, 7 and hopefully it will shed a little light on this 8 and move it forward. 9 I would suggest that we head into, with your 10 permission, that we head into the committee 11 reports. We've had beach erosion. Do we have 12 anything from dredging and disposal? No. How 13 about Fisheries and Aquatic Resources? 14 MR. BERSON: Have not met. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. MTRG, Bo 16 MR. ELLIS: No, no activity. 17 MR. DYSART: Striped Bass 18 MR. MARTIN: Striped Bass, Ted Will is not 19 going to be the chairman anymore. It will either 20 be myself or Matt Thomas that will be taking his 21 responsibility. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. If you would let me know, 23 I would appreciate that, so I can reflect that. 24 Communications, anything happening in the 25 communications area? Chris. 119 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 MR. SCHUBERTH: Nothing happening, but I see 3 the last meeting was in the year 2000. I know 4 that's going on to three years ago. 5 MR. DYSART: True. 6 MR. SCHUBERTH: Should that continue -- just a 7 question? 8 MR. DYSART: The committee or non-meeting. 9 MR. SCHUBERTH: No. I mean should the fact 10 that there is, on the part of Ben Brewton no 11 commentary, and no activity, no discussion, is 12 the Communications Committee was formed to do what? 13 MR. DYSART: I think to encourage and 14 facilitate effective and productive communications 15 presumably. 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: Oh, so that we could avoid the 17 kind of discussion we had for the last hour and a 18 half about the peer review. 19 MR. DYSART: I can't speak for the committee, 20 but I would presume there has been some good 21 discussion. 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: My question is I think the SEG 23 should consider, perhaps at the next meeting, 24 address the fact we have a standing committee that 25 met last almost three years ago. 120 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 MR. DYSART: A little over three years ago. 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: Geologic time is slow, but 4 this is -- 5 MR. DYSART: That sounds like an agenda item. 6 What is the pleasure of the body next time; is this 7 what you want to do with the Communication 8 Committee? 9 MR. KYLER: I would suggest the obvious and 10 that is come prepared to make recommendations on 11 communication issues which seem to have remedies 12 that committee could address. 13 I think the reason, quite obviously for its 14 inactivity since July of 2000 is because it was 15 administrative procedures type of focus that came 16 up in the early days of getting the SEG moving. 17 It's not to say that there were no 18 communications problems or remedies that are 19 possible at this point, just most of them have been 20 resolved by the fork of the Communications 21 Committee early on. 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: So should the committee be 23 disbanded, or have a new chair, meet ad hoc as 24 needed? 25 MR. DYSART: That is going to be an agenda 121 1 ECONOMICS WORKING GROUP 2 item, what is the future, what is the body's 3 pleasure on that? 4 MR. KYLER: I might add too to have 5 communications which they think need to be address, 6 bring those to the table. 7 MR. DYSART: Economics Working Group, 8 Judy. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah, we actually did meet. 10 Rather unique, it looks like, in early February and 11 we met with Will Berson was there, David Kyler, 12 Wes Bushnell, Bill Bailey, Jeff Morris, Jay Savage, 13 and three participants from the Institute of Water 14 Resources, and we had another person that didn't 15 get called, so the list should be a little bit 16 long, but this is in my court and I haven't done 17 anything with it. 18 I was out of touch for all and more than 19 February, and haven't even responded to the page 20 and a half worth of notes, three pages of notes 21 that Lynn Martin was able to take for us about 22 doing a forum on looking at the economic evaluation 23 techniques. 24 There is an opportunity to partner with the 25 Corps and IWR as they -- in their ongoing policy 122 1 2 study about improving the environmental benefits 3 analysis. 4 So we did meet in early February, had a great 5 crowd, lots of good ideas. I've read and I've 6 pondered over it a little bit. I haven't done 7 anything about it because I need to make sure all 8 attendees have read it, and that we all read that 9 meeting exactly right. 10 I think there might be a need for a little 11 extra discussion among meeting attendees, and then 12 I'll put it on the web page. I owe the web page 13 minutes from our February EWG meeting, and once 14 I've done that, then we can decide on what the next 15 step for this is. 16 But that was a really significant meeting. I 17 think it put a lot of ideas and possibilities on 18 the table. We just need to move with it, which I 19 will do. 20 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Comments, questions 21 for Judy? Teri, Operating Guidelines. 22 MS. LEFFEK: We haven't met but we will. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. I'll tell you what, we're 24 just almost catching up on schedule here. 25 Obviously, there was some new business today, but 123 1 2 it was grouped with like topics under old business, 3 so we don't have any new business. 4 What is your pleasure about the next meeting? 5 Cathy says that this location is available for 6 each of the three dates going out one, two, three; 7 how long would you like to go? 8 MS. LEFFEK: I have a question as to what 9 study items there are for us to evaluate, what's 10 the time line on some of those things? 11 MR. KEEGAN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear. 12 MS. LEFFEK: When some of the studies might be 13 finished when you can give a progress report -- 14 several things were mentioned. 15 When are those things available so we can look 16 at scheduling the meeting that will be most 17 productive over the next couple of months. 18 MR. KEEGAN: I have to go look. I can't 19 answer off the top of my head. 20 MS. JENNINGS: Well -- 21 MR. DYSART: Who has something to suggest? 22 MS. JENNINGS: I think a lot is happening. I 23 think three months is too far in between. I know 24 a lot of interagency coordination meetings are 25 going on. 124 1 2 Folks like me are not in that circle. If you 3 miss a quarterly meeting, you've missed a half a 4 year. Then you're just trapped on the website 5 trying to find out what's new. 6 This is the only time that we can meet as a 7 group, and where some of us express opinions and 8 others don't -- anyway, it's the only time the 9 group does meet together. I think three months is 10 too long between. 11 MR. DYSART: What is your suggestion? 12 MS. JENNINGS: I think the relevant question 13 is when will there be more on the table? I think 14 quarterly is inadequate for a process in this 15 stage. 16 MR. DYSART: Two months. 17 MR. SCHUBERTH: June -- June 3rd. 18 MR. DYSART: I sense a consensus, June the 19 3rd is our next date here, and anything else? 20 Thank you all for coming. See everybody back on 21 the 3rd of June. 22 23 24 25 125 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 G E O R G I A : 4 CHATHAM COUNTY: 5 I hereby certify that the foregoing 6 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 7 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 8 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 9 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 124 represent 10 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 11 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 12 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 13 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 14 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 15 anywise interested in the result of said case. 16 This, the 20th day of April, 2003. 17 18 19 ________________________ Kathleen Dore, Certified 20 Court Reporter, B-2041 21 22 23 24 25