1
1
2
3
4
STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP
5
6
MEETING
7
OF
8
JULY 10, 2007
9
10
11
12
MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE MUSEUM
13
POOLER, GEORGIA
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
1
2
3
I N D E X
4
5
6
OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3
7
8
UPDATE PRESENTATIONS
9 Model Update - Bill
Bailey ---------------- 18
10 Economic Analysis
Update - Hope Moorer ---- 18
11 Milestones Update -
Hope Moorer ----------- 21
12 Chloride Update -
Bill Bailey ------------- 46
13 Injection System
Update - Hope Moorer ----- 107
14 Operating Guidelines
Update - Will Berson - 114
15
16
COMMITTEE REPORTS ----------------------------- 137
17
18
19
CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 145
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1
MODEL UPDATE
2
(THE REPORTER: I am appearing here today
3 on behalf of my
employer, Tom Crites &
4 Associates. My
office was requested by Georgia
5 Ports Authority's
office to provide a court
6 reporter today at
9:00 a.m. at this address.
7
Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well
8 as the instructions
of my employer, I wish to
9 disclose that, other
than accepting to serve as
10 your reporter, we
have not entered into any
11 other contractual
agreement with any party
12 involved in this
case.)
13
MR. DYSART: Good morning. As we speak,
14 the agendas are
being copied, will be here
15 momentarily.
Let's call the meeting of the
16 Stakeholders
Evaluation Group to order, and the
17 first thing I'd like
to do is have
18 introductions.
19
If you would go around the room and give
20 your name and your
affiliation, that would be
21 appreciated.
Bill, why don't you start?
22
MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of
23 Engineers.
24
MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, self.
25
MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife
4
1
MODEL UPDATE
2 Service.
3
MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, Fish and
4 Wildlife Service.
5
MS. GRIESS: Jane Griess, Fish and
6 Wildlife Service.
7
MS. MOORE: Kelie Moore, Georgia
8 Department of Natural
Resources, Coastal
9 Resources Division.
10
MS. RADA: Melissa Rada, South Carolina's
11 Coastal Resources.
12
MR. JOYNER: Curtis Joyner, same division
13 of DHEC.
14
MR. KYLER: Dave Kyler, Center for a
15 Sustainable Coast.
16
MR. BARRETT: Tim Barrett, Georgia DNR.
17
MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports
18 Authority.
19
MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for
20 GPA.
21
MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia
22 Ports Authority.
23
MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant for
24 GPA.
25
MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports
5
1
MODEL UPDATE
2 Authority.
3
MS. CALVIN: Elizabeth Calvin, Georgia
4 DNR.
5
Mr. Fleming: Joel Fleming, Georgia DNR,
6 Coastal Resource
Division.
7
MR. BERSON: Will Berson, The Georgia
8 Conservancy.
9
MR. DYSART: Ben Dysart, SEG Facilitator.
10
MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of
11 Savannah.
12
MS. BOWERS: Gail Bowers, League of Women
13 Voters.
14
MR. WRIGHT: Tom Wright, Georgia citizen.
15
MS. COLLINS-RAHN: Lucille Collins-Rahn,
16 georgia Sierra Club.
17
MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia
18 Sierra.
19
MR. DYSART: Okay. Welcome. We have a
20 nice turn-out this
morning, and as the copying
21 is being done at
this moment, fortunately, Bob
22 Scanlon has printed
up a copy and has one here.
23
Let me suggest that we work on the record
24 or the transcript
from the May meeting. It has
25 been posted.
You've had the opportunity to
6
1
MODEL UPDATE
2 review it, and are
there any suggestions, or
3 changes, or
corrections, that need to be made
4 on the record?
5
Seeing none and knowing of none, we will
6 consider that the
transcript, as posted, of the
7 May meeting stands
correct and approved by this
8 body.
9
Let's kind of adapt here a little bit, and
10 we will assume that
there's not going to be a
11 lot of consternation
about wanting to change
12 the agenda, when it
gets here in a couple of
13 minutes, and the
first thing that's been
14 recommended for
presentation to the group today
15 is the model update
by the Corps. Bill, are
16 you going to
presenting that?
17
MR. BAILEY: I guess so, yes. Let's see,
18 we are still --
still running the models,
19 primarily looking
now at mitigation options and
20 the effects of those.
21
That work is -- we met with the agencies,
22 and we'll probably
talk about that in a little
23 bit, but met with
agencies last month to review
24 where we were, the
information we've got so
25 far, and they gave
us some guidance on some
7
1
MODEL UPDATE
2 other information
they would like.
3
So we are running the models to produce
4 that
information. So it's still a work in
5 progress. I'm
not sure there's much more I can
6 say.
7
MR. DYSART: Okay. Any comments or
8 questions, Judy
Jennings, please.
9
MS. JENNINGS: I heard the not much more
10 you can say part,
but is there really nothing
11 else you can say,
because this is kind of like
12 what we've been
doing all this time?
13
I mean, I had a call or two from people
14 last week who don't
come to the meetings. I'm
15 at an absolute loss
to be able to say, you
16 know, if we deepen
to 45 feet the striped bass
17 may be better, or
here's a way to make them
18 better, or they
might not be hurt.
19
You know I'm -- you know, we've had the
20 pictures. But,
you know, very specifically I'm
21 still pretty much in
the dark about impacts at
22 various depths, and
the mitigation options, and
23 what the impacts of
those mitigation options
24 would be.
25
And I'm wondering where the M to M glitch
8
1
MODEL UPDATE
2 got, and are we
totally comfortable that we
3 understand what the
salinity across the marsh
4 would look like under
all the scenarios? I
5 mean, I just got a
string of questions just
6 start there.
7
MR. BAILEY: Just to start there, okay.
8 We --
9
MS. JENNINGS: I'm clueless, I'm really
10 pretty clueless.
11
MR. BAILEY: We have reports. The impact
12 reports are in the
process of being posted to
13 the public website,
and I don't know the status
14 of that. I
know I haven't put everything up
15 there yet for Larry
to work on.
16
MR. KEEGAN: That's all I need is the last
17 few files and then
we'll have that ready to be
18 done.
19
MS. MOORER: That's what I had my card
20 ready for.
Judy, all those are being worked on
21 getting posted on
the public website. And no
22 interpretation,
essentially, of those, just the
23 reports that have
the runs, and you can look at
24 the runs,
essentially, and what they show.
25 Okay.
9
1
MODEL UPDATE
2
MR. BAILEY: The information that we
3 shared with the
agencies, and those agencies
4 talked about last
month, that's going to be up
5 on the public site
within the next week anyway.
6
MS. MOORER: Yeah. Larry's trying to
7 format them and get
them up there. They're
8 huge reports, so --
9
MR. BAILEY: So that's the information of
10 impacts, and the
effects of the mitigation
11 plans that we've
looked at so far.
12
The agencies gave us suggestions of
13 another -- either
other ways to look at the
14 data that they want
to see it, or other what I
15 would consider to be
tweaks in the models,
16 other tweaks in
flows and things that we --
17 that was suggested
that we look at.
18
It may help, it may not, but we can run
19 it through the model
and see. I don't know if
20 that helps some of
your questions you have.
21 I'll try and address
all of them.
22
MS. JENNINGS: Has there been any changes
23 to this schedule, in
terms of the model runs?
24
MR. BAILEY: We're still trying to produce
25 them as fast as we
can. They always take
10
1
MODEL UPDATE
2 longer than we
want. So I'm not sure, in that
3 sense, there's been a
change.
4
We're trying to produce, trying to get to
5 the end as soon as we
can, but doing all the
6 work we need to do --
doesn't help a whole lot.
7
You asked about M to M. I think, I guess
8 as far as I'm
concerned, that decision has been
9 made, and we're --
we're not using the M to M
10 to look at
mitigation plans that reroute flows,
11 because the M to M
just didn't handle that
12 well.
13
MS. JENNINGS: Okay. Isn't that a change
14 from the answer we
had last meeting?
15
MR. BAILEY: I don't think so.
16
MS. JENNINGS: I thought you decided last
17 time, that even
though that that didn't -- that
18 there was a glitch
that you were going ahead to
19 use it. The
glitch wasn't big enough to stop
20 it.
21
MR. BAILEY: We said we'd look at the M to
22 M, what the M to M
predicted without
23 mitigation, and use
that, and then compare it
24 to what he
hydrodynamic model predicted without
25 mitigation.
But once you got into looking at
11
1
MODEL UPDATE
2 mitigation things,
the M to M doesn't work
3 well.
4
MR. DYSART: Do you have any follow-ups,
5 Judy?
6
MS. JENNINGS: No. I think I might have a
7 lot of questions, if
I had, you know, access to
8 some give and take,
after looking at the impact
9 reports.
10
MR. BAILEY: Okay.
11
MR. DYSART: Hope.
12
MS. MOORER: I also think, Judy, on the
13 website they have
posted those scenarios of
14 mitigation
plans. Those are on there. Look at
15 those too, and all
these reports that Bill is
16 having posted up
there. That will probably
17 help you in knowing
what to ask Bill too, you
18 know, because it's a
lot of data that we're
19 trying to get out
there.
20
The agencies wanted to see it first, and
21 then we're trying to
get it out there for the
22 public now.
You also asked about the schedule
23 of things that
changed. As you know, at the
24 interim SEG meeting
--
25
MS. JENNINGS: But I was thinking that
12
1
MODEL UPDATE
2 question was very
specifically aimed at impact,
3 input feedback on the
model runs about impact.
4
MS. MOORER: Right.
5
MR. DYSART: Were you through, Hope?
6
MS. MOORER: Yes.
7
MR. DYSART: I thought you got right in
8 the middle of a
sentence.
9
MS. MOORER: I was. That's okay.
10
MR. DYSART: Okay. I like periods at the
11 end. Other
questions, comments about -- John
12 Robinette.
13
MR. ROBINETTE: Yeah. Judy you were
14 asking about
schedule changes. There has been
15 one schedule
change. The coordination act
16 report has been --
the deadline has been moved
17 up from January to
November.
18
So our comments will -- that period has
19 been shortened on
that. I don't know if DNR is
20 aware of that, but
we'll have to get it --
21
MS. JENNINGS: What -- how much of a
22 change was that,
John?
23
MR. ROBINETTE: What was it, Ed, three
24 months?
25
MR. EUDALY: About three months.
13
1
MODEL UPDATE
2
MR. FLEMING: That's the --
3
MR. DYSART: Go ahead.
4
MR. FLEMING: That's the comments on the
5 mitigation?
6
MR. ROBINETTE: Correct.
7
MR. FLEMING: Okay.
8
MR. DYSART: Judy.
9
MS. JENNINGS: Okay. I'm just trying to
10 get a time line
here. I'm sorry, this might
11 have been on the
front page of the newspaper.
12 I apologize for
wasting peoples' time, but the
13 agency meeting you
mentioned, when was that?
14 You said agency
guidance, when did you -- how
15 much give and take
is there?
16
MR. BAILEY: The 20th and 21st of June.
17
MS. JENNINGS: Of June. Okay. Why was
18 there -- I mean, I
don't know. I mean, I just
19 know the agencies
are pretty busy and not
20 enough people ever
for all they might want to
21 do. Was there
a reason for that, that change?
22
MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure.
23
MS. JENNINGS: Well, one of the reasons
24 that I ask about the
impact reports is I think
25 they're important to
the SEG, because I'm not
14
1
MODEL UPDATE
2 in that room, but in
this room the experts are
3 here.
4
You know, I'm just curious. Joel, you
5 asked about that
change. You know, do you feel
6 -- do you feel, I
mean, do the agencies feel
7 comfortable with this
time frame for feedback?
8
MS. MOORER: Before you go on, the
9 schedule changes, to
answer one question.
10 We're done, after
following IPR, and I had a
11 part on here to talk
about schedule changes,
12 the milestone
changes.
13
The in-progress review, which will be
14 reported on in the
meeting, it's on the agenda,
15 the memorandum for
record, which is the
16 official minutes of
the meeting have not been
17 completed yet.
18
Based on that it will change -- make
19 changes to our
schedule because of at what
20 point the Corps
wants to see the document, and
21 how much the review
the document has to go
22 through, before it's
released to the public.
23
So we're trying to work the schedule
24 according to that
new memorandum for record
25 that will coming out
finalized.
15
1
MODEL UPDATE
2
In addition to that, trying to keep the
3 schedule in a time
frame as good as we can to
4 meet what we had
previously. Because of the
5 changes of sequence,
of what the Corps was
6 looking for in their
process, having the ASB
7 when the report was
90% complete instead of
8 when the report was
50% complete, it adds a lot
9 of time into the
schedule.
10
It could add reviews in front of that,
11 reviews after that,
all for process. So the
12 schedule is not
finalized. It's a work in
13 progress.
14
And the schedule that came out was one for
15 the PDT, the project
delivery team, to review
16 to see if we could
meet that schedule. So we
17 are still working on
the schedule.
18
And if the agencies cannot meet it, I mean
19 this is a
goal. This is something we're trying
20 to do. If the
agencies have a problem and
21 cannot meet it,
that's why that schedule was
22 put out there for
discussion.
23
We're just trying to be as efficient as we
24 can with the
schedule, while meeting all the
25 requirements that we
have to meet from the
16
1
MODEL UPDATE
2 Corps, from the
agencies, and from everyone
3 else.
4
So no it's not final. It's not some new
5 big change. If
you look at the previous
6 schedule, it's about
the same one. After the
7 ITR pushed it out an
additional year, we're
8 looking at ways to
manage the Corps process,
9 and push it back to
where it was previously,
10 the index.
11
MS. JENNINGS: The IPR stands for what
12 exactly?
13
MS. MOORER: In-progress review.
14
MR. DYSART: Ed.
15
MS. JENNINGS: I though independent peer
16 review --
in-progress review.
17
MR. EUDALY: Yeah, we'll do the best we
18 can to meet the
requested schedule. But, you
19 know, a lot of that
is contingent on completing
20 the model runs.
21
I think the current schedules shows all
22 the mitigation runs
being completed by late
23 July, early August,
somewhere in that time
24 frame.
25
It's going to be a tight schedule, and
17
1
MODEL UPDATE
2 we're just going to
do the best we can. I
3 mean, we've been
involved in this for a long
4 time which
helps. You know, we do have to
5 coordinate with the
states, our reports, before
6 we give it to the
Corps, so that will give us
7 another little
constraint there to deal with.
8
But it has been moved up some. We're
9 going to do the best
we can to meet it. As I
10 said, the main
factor is getting the
11 information we need
in time. If that -- if
12 that becomes
delayed, then our report becomes
13 delayed too.
14
Until we see that, it's hard to know
15 exactly what we're
dealing with. We've seen
16 some of it but not
all of it. But I will, you
17 know, I acknowledge
the schedule changes
18 frequently both
directions. So right now it's
19 a moving target, I
guess you would say.
20
MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Further
21 comments?
Okay. You've had an opportunity now
22 to look at the
agenda.
23
If there's anything that you wish to
24 change or to move
around in the schedule, or to
25 add, or what not;
let's discuss that now.
18
1
ECONOMICS ANALYSIS UPDATE
2
Seeing no request to do so, we'll consider
3 that the agenda, as
now circulated, is
4 acceptable for
conduct of the meeting today and
5 we'll move on.
6
Next economic and analysis of -- economic
7 analysis
update. Bill Bailey.
8
MR. BAILEY: Except for that, there's no
9 one here, from the
Corps, that can give an
10 economics analysis
update.
11
MR. DYSART: Okay. So we'll just move
12 that forward to the
next meeting. Okay. Hope.
13
MS. MOORER: I saw Alan late yesterday
14 afternoon. He
was going to try to get here.
15 He's having some
problems with the air
16 conditioning
equipment in his house.
17 Obviously, he didn't
make it, so he would have
18 been the one to have
gotten the update from the
19 Mobile
District. So I'm sorry about that, but
20 he will be the one
to provide that.
21
Of course, Mobile will be here when --
22 they're still in
data collection mode. We just
23 finished another
year's analysis of data
24 collection and going
to send that to them. So
25 there's one more
year to go.
19
1
ECONOMICS ANALYSIS UPDATE
2
They are in the process of inputting data
3 into the model
still. So -- and I can mention
4 a little bit about
the passing lanes. This is
5 another -- this is
another requirement, out of
6 that in-progress
review, and something that
7 could impact the
schedule depending on how long
8 it takes to assemble
the data for this model.
9
What it is is in looking at areas that --
10 these aren't really
so much passing lanes
11 because passing
lanes are really much longer --
12 they're like meeting
areas.
13
The channel right now, a post-Panamax
14 vessel and a Panamax
vessel can pass, meet, and
15 get by each
other. But two post-Panamax
16 vessels cannot pass.
17
And so they were evaluating areas, within
18 the channel, the
pilots requested that areas be
19 evaluated where two
post-Panamax vessels could
20 pass. That
would -- additionally, the Corps
21 has to look at
incremental justification,
22 whether the cost of
those meeting areas is
23 justified by the
benefits that you gain from
24 them.
25
And so that's what this analysis is about.
20
1
ECONOMICS ANALYSIS UPDATE
2 Morgan, correct me if
I'm not explaining it
3 properly, because
Morgan knows much more than I
4 do. But that's
what the analysis is about.
5
The Mobile district right now is --
6 there's one already
included in the design,
7 that they're having
to analyze, and there's one
8 other area the pilots
requested looking at
9 close to the turning
basin as well.
10
And they're having to -- they use a model
11 called
Harbor-Sim. And they build into this
12 model, the Corps
does, the entire harbor,
13 length across,
docks, how a boat -- what kind
14 of traffic comes to
each dock, and the number
15 of ships that call
on the port.
16
It takes a while to input this data in.
17 That's what the
Mobile District is working on
18 now, inputting this
data for this model and
19 collecting data for
this model.
20
Then they will do an analysis to see if
21 that -- if the
passing lane is justified on an
22 economic standpoint.
23
MR. DYSART: Any questions on Hope's
24 update? John.
25
MR. ROBINETTE: Yes. Did you say they had
21
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 Another year --
they're going to gather another
3 year's worth of data
for the economic analysis?
4
MS. MOORER: No. We've been working on
5 that update for a
while. The economic analysis
6 ended, that was
contracted to GEC, the company
7 that did the economic
ended in 2003. Since
8 this report, it's
taken a lot longer than 2003
9 to complete.
The Corps has to have recent data
10 into the economics.
11
With the Panama Canal changes, that's
12 being updated into
it as well. So Cathy Vaughn
13 and myself have been
gathering ship movements,
14 number of ships
movements, what size ships,
15 where they're going
to, putting that into a
16 database to send to
the Corps to put into the
17 benefits, from the
pilot's part. So --
18
MR. DYSART: Hope, why don't you just
19 continue and let's
move on to the schedule
20 milestone updates.
21
MS. MOORER: Okay. I've kind of touched
22 on that. As I
said, the in-progress review --
23 oh, I'm sorry.
24
MR. DYSART: Judy had her card up.
25
MS. JENNINGS: And I want to hear Hope's
22
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 report. Looking
at the agenda, I'm not sure I
3 see any other place
to ask this question.
4
But I think, I guess it does get plugged
5 into the economics
somewhere. Has the Corps
6 made a decision about
how it intends to deal
7 with the Jasper port
proposal?
8
I mean, I realize it probably doesn't fit.
9 I guess it's got to
be in economics somewhere.
10 I know the part we
were waiting on, we were
11 waiting on
Washington to make a decision on
12 that.
13
MR. BAILEY: Yeah. What's your guess on
14 how well that worked
out?
15
MS. JENNINGS: Bet you haven't heard from
16 Washington yet.
17
MR. BAILEY: I think we can talk about it
18 in about new
business in-progress review,
19 because we did talk
about it during that
20 meeting.
21
MS. JENNINGS: Okay. That's a good place.
22
MR. DYSART: Hope.
23
MS. MOORER: Schedule milestones?
24
MR. DYSART: Please.
25
MS. MOORER: In-progress review that
23
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 Bill's talking about,
and what we discussed
3 at the interim SEG
meeting a little bit is that
4 a lot of directives
that were coming out of
5 that meeting from the
Corps' headquarters,
6 according to new
policy at headquarters or
7 leadership opinion,
that certain things had to
8 be done, how we
approach the Jasper terminal.
9
The passing lane analysis has to be done.
10 At the alternative
formation briefing, which is
11 another step you
have to go through before you
12 release your report,
they wanted to see it at
13 a certain percent
complete, instead of at an
14 earlier stage in the
whole report process.
15
And so all of these things, we're waiting
16 on a final
memorandum for record, or the final
17 approved minutes of
that meeting for the
18 guidance, to
determine okay, how does this
19 impact the schedule.
20
And that's what we've been working around
21 with the schedule
trying to work with it,
22 guessing what will
be in those final minutes,
23 trying to determine
how it impacts the
24 schedule, where we
should add time, where we
25 should try and make
up time.
24
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2
Essentially so right now with the
3 milestones, we should
have that hopefully -- we
4 were supposed to have
that a couple of weeks
5 ago, the final
minuets, but we should have
6 those minutes soon.
7
We'll update the milestones, post a pdf
8 version of the
updated schedule according to
9 those final
minutes. If you would like, we can
10 even send an e-mail
out so that everybody knows
11 it has been
posted. That's easy enough. We
12 can do that so you
know to go look for it.
13
MR. DYSART: Steve.
14
MR. WILLIS: I don't know if this has been
15 addressed some other
time, but the LNG
16 development plans,
my understanding is that,
17 you know, the
traffic not only will potentially
18 be larger ships,
with the new turning basin
19 area, lots more
activity, but the ships could
20 be like daily
instead of like once or twice a
21 week.
22
And if that happens, considering the
23 special handling
that LNG ships require, it
24 seems that's like
going to have a huge impact
25 on the economic
analysis, and traffic analysis,
25
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 everything.
3
It just seems like that -- that would be
4 like required
overhaul of all the work that's
5 been done.
6
MS. MOORER: Can I answer that, Ben?
7
MR. DYSART: Sure.
8
MS. MOORER: Part of the updates, as I
9 said with the
economics being completed,
10 contracted much
earlier than 2003 and completed
11 in 2003, most of the
GEC work on fleet forecast
12 and things like
that, commodities forecast and
13 things like that, a
lot has happened since that
14 time just in the
world of shipping and in the
15 industry.
16
So that's one of the things in Savannah
17 that will impact
traffic and cargo. And so the
18 Corps hired, and we
reported on this before, I
19 think, the Corps
hired the New England District
20 to do the LNG
analysis, how that impacts the
21 economics.
22
And so the New England District has done
23 the update of that,
the analysis of that. They
24 have done the
analysis, I think, the New
25 England District on
Boston Harbor too. That's
26
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 why they were
selected to do the analysis.
3
MR. WILLIS: They're doing it?
4
MS. MOORER: Uh-huh. That would be part
5 of economics, an
update kind of on the Panama
6 Canal, because the
Panama Canal expansion vote
7 took place in October.
8
They approved the expansion of the canal
9 to handle different
classes, larger classes of
10 ships. That
would impact the East Coast trade
11 as well, which does
impact our economic
12 analysis.
13
That had been completed, so the Mobile
14 District is
updating, looking at that, how does
15 that impact the East
Coast trade.
16
But you're right. A lot of economics had
17 to be updated over
the past year, two years.
18
MR. WILLIS: Seems like the traffic impact
19 would be extremely
significant.
20
MS. MOORER: It impacts traffic, but it
21 also -- the way it
impacts traffic now is that
22 there's a very small
window at which the LNG
23 vessels can travel.
24
So with tidal limits and restrictions on
25 the vessels, if you
have lesser tidal
27
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 restrictions on
vessels, you have more times at
3 which other ships can
travel. So there are
4 impacts, but they're
-- go down bad when you
5 have more vessels
traveling -- it can be bad.
6
If you can get a deep channel, then you
7 have more times at
which other ships can
8 travel.
9
MR. DYSART: Judy.
10
MS. JENNINGS: This is a snicklet.
11 Actually, I was
listening to CNN one day last
12 week, and Anderson
Cooper did a show on LNG.
13 The Coast Guard is
not here today, are they --
14 no, but they
featured Commander Jim McDonald.
15 Oh, I got so
excited, when I knew they were
16 going to interview
the Corps -- that's got to
17 be Jim
McDonald. He's the captain of the port
18 in Boston now.
So they interviewed him rather
19 extensively about
LNG in Boston.
20
Anyway, Commander James McDonald, and I'm
21 going that's Jim,
that's Jim. Boston clearly
22 is a somewhat
different situation than
23 Savannah. It's
so exciting to see our old
24 friend Jim on CNN --
just a snicklet.
25
MR. DYSART: Did you have further
28
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 information on the
update, so forth, Hope?
3
MS. MOORER: No. I think if anybody has
4 any questions, what
we can do, since it's still
5 such in flux,
hopefully it still looks like we
6 could get a draft
report out after the first of
7 the year, depending,
of course, on when the
8 model runs and
analysis are complete.
9
It looks likes, hopefully, we could do
10 that. That's
the goal. And then on from there
11 for signatures and
such, so --
12
MR. DYSART: Joel.
13
MR. FLEMING: Just for clarification, I
14 may have heard
incorrectly. Did you say
15 they're going to do
an alternative analysis
16 again.
17
MS. MOORER: No. It's called -- I'll let
18 Morgan talk about it
-- it's called an
19 alternative
formulation briefing. It's a step
20 in the Corps process
of when you are writing,
21 and this is my
interpretation. I'll let Morgan
22 finish it.
23
When you are writing the report, it's to
24 get the blessing of
Corps' headquarters that
25 you have everything,
in your draft report,
29
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 before you release it
to the public.
3
MR. REES: That's a good bottom line.
4 It's to make sure
that you've taken a hard look
5 at each of the
reasonably potential
6 alternatives to your
plan.
7
MR. FLEMING: We go back to the report
8 that was issued
several years ago, the
9 alternatives --
10
MR. REES: Project alternatives --
11
MS. MOORER: That would be --
12
MR. FLEMING: Those things, obviously,
13 those figures have,
obviously, changed to a
14 great extent.
15
MR. REES: They just want to be sure you
16 don't put out a
report, and somebody says,
17 well, you didn't
look at this. This could work
18 as well. So
it's, essentially, a headquarters'
19 blessing you have
looked at everything. Don't
20 ask me why they call
it an alternative
21 formation briefing.
22
MR. FLEMING: Okay.
23
MR. REES: That term came along after I
24 left the
organization, so I don't know why that
25 term.
30
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2
MR. FLEMING: The only reason I ask is
3 going back to the
alternatives report, those
4 mitigation costs have
dramatically increased by
5 10 fold, in some
areas. I didn't know if those
6 are going to be
reevaluated or not.
7
I mean, I think for striped bass, at one
8 point in time, that
cost was extremely low in
9 some of the
alternative -- in that alternative
10 report when you
looked at mitigation cost,
11 dredging at certain
depths, to the plan report
12 versus some of the
others.
13
And that's -- I know we were talking about
14 Jasper County port
and those types of things.
15 Those really weren't
that far off. With an
16 increase in
mitigation costs, they certainly
17 could make a
difference in the overall
18 alternative report.
19
MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure -- we can go
20 back and look at
those again.
21
MR. DYSART: Will Berson.
22
MR. BERSON: I've been sitting here
23 thinking about the
dumbest question I could
24 possibly ask today
and I've come up with one.
25 There may be
somebody else who wants to know
31
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 the answer too, so --
3
MR. DYSART: We will withhold judgment
4 until the end.
5
MR. BERSON: When in all of this is it
6 decided, and when
will we know; are we talking
7 44, 46, 48, because
all the mitigation stuff
8 flows out of that
decision. And I've never
9 really been clear
when that happens.
10
MR. BAILEY: I -- my answer is the Corps
11 makes that decision
when the last person at the
12 Corps signs his name
on the document. That's
13 -- up until then,
people are -- you're
14 accepting different
peoples' opinions.
15
MR. BERSON: So It's not until the DEIS is
16 released that we'll
know what the depth is of
17 the project?
18
MR. BAILEY: The draft EIS will contain an
19 evaluation of all
the depths. There will be
20 mitigation plans for
all the depths, each of
21 the depths.
22
MR. BERSON: But there won't be any
23 discussion about
your choice until that
24 document is
released; we'll have to go get it
25 and read it?
32
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2
MR. BAILEY: We're talking now, we've been
3 talking for years.
4
MR. BERSON: I know we have. I have no
5 idea when --
6
MS. MOORER: It's hard to follow in the
7 schedule too, because
you have mitigation plan
8 development on one,
you have plan formation,
9 which is the
economics, and the comparison of
10 the depth and all.
11
It's looking like about October on this
12 schedule. This
will give some idea, like
13 mitigation plan
finished in August. The NED
14 plan selection two
months later in October.
15 Then it's got -- and
then there's a public
16 meeting between like
where the mitigation plan
17 is drafted,
essentially, when it is kind of
18 coming down to what
the mitigation plans looks
19 like going to be.
20
It's about that same time that there will
21 be a public meeting
to show impacts and
22 mitigation.
That's been in the schedule.
23 okay. And then
the NED plan selection is
24 around that time as
well, because the economics
25 feeds into that too.
33
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2
Unfortunately, what we see with the
3 schedule is if
anything pushes out that NED
4 plan selection pushes
out, they all feed into
5 that. That will
be done prior -- when the
6 draft comes out, it
will all be in there.
7
MR. BERSON: Okay. So then when you do
8 the public meeting,
it will be sort of Chinese
9 menu, under 44, under
no project this, 44 is
10 this, 46 is this,
and 48 is that, but no
11 choices will be
indicated.
12
MR. BAILEY: There will be a tentatively
13 recommended plan.
14
MR. BERSON: At the public meeting?
15
MR. BAILEY: In the draft, the draft EIS.
16
MR. BERSON: If the draft isn't coming out
17 until the first of
the year, and the public
18 meetings are before
that --
19
MR. BAILEY: There is -- that is --
20 there's a public
meeting. There's a normal
21 public meeting
that's held during the period of
22 review of the draft
document.
23
MR. BERSON: Yes.
24
MR. BAILEY: For this project, we're
25 having another
public meeting before the draft
34
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 document. At
that point I'm not sure if we'll
3 -- how well things
will come together, but
4 we'll have the
different plans, and the impacts
5 for each plan,
figured out and be able to say
6 what they are.
7
We may not have the economics, and the
8 costs, the financial
costs figured out yet. I
9 don't know. I
don't know if we are going to
10 have a tentatively
recommended plan at that
11 first public meeting.
12
MS. MOORER: From what I understood, that
13 was the plan with
Mobile to put it so there was
14 still time for input
into mitigation, and what
15 impact runs were
showing. So before it went
16 into selection,
there was going to be a meeting
17 to show what impacts
at different depth, and
18 mitigation plans at
different depths, before
19 you went into final
plan selection, to provide
20 an opportunity for
does anybody see anything
21 else, anything wrong
with it.
22
MR. BERSON: Somehow that's kind of -- I
23 mean, I would have
expected to have known what
24 the project was,
prior to January, and in a
25 sense we won't.
35
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2
MS. MOORER: I -- I don't know.
3
MR. BERSON: See, I told you it was a dumb
4 question.
5
MR. DYSART: Morgan.
6
MR. REES: This goes back to just a brief
7 comment back to
Joel's question earlier about
8 the changes in
mitigation costs and all. I
9 hope everybody
realizes that what is being
10 worked on is a GRR,
general reevaluation report
11 which means
everything in the previous reports
12 is being reviewed,
changed as needed, and
13 there's nothing in
the old report that's being
14 adopted, unless it's
been scrutinized and said
15 yes, this still
applies.
16
If it doesn't apply, like in the economics
17 back to square one
and all that sort of thing.
18 So don't be
influenced by the old report,
19 because it doesn't
apply any longer, unless
20 there was a
conscious decision made yes, this
21 is still good
information. Like a lot of the
22 technical boring
data, all that stuff, it still
23 applies, but anyway,
clarify that.
24
MR. DYSART: Thank you. Judy.
25
MS. JENNINGS: Well, if -- if that was the
36
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 dumbest question, I
think I was asking it to
3 start with and just
didn't phrase it as well
4 you did.
5
It's part of what I'm asking, is that all
6 this time I thought
part of what we were doing
7 was getting us to a
point where we knew what
8 the impacts were.
9
Like for instance, I'm sorry, Joel just
10 walked out of the
room, but I was going to pick
11 on striped bass just
for instance, what are the
12 impacts on striped
bass at any given depth,
13 when would we know
that?
14
At interagency meetings, I'm assuming Joel
15 has adequate
opportunity to comment. We had a
16 huge laundry list of
issues. You know, I'm
17 still trying to get
at -- and I guess that kind
18 of goes back to
Operating Guidelines issues,
19 and one of the roles
of the SEG was to -- one
20 of actions of the
SEG was to have a role in the
21 mitigation plan.
22
You know, impacts, impacts on all these
23 various biological
issues -- when, I mean,
24 we've already had
July the 4th and we're
25 looking at the
draft, you know, in less than
37
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 six months.
How's all that going to get
3 crammed into that
time or is it not?
4
MR. DYSART: Hope.
5
MS. MOORER: Again, the reports are going
6 to be posted, so you
will be able to see what
7 the impacts are very
soon, according to the
8 model runs, just
according to model runs. At
9 least you can call up
people, Joel, what do you
10 think about
this. John, you know, I don't
11 understand this
run. Bill Bailey, why did we
12 look at this.
13
You'll also have an opportunity to, at
14 that public meeting,
understand why, how you
15 got to this depth
and this mitigation plan,
16 this depth and this
mitigation plan. When the
17 economics feed into
that, that's how -- that's
18 when the final depth
is chosen.
19
We don't know whether economics will be
20 done at that
point. I think Mobile will be
21 making those calls
as to the timing, when the
22 meetings will
happen, and things like that.
23
I think it's very good they're going to
24 hold that meeting,
with the impacts and the
25 mitigation, because
that's not a normal public
38
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 meeting that they
hold. It's after the draft
3 report is completed,
done.
4
And I thought it was a good, cooperative
5 gesture on Mobile and
the Corps to try to help
6 us get to that
mitigation meeting. And I
7 understand that SEG
was here to work on that
8 and they need to do
that, but it's another
9 opportunity for input
from the SEG.
10
After all the analyses have been done, and
11 it's been determined
what the impacts are, and
12 what the mitigation
plan would be for each
13 depth. The
first thing, the first question you
14 had were impacts,
when will we see them.
15 Hopefully, as soon
as Larry can get it together
16 and get it posted.
17
MR. KEEGAN: If I get the final files, it
18 will be up by Friday.
19
MR. DYSART: Okay. David.
20
MR. KYLER: I can't let Will throw down
21 that gauntlet
without responding, regarding the
22 stupidest question,
and I'm not sure after what
23 Judy said, the best
articulated stupidest
24 question or most
poorly worded.
25
But you have to excuse me. I'm not sure
39
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 whether this is
something I should know and
3 forgot, or having
missed three meetings it says
4 here, have missed
altogether prior to this one,
5 regarding mitigation,
obviously salinity is a
6 major part of what is
the concern regarding
7 this project.
8
I am wondering if in the identification of
9 mitigation
alternatives, the restoration of the
10 wetlands functions,
in the lower Savannah
11 River landscape, has
been discussed as a way of
12 offsetting both
drought and higher salinity
13 caused by the
project? Is that way beyond
14 mitigation
alternatives or is it part of the
15 menu?
16
MR. DYSART: Does anyone have a response
17 on that?
18
MR. BAILEY: I guess I'm not sure exactly
19 what you mean.
20
MR. KYLER: We are converted to believe,
21 based on information
we've been assessing now
22 since the Center was
founded 10 years ago,
23 based some analysis
of major out-takes that
24 were proposed at the
time, 1997, and historic
25 data leading up to
that, since a lot of
40
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 ditching and draining
of the forested areas of
3 the watersheds was
done some 30 years ago,
4 we've drastically
compromised the ability of
5 the landscape to
retain and slowly release
6 freshwater into the
river system.
7
So to the extent that that previous
8 capacity could be
restored by allowing ditches
9 to fill in on their
own, or actually go back
10 and fill them to
allow to wetlands to be
11 restored, that seems
to me to be both an
12 environmentally and
economical way of
13 offsetting
increasing salinity, which is an
14 issue both because
of drought, as we all know,
15 and an issue because
of this project.
16
MR. BAILEY: Okay. I think what this
17 project is looking
at is first defining the
18 impacts, and then
trying to mitigate for
19 impacts, make those
impacts go away.
20
MR. KYLER: Yeah.
21
MR. BAILEY: And the impacts that we are
22 seeing, are expected
and are seeing, are
23 impacts to tidal
freshwater wetlands, which are
24 I think are
different. I think what you're
25 talking about is
impacts to wetlands more in
41
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 upland areas, wetland
impacts.
3
MR. KYLER: Within the watershed that flow
4 downstream.
5
MR. BAILEY: I think this project, since
6 we don't -- don't see
this project as impacting
7 those anymore, I
guess we're not pursuing
8 restoring those types
of wetlands.
9
MR. KYLER: Of course the point is not
10 that this project is
impacting them, but they
11 are impacting
factors of interest to this
12 project.
13
They could be, it seems to me at least, a
14 potentially rich
area of exploration for
15 increasing the
freshwater flow, and offsetting
16 the effects of
drought and higher salinity
17 caused by this
project in the lower Savannah
18 River.
19
MR. BAILEY: Yes, potentially, but it's
20 not.
21
MR. KYLER: That's not on the table right
22 now?
23
MR. BAILEY: That's not what our models
24 are showing.
25
MR. KYLER: But your models wouldn't, as
42
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 far as I understand
it, the construction of the
3 models, the models
would not be built with data
4 prior to these
landscape alterations being done
5 to reflect the
effects of those, and therefore
6 the models wouldn't
show what would happen if
7 the landscape
alterations were restored.
8
MR. BAILEY: What I was thinking about
9 when I said that was,
in the models, we are
10 looking at different
river flows, droughts,
11 average, high
flows. So when we have looked at
12 high river flows,
which I guess is where I was
13 making the link to
that, that would be closer
14 to what your
envisioning of more -- more water
15 coming off, coming
off later.
16
What we've got so far is more water coming
17 down the
river. It doesn't produce less
18 impacts for this
project.
19
MR. KYLER: But not that this necessarily
20 modifies the
relevance of that statement you
21 just made, I guess
everyone knows the effect --
22 the hydrograph of
the landscape produced by
23 alterations to the
landscape doesn't change
24 average flow.
25
It changes the peaks and the valleys and
43
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 the duration of a
flow. And that is not
3 necessarily the same
thing. So, in other
4 words, average flows
is the same under given
5 levels of
precipitation versus drought, as they
6 were prior to the
landscape alterations, the
7 difference is water
leaves the landscape much
8 quicker and is not
slowly released after the
9 precipitation falls
as it used to be.
10
So the dry periods are dryer, the wet
11 periods have higher
flow, average is the same
12 compared to what
they used to be.
13
MR. DYSART: Steve.
14
MR. WILLIS: My question is very much in
15 line with
that. That is, there's two
16 proposals.
17
Very likely one or both of them will
18 happen, and one is
inner basin transfer where
19 Atlanta's insatiable
need for water is going to
20 be drawing off
water, probably in the future
21 from the Savannah
River impoundments.
22
The other thing is the Plant Vogel
23 expansion. My
understanding is that could
24 reduce the flow,
depending on the flow at any
25 given time by as
much as half, half of the flow
44
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 of the Savannah River.
3
Because if that nuclear reactor is built,
4 a huge amount of
water is taken out and lost
5 through evaporation,
which would be -- taken
6 together, those two
activities could reduce the
7 flow of the river
dramatically, especially in
8 periods of
drought. I just wonder if both or
9 either of those are
being considered in the
10 model?
11
MR. DYSART: Comments from any modelers?
12
MR. BAILEY: I think short answer is no,
13 they're not
specifically being looked at, at a
14 given -- Plant
Vogel, withdrawals from there
15 have not been
factored in. We don't know how
16 much -- how much
they want, when it may go
17 online, if it would
be approved, lots of
18 unknowns.
19
The longer answer is, you know, we are
20 looking at different
amounts of river flow. So
21 we are looking at
drought flows, so we can see
22 the effects of
that. I guess what that -- if
23 more water was
removed from the river, either
24 inner basin transfer
or another specific
25 project like Vogel,
you may approach those
45
1
MILESTONES UPDATE
2 drought flows more
often.
3
So that -- but the modeling should tell
4 us
what those effects are, what we wouldn't
5
know is how frequent. In the future, they may
6
happen more frequently.
7
MR. WILLIS: I guess from a modeling point
8 of view, if those
things happen, we would have
9 to consider, you
know, a frequent or possibly
10 almost constant
drought situation. You have to
11 consider what that
would do to the lower
12 Savannah River basin.
13
MR. DYSART: Judy.
14
MS. JENNINGS: Just to follow-up with the
15 question,
Bill. You said more water coming
16 down the river
doesn't change the salinity from
17 this project.
Is that something we know or
18 something the
modelers have said or --
19
MR. BAILEY: It doesn't change the
20 impacts.
That's what the model results are
21 showing us.
22
MS. JENNINGS: So the models?
23
MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.
24
MR. DYSART: Further questions, comments?
25 Okay, Bill next is
the chloride report.
46
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2
MR. BAILEY: Okay. Today you'll get to
3 see the presentation
that you got spared from
4 seeing last
time. I want to tell you about
5 what we've got
chloride modeling and chloride
6 impacts. Thank
you.
7
We have produced -- we've got two reports
8 now. We have a
model development report and a
9 kind of an impact
report. Those will be --
10 those will be
available soon also.
11
Background issues, primarily around the
12 City of Savannah's
municipal industrial water
13 intake, the city
takes water from there and
14 supplies industries
-- supplies the industries.
15
Those industries run it through their
16 boilers and those
boilers can be affected by
17 the level of
chlorides. The general threshold
18 is around 12
milligrams per liter. I guess the
19 perspective of
seawater is in the range of
20 32,000, 35,000.
21
So 12 is a much smaller number in
22 seawater. On
the bottom, the drinking water
23 standard is about
250, so this is not a
24 drinking water
contamination issue.
25
It is -- it's an issue for industrial use
47
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 of the water.
With that threshold, that's kind
3 of -- that's not a
hard and fast number, that's
4 kind of guidance
number, we're already -- the
5 city's already at
that, over that number, a
6 good amount of time,
between 50, 90% of the
7 time.
8
MR. BERSON: Is that the city's number, 12
9 milligrams per liter
is the city is standard?
10
MR. BAILEY: Yeah, between the city's and
11 the
industries. It's kind of a guidance. This
12 is where it is, just
upstream from Highway 95.
13 If you are taking a
boat, you go under the
14 bridge, take your
first left is Abercorn Creek.
15
Up there a little ways the city has a
16 pumping
station. The city takes water out up
17 there. And the
concern is that as the harbor
18 is deepened, the
salt moves further up in the
19 estuary, and then
the salt -- the concern is
20 salt would get to
this intake. Basic, basic
21 issue.
22
The city raised this issue during Tier I.
23 GPA included some
money, in the recommended
24 project at that
time, to relocate the city's
25 water intake further
upstream.
48
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2
In Tier II, GPA collected data at the
3 intake and around
there for chlorides. The
4 normal equipment that
you measure salinity
5 with won't give you
-- doesn't give you good
6 results for
chlorides, because they're at such
7 different
levels. Measuring, again, the
8 salinity in ocean
waters, 32,000. An
9 instrument that will
measure those levels
10 doesn't do well
measuring single digits, the
11 10, 10 or 12.
12
The instruments don't measure that full
13 range well. So
you have to have a second set
14 of instruments out
there to measure the low end
15 of the spectrum.
16
We have taken the hydrodynamic model, the
17 agencies approved,
adapted that to predict
18 chloride levels at
the city's intake. We have
19 a report, modeling
report dated last November
20 for how they -- how
we did that.
21
The contractor used the city's data, city
22 measures chlorides
in the water that they pull
23 in. They
measure that once a day everyday. So
24 we took the city's
data, took the data from the
25 USGS gauges, data
from the 1999 sampling, and
49
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 also other data from
further upriver.
3
So they used everything they could put
4 their hands on, which
was like a modeler never
5 has enough, but they
used a lot of different
6 sources.
7
So these are the some of the results. I'm
8 sure it's all very
clear, and since it's so
9 clear I'll let Judy
explain it all.
10
MS. JENNINGS: I deserved that. I
11 deserved that.
12
MR. BAILEY: We'll see here we've got
13 chloride levels on
this side ranking from zero
14 up to 40
something. We've got a line here, and
15 that's the 12, the
threshold. We've got two
16 lines up here.
This is the chloride level at
17 the I95 bridge, and
lower is the chloride level
18 at the city's intake.
19
So, now this side is river flow, and that
20 one starts at the
top and comes down. So as
21 here, as it comes
down here, this is more water
22 coming down the
river as this comes down.
23
So this is -- these are all measurements,
24 okay, no
modeling. These are the measurements.
25 These are data from
the field. So just one of
50
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 the things to look
at, as the river flow
3 increases, comes
down, as the river flow
4 increases, the
chloride level decreases at
5 I-95.
6
It also decreases at the city's intake.
7 The river flow backs
off, chloride levels come
8 up again, but it's
not -- it's not a mirror
9 image.
10
So things that happen here, there is not
11 an exact duplicate
down here. What happens at
12 I95 doesn't exactly
happen at the city's
13 intake, and neither
of those is an exact
14 duplication of river
flow. So it is affected
15 by river flow, but
there's other stuff going on
16 too. I think
that's it for that one.
17
MR. FARMER: The horizontal scale is weeks
18 or months or days?
19
MR. BAILEY: January, this is a full year
20 in '03.
21
MS. MOORER: Bill, what you said, there
22 are other things
going on, what are the other
23 things besides flow?
24
MR. BAILEY: We'll get into that.
25
MS. MOORER: Okay.
51
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2
MR. ROBINETTE: Bill, the flow up there on
3 the right-hand side,
where is -- I can't read
4 those numbers.
What does that say -- average
5 flow; does that say
average flow opposite that
6 one?
7
MR. BAILEY: Cubic meters per second, so
8 the average was
around 500, the first line
9 coming down is 500
cubic meters per second.
10
MR. ROBINETTE: Okay. That's about an
11 average flow?
12
MR. BAILEY: Yeah.
13
MR. ROBINETTE: Okay. You said that
14 currently those
standards of 12 milligrams per
15 liter are being
exceeded 50% of the time during
16 average flow?
17
MR. BAILEY: Yeah.
18
MR. ROBINETTE: And 90% during the
19 drought?
20
MR. BAILEY: Yeah. On this particular
21 year, it looked like
they were below the
22 threshold most of
the time.
23
MR. ROBINETTE: Okay.
24
MR. BAILEY: So, the modelers worked up an
25 equation with all
that data, and so they used
52
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 river flow plus the
salinity level at I95, and
3 did some math for how
they put that together,
4 how they developed
those relationships.
5
So they have two components in there, in
6 this separately
little model that they
7 developed, to predict
chloride levels. So it's
8 based on river flow,
primarily, but then also
9 they added in
something just from the amount of
10 chlorides at I95,
just kind of what's coming.
11
So it is determined by both what is coming
12 down the river and
also what's coming up from
13 the harbor.
Will.
14
MR. BERSON: I'm offering another dumb
15 question. Is
the last value in the equation
16 conductivity?
17
MR. BAILEY: Yes.
18
MR. BERSON: Yeah I understood something,
19 about as far as I go.
20
MR. BAILEY: There are questions at these
21 low levels about the
conversions between
22 conductivity and
salinity and measuring those
23 levels.
24
When you are measuring salinity, you're
25 measuring chlorides
plus a bunch of other stuff
53
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 in there, chlorides,
bromides, can be a number
3 of things that make
up salinity.
4
Conductivity, I think, is the actual thing
5 they go out and
measure. In most cases, like
6 if they're measuring
salinity at I95 or down in
7 the -- they actually
measuring conductivity and
8 then convert it back.
9
MR. BERSON: Back --
10
MR. BAILEY: -- back to a salinity level.
11
MR. BERSON: Well, that's much clearer.
12
MR. SCANLON: I think I can clarify that
13 for you, Will.
When you are measuring
14 salinity, when you
have the very high numbers,
15 it really doesn't
matter. You're measuring a
16 very large number,
and your salinity is your
17 major component of
it, so you've got a good
18 relationship.
19
The issue that we have with measuring
20 chlorides at very
low levels is you're
21 measuring just
conductivity. Conductivity is
22 measuring all the
ions in the water.
23
If the major one is salinity, you've got
24 a good
measurement. If you have got, when you
25 are measuring very
low levels, you have got
54
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 other ions, other
minerals, it could be any
3 number of things in
there, it's not as
4 reliable.
5
That's the issue we have. When you are
6 dealing with very low
levels, then what you're
7 looking at is a
smaller portion of the total
8 ions that are in the
water. So that's the
9 reason that it's --
there's not a direct
10 relationship.
11
MR. DYSART: More of a correlation.
12
MR. SCANLON: Correct.
13
MR. BAILEY: So now we've got -- on this
14 one is the city data
and the model's
15 predictions.
So the dark bars are the city's
16 data, the yellow
ones are the model.
17
The model does not duplicate the city, the
18 city's data.
It's not an exact representation.
19 I guess a couple
things from this, one is that
20 he yellow, the
model, is generally to the right
21 of the city's data,
which in this case means
22 it's predicting
higher, higher values.
23
However, if you look at individual
24 numbers, from this
range 9 -- 9 to 12, the
25 model is below the
city's data. So it's low on
55
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 this end, it's higher
on this end out here.
3
MR. BERSON: What happened in the 6 to 8
4 range?
5
MR. BAILEY: The model doesn't predict
6 numbers that low.
7
MR. BERSON: Oh.
8
MR. WILLIS: What does the bottom scale
9 mean?
10
MR. BAILEY: The Bottom scale is the
11 chloride level
chloride values. So to the
12 right is higher
chloride levels.
13
So the model under-predicts some and
14 over-predicts in
others. In general, it
15 over-predicts -- in
general it's
16
over-predicting. The whole thing is skewed --
17 the yellow is skewed
to the right.
18
So we went to review that, review of this
19 product. We
had USGS do an external review of
20 it.
21
MS. JENNINGS: Go back to that last --
22 Bob, either of you,
can you explain, I mean to
23 me it looks like the
model is just, you know,
24 on an exponential
rise, and that's not exactly
25 the data at
all. I mean, can you explain?
56
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2
I know we're dealing with small numbers at
3 that level. I
mean, that is what you're
4 measuring. It
hardly matters whether you're
5 dealing with small
numbers or not.
6
I mean, can you explain why there is such
7 a variation between
the model and the
8 measurements and the
city?
9
MR. SCANLON: I believe it's going back to
10 the same issue I
just raised. The model is
11 measuring something
different than what the
12 city is actually
measuring.
13
The model is measuring total basically
14 conductivity.
The city is actually measuring
15 specific chloride
ions which is part of what is
16 going in
there. But it's really not modeling
17 exactly the same
thing. We're not measuring
18 exactly the same
thing that's being modeled.
19 It's not rising
exponentially because you see
20 it drops back down.
21
MS. JENNINGS: Yeah, but I didn't know
22 that was whether
that was an anomaly or not.
23
MR. SCANLON: I couldn't say either.
24
MR. BAILEY: It does drop back down.
25
MR. SCANLON: We have concerns. The city
57
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 has concerns about
the predictability as well.
3
MS. JENNINGS: I can see why.
4
MR. BAILEY: One of the difficulties, from
5 the modeling
perspective, from the -- well, we
6 talked about the some
of the difficulties.
7
With the city's data, the city collects
8 one sample a
day. It's basically a time,
9 you collect a sample
of that 10:00 o'clock
10 everyday. A
guy goes in, he's going to collect
11 a sample.
12
But from a modeling perspective, that's
13 collected then over
you don't know what tide
14 cycle that's
on. You only have one value for
15 the entire day.
16
So you don't whether that was the peak for
17 the day, whether
that was the low for the day,
18 where that fit
in. The model calculates all
19 those numbers.
20
And I guess you have to assume that over
21 time, the city's
data represents the average
22 daily. The
model -- the model will calculate
23 lots of numbers and
then it will average them
24 together to get an
average value for the day.
25
Then you have to assume that the city's
58
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 will also average
out, but you don't know that.
3 So that's another
source of difference between
4 the two. You
really are not sure. It's just
5 another source.
6
MR. DYSART: Joel.
7
MR. FLEMING: Just real quick to make sure
8 I understand this
correctly. Isn't that just
9 showing under natural
or under current
10 conditions that's
there's a more variation?
11
You know, your percentage of sample
12 distribution is just
spread out over a greater
13 area, not to mention
the mean is much less. It
14 is saying the mean
increases, it looks like
15 dramatically
there. It also decreases your
16 variance.
17
MR. BAILEY: This is not a project impact.
18
MR. FLEMING: But it is a model impact.
19
MR. BAILEY: The model trying to replicate
20 existing --
replicate the city's data.
21
MR. FLEMING: Okay.
22
MR. BAILEY: Haven't gotten to put a
23 project onto it yet.
24
MR. DYSART: Steve.
25
MR. WILLIS: This is a question probably
59
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 more for Bob.
What percentage of the city's
3 water needs do they
satisfy out of Abercorn
4 Creek.
5
MR. SCANLON: All of the industrial
6 requirements, and
that's where this is so
7 critical. The
issue, from my previous life,
8 being one of the
critical customers, if you get
9 chlorides up above
the 10, 15 parts per million
10 level, chloride is
very corrosive in high
11 temperatures in a
boiler, and you do wind up
12 developing pin holes
in boilers.
13
So you have to keep very low chlorides.
14 That's the reason
the city has their specs so
15 low for the
industrial water supply, and that
16 is really it's a
requirement of the industrial
17 users. And the
industrial users have been,
18 since the 1940s,
really been pushed over to
19 surface water rather
than groundwater, which
20 again because of the
aquifer issues, that's
21 where we're pushing
people more and more to
22 chlorides.
23
So I think it is a very important issue to
24 the city that we do
maintain these low levels,
25 and it is primarily
for the industrial users
60
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 who have been the
primary users of surface
3 water.
4
MR. DYSART: David.
5
MR. KYLER: What is the greater
6 constraint,
industrial use or environmental
7 requirements of
salinity? Is there a general
8 observation or
conclusion you can make?
9
In other words, does industrial
10 requirements for low
salinity trump
11 environmental
effects of salinity or not?
12
MR. BAILEY: I guess we wouldn't predict
13 any environmental
impacts at these low levels,
14 these changes.
15
MR. KYLER: So I assume one mitigation
16 proposal would be to
treat water for industrial
17 use to reduce the
salinity?
18
MR. BAILEY: Yes. We had a model. We
19 gave it to USGS to
do an external review. The
20 city also looked at
it. They both came back
21 with questions about
the ability to predict at
22 these low levels.
23
So we essentially -- everyone had that
24 same -- has the same
-- is in the same
25 position.
Well, how -- kind of how good is
61
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 good enough.
Somebody has got to make a
3 decision.
4
So in the Corps, they have somebody who is
5 assigned that
responsibility, so the managers
6 for the engineering
division have that
7 responsibility.
They looked at the city's
8 -- city's
comments. They looked at the
9 external reviewer's
comments. They looked at
10 the model results.
11
Their conclusions were that the model is
12 as good as it can
be, for the data that's
13 available.
There is uncertainty about the
14 predictions.
They recommend that if the
15 project is
constructed that we should monitor
16 to quickly identify
any unforeseen impacts.
17
This was before we actually looked at the
18 effects of
deepening. This is just how, the
19 model as a
tool. So that was their
20 conclusions.
Go ahead, Will.
21
MR. BERSON: Yeah. Could you go back to
22 the graph? Day
for dumb questions -- it looks
23 to me like this
model is a very pool tool,
24 simply put.
25
It's got the trend going in the wrong
62
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 direction to the
right. Your model predicts
3 it is going up when
the actual values show it
4 is going down.
And in the mid range, it's also
5 going in the wrong --
it's going in a confused
6 direction.
7
My question is if it can't -- if you can't
8 calibrate to this
data, then what use is it to
9 predict what will
happen with project
10 conditions?
11
MR. BAILEY: I don't agree with your
12 conclusion at the
end.
13
MR. BERSON: If it is not predicting data
14 points you can
identify right now, why should
15 there be any
confidence it will do better when
16 you put in
theoretical conditions?
17
MR. SCANLON: I don't think that was the
18 conclusion at
all. I think the conclusion was
19 -- I think what was
stated was we monitor post
20 -- post expansion
monitor what happens.
21 I thought that was
the conclusion that was
22 reached by the city
--
23
MR. BERSON: Because the model can't tell
24 you anything.
25
MR. SCANLON: That's right. It's no
63
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 longer a modeling
question. Their suggestion
3 was --
4
MR. BERSON: We're just going to wing it.
5
MR. SCANLON: Exactly. I just want to say
6 that is a grave
concern to us, because if the
7 problems do show up,
and we do start to see the
8 problem we expect to
see from high chlorides,
9 the time it would
take to go back and correct
10 the situation after
the fact --
11
MR. BERSON: You mean by moving the
12 intake?
13
MR. SCANLON: By moving the intake, we
14 could, in fact, put
a lot of industrial
15 customers out of
business during that lag time.
16 That is a concern
that we have. That's just
17 for the record.
18
MR. DYSART: Ed.
19
MR. EUDALY: This goes back partially to a
20 statement you made
earlier, Bill, that I think
21 needs some
clarification. It relates to this
22 somewhat in that
there is clear relationship
23 between flow and
chloride levels, you know,
24 based on their
equation, based on the data.
25
You said that flow down the river doesn't
64
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 change impacts, based
on the model. I think
3 that's kind of a
broad statement. I don't
4 think it's exactly
correct.
5
I just want to clarify or give my opinion
6 on that.
There's plenty of data that shows
7 flow down river does
have significant impact on
8 salinity
levels. Certain model results do show
9 as flow reduced
salinity increases.
10
There are certain aspects of the modeling,
11 maybe because of the
way the analysis was
12 formulated, that
maybe not show that clearly.
13 I just want to point
out the flow is a major
14 determiner of
salinity levels. Impacts, I
15 think, will change
based on flows, even if our
16 models don't always
show that.
17
I just wanted to get my opinion out there.
18 I'm not sure what
you were trying to say, but
19 to me it didn't tell
the whole story.
20
MR. DYSART: Judy and then David Kyler.
21
MS. JENNINGS: Right. Ed, thank you
22 because I asked that
question and Bill's
23 response to me was
that's what the model had
24 shown.
25
The conclusion about this is that we'll
65
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 just we'll watch
it. You know, this is just
3 sort of a broad
statement. The city might have
4 a solution to
it. You might could move your
5 pipe and solve your
problem. But it, you know,
6 might not be as easy
to fix some other parts of
7 the project.
Just, I mean, is this good enough
8 for the city?
9
MR. SCANLON: No. That was the comment I
10 just made. No,
it's not.
11
MS. JENNINGS: I guess my point is that I
12 think your problem
would be one of the easiest
13 to solve, of all the
ones we might encounter.
14 I mean, that's my
personal opinion -- not to
15 minimize your
problem, but simply to say it
16 might be one of the
easier ones to fix after
17 the fact -- not that
it would be easy, but
18 comparatively
speaking.
19
MR. SCANLON: My point is though it may be
20 too late also.
21
MS. JENNINGS: Right. I agree.
22
MR. SCANLON: I think, technically, I
23 think it probably is
one of the easiest
24 technical problems
to solve. But if it's not
25 solved beforehand,
we could wind up with a
66
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 number of the
customers, our customers, who are
3 relying on low
chloride water being out of
4 business as a result
of high chloride water. I
5 think it's the risk,
that's our concern.
6
MS. JENNINGS: I agree.
7
MR. DYSART: David and John Robinette.
8
MR. KYLER: The point Ed made, freshwater
9 flowing down the
system will affect the
10 salinity is the one
I was trying to make
11 before.
12
I thought the response from Bill was that
13 the modeling
salinity effects of the project
14 being so much
greater than the natural effects
15 of flow, or even
artificial effects due to
16 landscape
alteration, as runoff affects the
17 freshwater coming
down the system affects
18 salinity in the
lower river.
19
I thought the project impact was so much
20 greater that that
marginalized those effects.
21 Isn't that the gist
of your response, Bill?
22
MR. BAILEY: My response was from looking
23 at the wetland
impact information that we've
24 got, and fisheries
impact information, that was
25 what I was thinking
when I answered that.
67
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 Those numbers are
showing the greatest impacts
3 at average flows.
4
MR. KYLER: I don't understand.
5
MR. BAILEY: There are less impacts during
6 a drought, less
impacts on high flows. With a
7 deeper channel, less
impacts on those
8 conditions than you
do on average flows.
9
That's what the models are showing us.
10 Some of that is
because of -- I believe some of
11 that is because of
the non-linearity within the
12 estuary.
13
Things don't move up equal distances, when
14 you make a
change. The ground is not one
15 uniform slope.
The river bottom is not a
16 uniform slope
upriver. So if you make a
17 change, you can't
say well, it's going to move
18 a quarter mile here,
so therefore it will move
19 a quarter mile for
another equal change. It's
20 not equal response.
21
MR. KYLER: I understand that point, but
22 I'm not sure how
that relates to the question I
23 originally asked.
24
MR. BAILEY: With flows, it seems that at
25 this level, this
amount of deepening, this
68
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 level, this amount of
saltwater intrusion into
3 the estuary, further
deepening has the most
4 effect on average
flows.
5
MR. KYLER: So doesn't that confirm? Is
6 that another way of
corroborating my
7 interpretation?
I summarized when I asked the
8 question, increasing
the natural runoff of
9 freshwater from the
landscape, according to
10 your analysis using
the model, would be a
11 relatively minor
effect compared to the effects
12 of deepening on
salinity in the realm we're
13 analyzing -- in the
domain we're analyzing.
14
MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure I can agree with
15 just because I'm not
sure exactly what you are
16 saying. It's
not that you're not clear. It
17 conflicts.
18
MR. KYLER: It's a matter of whether
19 you're
misunderstanding the question, or not
20 understanding the
question, or whether the
21 model does not
answer the question, or our
22 knowledge to this
date does not answer the
23 question.
24
And I'm trying to understand. Do we know,
25 if we restored a
good part of the landscape's
69
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 ability to restore
freshwater flow in the lower
3 Savannah range, that
would have a compensating
4 effect worth
considering a mitigating factor on
5 the project?
6
MR. BAILEY: We don't know that. Like you
7 said, we're using
flows over the entire year,
8 but we don't know
what would happen if those
9 flows are changed
during the course of the
10 year. If -- if
rainfall events are spread out
11 more --
12
MR. KYLER: Right.
13
MR. BAILEY: -- we don't know what effect
14 that would have on
the estuary.
15
MR. KYLER: I for one think that is worth
16 examining for a lot
of reasons.
17
MR. BAILEY: We -- okay.
18
MR. DYSART: Let me -- I notice that cards
19 are popping up like
mushrooms here, and it's
20 about break
time. I have -- I'm going to
21 declare a 10 minute
break. We've got the order
22 of questions
following John, Will, Ed, Hope,
23 Will, Bob and
Joel. Let's take a 10 minute
24 break starting now.
25
(Short Break)
70
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2
MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's reconvene,
3 please. And the
first thing I want to do is
4 Steve, why don't you
state, for the record,
5 your name and
affiliation since you came in a
6 little bit late.
7
MR. WILLIS: I'm Steve Willis. I'm the
8 owner of a company
called Blue Planet Projects,
9 and it's --
10
MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. I believe
11 that no one else
came in after we did
12 introductions.
13
MR. BAILEY: Did Gail come in?
14
MS. BOWERS: No, I made it this time.
15 That's okay, Bill.
16
MR. DYSART: Let's proceed now, and two or
17 three people have
made humorous comments about
18 who was asking the
dumbest question. It's
19 obvious there have
not been any dumb questions
20 asked.
21
My experience, over a lot of years, has
22 been when somebody
thinks there's a dumb
23 question, it's a
question worth throwing on the
24 floor, getting
responses to, and developing a
25 better understanding
and insight into what is
71
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 going on, and the
challenges and difficulties.
3
And this is a challenging situation.
4 Sometimes the answers
aren't quite as clear as
5 everybody might like
for them to be. But, as I
6 understand, one of
the goals of this
7 organization,
Stakeholders Evaluation Group, in
8 doing its work is to
raise its thoughts, give
9 its views for the
benefit of all the parties
10 here.
11
And I think that the discussion this
12 morning so far has
been very much in that line.
13 I appreciate
that. Next John, John Robinette.
14
MR. ROBINETTE: Yes. Bob with the
15 conclusion being
that we should monitor after
16 construction and
then identify unforeseen
17 impacts; is that
acceptable to the city?
18
MR. SCANLON: No. That was the point I
19 was trying to
make. We don't believe that
20 that's a good
conclusion. We have serious
21 concerns about that.
22
MR. ROBINETTE: So you would say no to
23 this project based
on that?
24
MR. SCANLON: Yeah -- we still have
25 serious
concerns. I don't know we would say
72
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 no. We have
serious concerns.
3
MR. ROBINETTE: Is there an ability to get
4 the data that you
need to make this a more
5 accurate model?
You're looking at salinity and
6 comparing it to
chlorides.
7
Can you take water samples at those areas
8 and -- and do -- I
don't know how to test for
9 chlorides. I've
tested for salinity many
10 times, and do the
chloride measurement and get
11 the data you need to
get a tool that would be
12 effective?
13
MR. SCANLON: I would say the answer to
14 that question is
probably yes. How we do that
15 is an unknown.
I think -- can I go ahead and
16 say what I was going
to say, because I think
17 it's an appropriate
response to that?
18
I'll remind you of something, sitting in a
19 lot of these
modeling meetings, Paul Conrad did
20 a lot of modeling
development for USGS, used to
21 constantly remind us
that just remember folks,
22 all models are
wrong. Some are useful.
23
MR. ROBINETTE: Correct.
24
MR. SCANLON: And you have to remember a
25 model is only as
good as the date used to
73
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 calibrate and develop
it.
3
And this is a case where we're actually
4 trying to infer
something, using one thing,
5 when we're actually
measuring something
6 different.
7
MR. ROBINETTE: Correct.
8
MR. SCANLON: And there should be a
9 correlation between
the two. There's a logical
10 correlation between
the two, and that should be
11 able to be modeled.
12
But I don't think we have found the proper
13 model for
that. And this is a very, very
14 complex system,
because the source of Abercorn
15 Creek, part of the
source, is -- Ed reminded me
16 of the name of the
creek -- Bear Creek.
17
That comes in off the Savannah further
18 upstream, which kind
of drains into and creates
19 a wetland which
drains into Abercorn Creek.
20
MR. ROBINETTE: Correct.
21
MR. SCANLON: It's very complex. There
22 are other source of
chlorides along the way.
23 So it's -- if we had
all the right data, I'm
24 confident we could
create a model, but I'm not
25 confident that we
know if we could even create
74
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 all the right data,
know all the right data to
3 say or put into the
model.
4
I think it's very complex. It's beyond me
5 personally. I'm
sure there are folks that
6 could figure it
out. But I don't think we're
7 there. I think
this is one of those models
8 that falls into that
not usable category to
9 apply this model to
answer this question.
10
It doesn't say anything about the
11 reliability of the
model for others things, but
12 only with this
specific question, it's really
13 not answering the
specific question that needs
14 to be answered for
this.
15
MR. ROBINETTE: The solution then would be
16 if it does have a
major impact, the solution
17 would be to move the
intake or move the plant,
18 correct?
19
MR. SCANLON: That's probably -- I would
20 guess that would
probably be the most
21 economical
solution. To try to treat the
22 volumes of water, I
mean, we're talking
23 probably 25 million
gallons a day to these
24 critical -- 20 to
25. I don't think that's a
25 feasible solution is
to try to treat that
75
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 water.
3
MR. ROBINETTE: Where would you put the
4 plant?
5
MR. SCANLON: Probably just further
6 upstream. I'm
not sure where. I think in the
7 -- there was a plan,
in the original
8 environmental
assessment back 10 years ago to
9 move it. I
don't recall, off the top of my
10 head, where the plan
was to move it.
11
There was a cost that was actually put
12 into the project,
and it was moved further
13 upstream. I'm
not sure if it was further up
14 the Savannah River
or further up Abercorn
15 Creek. Bill,
do you recall that?
16
MR. BAILEY: It was further up the
17 Savannah River.
18
MR. ROBINETTE: I think it was. I think
19 it was up
there. It was going to come across
20 -- the pipe was
going to come across the refuge
21 and that stuff.
22
We've been working with you for years on
23 this problem, and
during the 1135 project to
24 put more water down
Bear Creek, jet spray
25 dredging on Abercorn
Creek to try to improve
76
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 that because there
was so much sediment and
3 stuff in there, and
trying to reduce the tannic
4 acid loads at that
time, which were giving you
5 a fit.
6
I hope we've improved that. We tried to
7 come up with a win
win solution, but I don't
8 think there's any way
we would approve a pipe
9 coming across the
refuge.
10
The impacts from this project, you know,
11 just keep piling up
on the Savannah National
12 Wildlife
Refuge. Before you go there, and
13 before you select a
site, I think it would be
14 beneficial for you
to know that we would object
15 to a pipe coming
across that refuge.
16
MR. SCANLON: It's good to know. I think
17 we would definitely
want -- we wouldn't
18 envision trying to
force something on somebody.
19 I can't imagine that
happening.
20
MR. ROBINETTE: No, but I just --
21
MR. SCANLON: It would have to be a
22 process similar to
what we're going through
23 here.
24
MR. ROBINETTE: I think it's valuable for
25 you to know that up
front instead of farther
77
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 down the road.
I just don't we'd even consider
3 that, so --
4
MR. DYSART: Will.
5
MR. BERSON: I think I understand most of
6 these. I guess
taking a slight step backwards,
7 what does the Corps
propose to do with these
8 results? What
happens from here on this sort
9 of investigation?
10
MR. BAILEY: So far you're talking about
11 the development of
the tool. I've got some
12 slides about that
that just talk through the
13 impacts that the
tool predicts. And then --
14 which it basically
predicts very little impact
15 from further
deepening, so we're not sure where
16 we're going after
that.
17
MR. BERSON: I thought I was on until just
18 then. You said
you haven't modeled the with
19 project then, so --
20
MR. BAILEY: At the point of this slide,
21 at the point these
people made determinations
22 of acceptability of
the model, we had not run
23 impacts.
24
MR. BERSON: But you have.
25
MR. BAILEY: We have now, yes. They made
78
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 that determination,
you know, earlier this year
3 in the spring -- I'm
not sure when. So when we
4 get all the questions
answered, we'll move on
5 to those impacts.
6
MR. DYSART: Ed.
7
MR. EUDALY: This goes back to kind of a
8 follow-up on David's
discussion, and there's a
9 couple of factors
that come into play on how
10 the model was used.
11
You know, that was a good lead-in talking
12 about the
models. The FDC had a lot of time
13 and money spent on
it. It's a good product, I
14 think it's the best
we can reasonably do.
15
There are still limitations in any model,
16 and then how it's
used also. To kind of
17 explain, I think,
what one of the reasons the
18 impacts show higher
at the average flows is
19 that during low
flows, there's already --
20 salinity already
moves far up the river without
21 deepening.
22
Part of that is because of cumulative
23 impacts of previous
harbor deepening. That big
24 channel, salinity is
already moving up there.
25 So when it flows,
you already show a high
79
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 salinity in the
marshes.
3
So when you deepen, those are already
4 showing salinity
impacts, so you don't get much
5 change. You
know, an average flow, you show
6 more of an
impact. So that's kind of an
7 explanation for that.
8
You know, another factor in the Savannah
9 River, is the base
flows are higher than they
10 would be -- or low
flows are anyway, because
11 of the regulation.
12
You've got three large Corps' reservoirs
13 upstream, so that
kind of modifies the
14 hydrology. The
base flows are up, high flows
15 are down. It's
all changed.
16
That's kind of an explanation for some of
17 the things Bill was
talking about. I hope it
18 might clarify stuff
a little bit. But your
19 idea, you know,
that's certainly an interesting
20 idea to look at.
21
I don't know how it would fit in
22 mitigation. It
would be hard to show a direct
23 link. I think
it would be hard to quantify,
24 but certainly
support those kind of efforts
25 through various
projects.
80
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2
MR. DYSART: Hope.
3
MS. MOORER: Okay. I got a couple of
4 questions. Bob
raised a point about whether
5 we'd be able to get
the data, or whether that
6 model could do
it. Is there a model out there,
7 for a system like
this, that could make
8 predictions?
From what I understand, it's very
9 difficult to predict
at those low levels.
10
MR. SCANLON: Only -- I'd say that's only
11 because of the
limitations of the data that was
12 used to develop the
model. I think my response
13 was, I'm sure that
you could develop a model,
14 given all the right
data. I said I don't know.
15 I couldn't sit here
and say what the data would
16 be that's required.
17
I'm sure there is some modeler, if you
18 give an infinite
checkbook, to do it. So I
19 don't know. I
see this right now as a dilemma.
20
I don't have a solution. I don't know
21 what the solution
is. We have concerns. I
22 think the whole
issue has to be visited. I
23 think it's going to
have to be vetted among our
24 various customers as
to what all happens with
25 this.
81
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2
There are other pressures on some of them.
3 The cheapest solution
might be to buy them out.
4 I don't know.
5
MS. MOORER: The other question was
6 because right now
it's exceeding, did you say
7 50% of the time --
8
MR. BAILEY: Yes.
9
MS. MOORER: -- 12 milligram per liter?
10
MR. BAILEY: Yes.
11
MS. MOORER: What are we planning to do
12 now, if it's
exceeding 50% of the time?
13
MR. SCANLON: I don't -- I don't -- I have
14 not had the
conversation with John Sawyer who
15 operates the
plant. That number surprised me
16 when Bill said
it. So I don't know any answer
17 to that
question. I'm also -- I don't know
18 that's
accurate. I'm not may be understanding.
19 I don't know.
20
MS. MOORER: The other question is, is
21 there a reason why,
is it because of a
22 long-term chloride
impact is what causes, or
23 long-term chloride
changes is what causes
24 impact is why it is
measured only once a day?
25
I mean, I would think that like the tidal
82
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 cycles and all that,
I'm trying to understand
3 how -- you don't know?
4
MR. SCANLON: I don't know the answer to
5 that either. If
you had asked me what was
6 done, if it was
sampled once a day, I thought
7 it was a continuous
sample taken and daily
8 composite.
9
I may be incorrect on that. That's what I
10 thought was being
done. It was actually being
11 deposited and
sampled once a day, but I don't
12 -- I'm not sure how
that's done.
13
MS. MOORER: Okay.
14
MR. SCANLON: The other explanation Bill
15 gave is reasonable,
in that over time if you
16 sample once a day,
over years, statistically
17 it's going to even
out, but you do miss -- if
18 you have got a very
coarse data point like
19 that, and then you
are trying to fine tune
20 around a model, that
data may not be the best
21 data for calibrating
a model. So I don't know.
22
MS. MOORER: The other question, Bill,
23 that I have is if
you use this monitor, you
24 should -- nothing's
finalized. You're going to
25 see impacts are from
that model, but nothing
83
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 has been finalized or
decided -- well, there's
3 absolutely no
impact. I mean, the model shows
4 this. There's a
lot of uncertainty around it.
5 Has the Corps made
any decision.
6
MR. BAILEY: That's as far as we've
7 gotten.
8
MS. MOORER: Right.
9
MR. SCANLON: In the Corps' defense, I'll
10 offer up and
probably should not -- I have a
11 tendency to do this
type of thing -- that is
12 the thing that is
the common change is that you
13 are contributing to
bringing more chlorides
14 further upstream
with the deepening.
15
So their approaching, you know, seems to
16 be a coarse modeling
standpoint recently, but
17 it appears that we
really haven't achieved what
18 we're trying to
achieve. Do we have a better
19 approach; can I
offer a better approach; no.
20
Can somebody; probably, but it's going to
21 be with very, very
deep pockets probably. I
22 don't have the
answer.
23
MR. DYSART: Joel.
24
MR. FLEMING: Real quickly, going back to
25 the flow discussion
that Ed was talking about
84
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 earlier. Ed did
come up with some, you know,
3 he spoke about
confounding factors that
4 attribute directly to
not seeing changes in
5 salinity with
increases in flow in some areas.
6
There's also -- I think everyone needs to
7 understand there's
criteria and thresholds
8 established for
particular species, in these
9 models, that have on
some of them a salinity
10 range we were
looking for.
11
So if it doesn't exceed one of those
12 thresholds, that
doesn't necessarily mean
13 there wasn't a
change. It might not be --
14 might not have
negative impacts on those
15 species.
16
What it means by critical threshold, that
17 we said we would
look at, if we met the
18 threshold for
striped bass, for example in
19 egg survival, then
we would not have survival
20 past those points to
a high degree of
21 certainty, going
back and looking at this
22 thing, certainly I
think we've seen some of
23 like what Ed
discussed, the changes that have
24 happened
historically, under, you know, current
25 conditions that
exist.
85
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2
And you know, to a great extent, some of
3 the habitat or a lot
of habitats have already
4 been degraded.
I think we're looking at
5 criterias masking
that, to some extent.
6
The other thing I was saying -- I had to
7 say about this in
particular, you alluded to
8 the fact you guys had
some ideas of what may be
9 causing the model to
not react properly.
10
Could one of those be the simple fact the
11 drainage of Abercorn
Creek is separate from the
12 Savannah River, to
some extent?
13
I understand it is formed -- it runs
14 somewhat like a
flowing ox bow. There's also
15 its own drainage
area that receives rainfall
16 locally.
17
Has any attempt been made to try to pull
18 some of the
data? Almost clearly back to the
19 first slide, I
followed it actually pretty
20 well in some portion
of that time frame. But
21 initially, it looked
like you were reading
22 here, but there was
a reading way up here.
23
That's what I didn't follow. I was
24 wondering if anyone
went back and looked? Did
25 we have a huge
rainfall event during that
86
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 period of time?
3
MR. BAILEY: Modelers used all the
4 information they
could get their hands on.
5
MR. FLEMING: But it was flow, mostly flow
6 information, right?
7
MR. BAILEY: Flow, chloride and salinity.
8
MR. FLEMING: We're looking at the
9 Savannah River proper
flow. Abercorn Creek
10 certainly has its
own watershed.
11
MR. BAILEY: There aren't any other gauges
12 or stuff.
That's halfway up the creek, in
13 between halfway and
further up Abercorn Creek,
14 between the city's
intake through Bear Creek
15 and up to, you know,
back where it reconnects
16 with the river.
17
There's nothing up there that's maintained
18 to give either
rainfall or chloride levels. It
19 could be picking up
chlorides, as John talked
20 about, tannic acid
levels coming through the
21 river, a problem in
the past. It could be
22 picking up something
that comes through the
23 wetland area.
24
MR. FLEMING: Stands to reason we could go
25 back and almost
become qualitative, to some
87
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 extent. You
could be supplied with data during
3 rainfall events in
Abercorn Creek. It doesn't
4 necessarily get to
the question you're getting
5 at, is it going to
exceed the threshold you
6 guys are looking for,
but you could determine
7 what the impacts are
going to be, at least at
8 some -- at -- at
least to local rainfall
9 periods. I just
wondered if anybody --
10
MR. BAILEY: They looked at the data every
11 way they could think
of.
12
MR. FLEMING: I don't think -- I don't
13 think -- I don't
think you can include
14 additional
data. I think you can exclude some
15 data.
16
MR. DYSART: David Kyler.
17
MR. KYLER: A couple comments. I'll work
18 in reverse order of
how they occur to me.
19 Regarding some of
the comments Joel made, to
20 what extent this is
common knowledge, you know,
21 we've had
discussions in the press about marsh
22 die back, and that's
been correlated with
23 drought conditions,
increasing salinity, any
24 activity including
the project, an increase in
25 salinity would have
some risk contributing to
88
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 marsh die back.
3
For the same reason I said before, it
4 restores landscapes,
freshwater over longer
5 periods. The
other river system, along the
6 coast, would have to
compensate for higher
7 salinity adverse
impacts.
8
The other thing about the thresholds,
9 that Joel referred to
in the living resources,
10 obviously we're not
just concerned about
11 survival of the
species, but to help the
12 species. In
the case of the blue crab, for
13 example, I think
it's been pretty well shown by
14 research that the
blood disease blue crab have
15 been suffering from
is related to higher
16 salinity.
17
It doesn't kill them outright, but it
18 makes them more --
more susceptible to
19 opportunistic
microbial activity. It is very
20 complex and there
are number of variables.
21
On the landscape alteration point, it
22 seems to me even
below, we're the next lowest
23 downstream reservoir
on the system, however
24 upstream the last
reservoir is, you know, but
25 Thurmond is about
30, 40 miles above that.
89
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 That's the big one.
3
It stands to reason hundreds, possibly
4 1,000 square miles of
drainage area is below
5 that. If you
restored enough, and it's
6 feasible restoring
the landscape to attain the
7 benefits of wetlands
in those areas, some of
8 the effects of this
project, and many other
9 competing uses for
the river, could be
10 supported by that
sort of mitigation, including
11 demands on both
sides of the river, South
12 Carolina and
Georgia, as well the environmental
13 effects I mentioned
earlier.
14 Again, I think, all
those reasons support more
15 exploration of that
alternative.
16
MR. DYSART: Steve.
17
MR. WILLIS: If I was going to be in this
18 room for a long
time, and somebody said they
19 were going to make
sure I had an adequate,
20 average amount of
oxygen for me to breathe over
21 a period of months
or years, any particular
22 week or day they
would have oxygen to me, I
23 would be interested
in extremes rather than the
24 average.
25
And I think that's what we're dealing with
90
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 in this whole
project, but in this particular
3 case
especially. The average salinity is
4 affected the most by
the average, you know.
5
Okay. That's interesting. That's good to
6 know. It may be
important, but really
7 important is the
outliers. What happens even
8 if it's only a
relatively small percentage of
9 change, the highest
level of salinity at the --
10 at the -- what will
be the repercussions and
11 what are the chances?
12
It's these things we don't expect like a
13 terrible drought in
the wettest place in the
14 world, South
Georgia. For months and months
15 nobody predicted,
nobody expected that to
16 happen -- total
outlier.
17
The consequences are tremendous. That's
18 the way things
were. It's the outliers that
19 get you.
20
I think that it's only judicious and
21 reasonable to really
focus on what will be the
22 repercussions, at
the maximum outlying level
23 you can imagine
happening. That will, sooner
24 or later, happen.
25
MR. DYSART: That is -- I think in all
91
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 this why we look at
intensity, duration and
3 frequency, the three
dimensions there. Okay.
4 I don't see anymore
-- Hope.
5
MS. MOORER: I had one that was kind of
6 what raised my
question. Why take a daily
7 number if it is
average that impacts the
8 system, the municipal
system?
9
Is it some extreme two day event? Is it
10 average? It
would seem to me taking an
11 average, it must be
a daily reading that might
12 produce an average.
13
Again, I don't know exactly, but that was
14 my question.
In this instance, is there spikes
15 or is it
long-term? And for each resource you
16 have to ask that
same question, what are the
17 impacts of the
spikes, what are the impacts of
18 long-term change?
19
I think that's what is trying to be done
20 here, in all of the
instances. We're trying to
21 look at that, or at
least consider it -- at
22 least considering
that.
23
MR. DYSART: Bill, looks like we've got
24 the questions and
comments on this. Was that a
25 comment or a
question?
92
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2
MS. MOORER: That was a comment.
3
MR. BAILEY: I'll just move on.
4
MR. DYSART: Okay. We've got to take a
5 break and let Bill
present.
6
MR. BAILEY: Okay. So we had that tool.
7 I looked at it under
three different scenarios;
8 low river flow,
average flow, and then lower
9 than flow, a severe
drought.
10
I looked at it under those conditions. I
11 looked at it over
the low flow period of the
12 summer months.
It ends up being six or seven
13 months out of the
year. I looked at the
14 existing channel,
and some alternate depths,
15 and also looked at
some of the mitigation plans
16 that we have.
17
So we are looking at the different flows.
18 The basic evaluation
which was on low flows,
19 which was
essentially repeated about every
20 eight years, some of
the severe droughts, those
21 flows are about
every 20 years, so that was
22 what was evaluated.
23
MR. WILLIS: Like we can't be having one
24 every 20 years --
since we had one in 2001, you
25 say severe drought,
we're not due until --
93
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2
MR. BAILEY: Okay. If you live 1,000
3 years, on age that's
what it come out. Like I
4 said, that's averages.
5
MR. WILLIS: That's misleading.
6
MR. BAILEY: Okay. On lower flows, the
7 deepening would have
no effect on chloride
8 levels. Average
flows shows a small effect
9 with a six foot
deepening. Severe drought,
10 there's slight
increases, with all the depths,
11 and the maximum
increase .85 with a six foot
12 deepening.
13
So the maximum increase is less than one
14 on that range of 12,
that threshold of 12.
15
So with the mitigation plans, plan one was
16 no different.
Plan two, the highest increase
17 went up a little bit
more. Plan three went up
18 the same amount, but
also showed an increase at
19 a couple -- two of
the other flow conditions.
20
Plans four and five, again, the maximum
21 increase goes up a
little more. Plan four ends
22 up a little higher
than plan five.
23
So our conclusions, we've got an
24 acceptable tool to
predict impacts of chloride
25 at the city's
intake. The impacts are under
94
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 average low flows are
less than one milligram
3 per liter.
4
Severe drought, there are minor impacts.
5 The maximum
concentration is about 10% higher.
6 The conclusion is we
should monitor chloride
7 levels, if the harbor
deepening occurs.
8
So I think that was the bottom line. You
9 were wanting to know
what it was. That's where
10 we are right now.
11
MR. BERSON: Okay. I'll jump in.
12
MR. DYSART: Will.
13
MR. BERSON: It seems to me if the
14 baseline model
couldn't be correlated to the
15 existing data set,
then you're adding two
16 degrees of
separation, at least, by putting in
17 project conditions.
18
If you are not sure the model is working
19 in the first place,
if you graft on different
20 depths and then take
it the second step, and --
21 and I just don't see
how you have -- if you
22 can't make the model
work, based on existing
23 data of uses, are
these prognostications?
24
MR. BAILEY: I guess the Corps doesn't
25 agree with your
first statement that -- that
95
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 the model can't make
predictions. We think the
3 model is acceptable
for that.
4
MR. DYSART: Other comments.
5
MR. BERSON: I've got one. I think
6 there's a
disagreement. I think you're in
7 serious deep water
here. And I don't think you
8 can see -- I say that
because you say it's
9 okay. It's okay.
10
There are serious problems with this. I
11 guess I'm asking,
what are you proposing to do
12 about it? Are
you just going to pretend that
13 these numbers are
okay?
14
MR. DYSART: Sounded like a
15 straightforward
question to me -- a little
16 humor.
17
MR. BERSON: I'm sorry. I don't mean to
18 slaughter the
messenger here. I'm asking, what
19 do you propose to
do? We're talking about
20 potable water for
the City of Savannah, kind
21 of.
22
MR. BAILEY: No. That's not what we're
23 talking about --
24
MR. KEEGAN: Industrial use, water used
25 for manufacturing.
96
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2
MR. BERSON: We're talking about
3 industrial use water
and trying to shift
4 everyone over so we
don't use the aquifer as
5 much. That's
the primary water use the city is
6 pursuing.
7
MR. KEEGAN: I'm sorry. I've got to jump
8 in. Very early
in Bill's presentation, he
9 showed the level at
which we were trying to
10 predict versus the
level of potable water.
11
We're talking 12 ppm -- 12 milligrams per
12 liter is what we are
interested in for
13 industrial
use. The limit set by EPA, for
14 potable water, is
250 ppm. We're no where near
15 that level.
This is not a potable water issue.
16
We should not be getting excited thinking
17 it is. This is
industrial use only. It's
18 based around a 12
milligram level. Am I
19 correct, Bob?
20
MR. SCANLON: I agree with what Larry is
21 saying. I
tried to make it clear, this is
22 purely an industrial
level. It has to do with
23 how chlorides react
in the boilers.
24
MR. BERSON: I stand corrected, but
25 nonetheless, we're
still in a situation where
97
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 we are predicting
results, critical to the
3 city, on a model that
is clearly faulty on its
4 face, or let me just
say I think that -- I
5 think that my message
to the Corps would be --
6 message from me to
you, you need to show us it
7 is a better model
than what it appears on its
8 face.
9
Based on what you have showed us today, I
10 think that you have
an issue going forward if
11 you can't.
12
MR. BAILEY: Okay. Thank you. I would
13 point out this part
of this graph showing the
14 model is predicting
higher at levels above 13,
15 predicting higher
than the city's data.
16
If you are worried about high numbers, the
17 model is
over-predicting on the high end of the
18 scale. So one
could argue that the model will
19 over-predict.
20
MR. BERSON: I'm just kind of interested
21 in accurate
models. That's sort of the bottom
22 line. I think
everyone should be.
23
MR. BAILEY: You can give him the line
24 USGS uses, all
models are wrong.
25
MR. BERSON: Agreed. Usually, after you
98
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 apply them to the
circumstances you're trying
3 to model, not in
calibration.
4
MR. BAILEY: No, that's in calibration.
5
MR. SCANLON: I think really this is an
6 issue and there's
going to be a lot more
7 discussion. I
know the dialogue going on with
8 John Sawyer who runs
the plant.
9
I'm comfortable leaving it at that point.
10 We're not talking
about something -- we're not
11 talking about
potable limits. We're talking
12 about a very
specific issue.
13
I think there is dialogue underway
14 addressing that
specific issue. Just for the
15 record here, I want
to say that that dialogue
16 needs to
continue. I think that's the point
17 I'm making.
18
How this gets resolved, I don't have the
19 answer. I
don't think anybody, in this room,
20 has the answer right
now as to how it's going
21 to get
resolved. I think the dialogue is
22 continuing.
I'm comfortable with that.
23
MR. DYSART: David Kyler.
24
MR. KYLER: Is there still a modeling
25 technical review
group -- there used to be
99
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 during the first
model?
3
MS. MOORER: It was reviewed by USGS too.
4 I mean, the modeling
technical group was set up
5 to try to -- if I
remember correctly -- I
6 wasn't involved at
that point, but to try to
7 assist in creating
the very first model for the
8 harbor that we were
trying to come up with.
9
MR. KYLER: Yeah. So is there any
10 existing review
group that's evaluating the
11 sufficiency of this
model, outside the Corps?
12
MR. BAILEY: The modeling technical review
13 group that the SEG
established doesn't exist
14 any longer.
15
MR. KYLER: There is no other group that's
16 checking or
evaluating this model, outside the
17 Corps?
18
MR. BAILEY: Besides USGS that we paid to
19 to look, no.
20
MR. KYLER: Yeah. Do we have any
21 non-technical
ability to translate that -- the
22 standards for such
modeling -- into what the
23 average person would
understand as to the
24 accuracy or
sufficiency? I'm trying to get at
25 a concern Will was
raising.
100
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2
MR. BAILEY: I don't know.
3
MR. DYSART: Bob.
4
MR. SCANLON: I think that you can't
5 necessarily be
critical of the entire model
6 because of this one
aberration. I mean, this
7 is one specific thing
where recall, we're
8 trying to model
something which is not the same
9 thing that's being
measured. That in itself
10 creates a multitude
of complexities trying to
11 model.
12
We're trying to model a correlation to
13 something which is
what modeling is all about.
14 To get to your
specific point of, you know, is
15 the model
technically reviewed, that's
16 basically what all
the resource agencies are
17 doing now is looking
at the results of the
18 data.
19
I think that is -- they're performing the
20 function. I
think your concern is missing
21 that. In fact,
what they are doing is looking
22 at the results.
23
They have all looked and said yeah, we
24 believe that this
model is as good as we can
25 get or as good as we
can reasonable expect to
101
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 have. Now we're
going to look at the
3 predictions that are
made based on that.
4
Again, all models are wrong. Some are
5 useful at some
point. All of this, no one -- I
6 don't think anybody
believes that you are going
7 to be able to predict
exactly what's going to
8 happen in the future.
9
There's always some variable that got
10 missed. It's
just -- all the model does is
11 increase our level
of confidence in the
12 decision you're
making is right.
13
They're only as good as the data and what
14 went into it to
create them. You can have all
15 kinds of things that
appear to correlate. It
16 may be that they
only appear to correlate.
17 It's an inexact
science. By definition, it's
18 an inexact science.
19
MR. KYLER: Let me respond with one
20 statement; in other
words, there are universal
21 standards to compare
the accuracy of one model
22 as compared to
another, in recognizing both are
23 imperfect?
24
MR. SCANLON: I don't know whether there
25 are or not -- any
modelers here?
102
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2
MR. DYSART: Steve, Judy.
3
MR. WILLIS: It seems to me this is not
4 just about the amount
of chloride in the water,
5 at the point of the
Savannah intake. Maybe I
6 just don't understand
this.
7
It seems to me what we're really talking
8 about is measuring
saltwater intrusion in
9 general. That's
really the issue. If we can't
10 predict and measure
what might likely happen,
11 and what the
consequences would be at this one
12 point on Abercorn
Creek, you know, what about
13 everywhere else?
14
It seems like we were talking about
15 saltwater intrusion,
basically, and if we have
16 such a high level of
uncertainty at this one
17 point, it makes me
wonder what about all the
18 other points.
19
MR. BAILEY: I think the issue is
20 saltwater
changes. Water changes those low
21 levels, seawater is
32 to 38,000 here. You
22 want to know what
happens at 10, does 10 change
23 to 11.
24
The instruments -- I'm not sure how far
25 the instruments go
down. The instruments don't
103
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 go down -- the
instruments don't go down very
3 much below 10.
4
I think the city is getting -- does their
5 stuff with a lab,
chemistry, so that's
6 different than a
field instrument. It's hard
7 to measure at those
levels. And if you can
8 measure it, it's hard
to be accurate, hard to
9 get repeated
measurements at the -- of the same
10 number.
11
So because something is -- because this is
12 an add-on model,
which is an add-on to the
13 basic hydrodynamic
model, the add-on has
14 uncertainties in it,
which it does -- I don't
15 necessarily think
that that's -- that you can
16 say well then, the
basic hydrodynamic model is
17 unacceptable.
That's a big leap.
18
MR. WILLIS: No. I'm just saying it --
19 I'm not suggesting
it, in and of itself, says
20 that.
21
I'm just saying if, with using real data
22 and a real testing
situation, this one point,
23 if there's this
level of uncertainty, it does
24 sort of you make you
kind of wonder well,
25 what's the real
final result going to be at all
104
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 the points we're
interested in measuring.
3
I'm not saying it necessarily does that.
4 I know you're talking
about two different
5 models.
6
MR. BAILEY: Yes.
7
MR. WILLIS: But it does seem like the two
8 different models
would ultimately correlate
9 with each other.
10
MR. BAILEY: Part of that may go to
11 adaptive management
and monitoring afterwards.
12 You make the best
evaluations and best
13 predictions of
what's going to happen, and then
14 if you -- based on
those, if you think the
15 project is
acceptable, then you still try to
16 monitor
afterwards. Well, we're -- does what
17 actually happens, is
that what we thought was
18 going to happen, or
did we miss something, are
19 there larger effects
than what we thought?
20
That's one of the reasons that we'll be
21 doing
post-construction monitoring. I'm not
22 sure how else to
address that.
23
MR. DYSART: Judy.
24
MS. JENNINGS: About the comment about the
25 drinking water
standard and potable water
105
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 standards, I know
we're talking about
3 industrial.
4
In terms of my issues, on the very
5 surface, I really
don't care whether Abercorn
6 Creek is 11, 12, 13,
14 or 250, but we've spent
7 a decade or two, you
know, moving industry out
8 of the aquifer and on
to surface water.
9
And to any extent industry loses
10 confidence in Bob's
ability to deliver
11 industrial quality
water to them, it is a
12 bigger issue,
because I don't want to reopen
13 the debate about
well, I got out of the aquifer
14 and did this because
I had that option.
15
I don't want people -- it would become a
16 much larger debate,
if the confidence level
17 from industry in
that source were to be
18 reduced.
19
MR. SCANLON: Your concern there the
20 aquifer has a higher
mineral content than the
21 river water, from
that standpoint the surface
22 water is preferred
for this particular
23 application.
24
I don't think you need to be concerned
25 this is going to
drive people back to the
106
1
CHLORIDE UPDATE
2 aquifer. That's
not --
3
MS. JENNINGS: If you say that.
4
MR. SCANLON: EPD is not going to let that
5 happen period.
It's not likely to happen.
6 Really, there is no
reason for it to happen.
7 We're talking about a
very, very, very low
8 number and a very
specific application.
9
I don't think we can jump to say just
10 because we have a
problem, with this particular
11 thing, that we've
got a problem with all of it,
12 the whole modeling
effort.
13
It's just we are trying to really, really
14 fine tune.
We're down at the area where it is
15 very difficult to do
that. I mean the numbers,
16 just usually when
people talk about salinity
17 they talk parts per
thousand and now we're
18 talking 12 parts per
million.
19
It's a -- I think we're making too much of
20 this for our
concerns here, but it is a
21 concern. It's
a very specific concern. Like I
22 said, I'm confident
we're going to come to some
23 resolution.
24
MR. DYSART: Seeing no more comments, the
25 next item on the
agenda -- thank you, Bill.
107
1
INJECTION SYSTEM UPDATE
2 Hope.
3
MS. MOORER: For those of you who don't
4 know, we're doing the
injection system. That
5 is what is being
looked at right now as
6 mitigation for the
project, for any reduction
7 of DO in the water,
and GPA has a suggestion.
8
Maybe a demonstration project would be in
9 order to answer
questions, alleviate concerns,
10 look at how the
system will operate in the
11 river.
12
We have -- the system is on order. It
13 should be the cones,
the Speece Cones as they
14 are called, should
be arriving this month. The
15 water quality,
continuous water quality
16 monitors are
installed and operating at the GPA
17 docks, the Corps'
dock, and on the dock that is
18 near where they will
be located -- right out
19 where they will be
located, the cones
20 themselves, for the
temporary project.
21
Last week the contractor began the in
22 water sampling, the
horizontal and vertical
23 profile up and down
the channel, in that
24 section that it is
believed the oxygen may
25 disburse, so they're
trying to get the baseline
108
1
INJECTION SYSTEM UPDATE
2 prior to operation of
the cone.
3
The cone goal date for start-up is July
4 30th, and that is
contingent on us getting the
5 transformer installed
in time to run these,
6 because we needed
power there to run them, an
7 additional amount
than what is being used
8 currently over there
on Hutchinson Island.
9
The contractor has contacted me. We've
10 got to get together
about some dates. She was
11 out of the country,
my project manager, so
12 we're going to get
some dates.
13
I'll e-mail them out to you for you to
14 visit the site, if
you would like to. It would
15 have to be limited,
any one date for numbers of
16 folks at any one
time. We'll have a couple of
17 dates available, so
you can go out and see how
18 it operates, look up
close.
19
You won't see much because it would be
20 down in the
water. You can look at the cones,
21 hear it, ask
questions about it, you know, see
22 how it is set
up. There will be two cones on
23 one barge, so you
can go to the site.
24
We'll e-mail out the dates to everyone, at
25 that time when I'm
able to talk to her, and set
109
1
INJECTION SYSTEM UPDATE
2 those up.
3
MR. DYSART: Okay. David Kyler.
4
MR. KYLER: You may recall the last time
5 we discussed this, or
one of the last times, I
6 was pointing to
energy cost savings --
7
MS. MOORER: Energy costs for the
8 demonstration project
will be much higher than
9 energy costs at
operation. The reason for that
10 is they will
temporarily be mounted on a barge,
11 above water level,
and that's not where they're
12 recommended to be
operated.
13
They're recommended to be operated at or
14 below water
level. These energy costs are not
15 what are
normal. The company has these in
16 operation in other
places, so the company has
17 energy costs that
you can gather from other
18 operations --
19
MR. KYLER: Yeah --
20
MS. MOORER: -- and that bill can be used,
21 within the EIS, and
looked at. That will
22 disclose what the
energy costs are.
23
For this project, this demonstration
24 project, they will
be higher because of the
25 power required to
pump the water up into the
110
1
INJECTION SYSTEM UPDATE
2 cones and back out.
3
MR. KYLER: I just remind everyone that I
4 am talking about
developing the aspect of the
5 impact, that I was
pointing out not so much
6 costs as demand, and
what that implies for how
7 the energy is
provided and the environmental
8 impact of that energy.
9
MS. MOORER: Right. I don't know if
10 cellular power,
later on, is an option. It may
11 be the pumping
requirements are too high for
12 what's available in
cellular power at this
13 time.
14
I don't know. I'm sure that can be
15 answered by Dr.
Speece, who developed these.
16
I'm putting together -- we'll have
17 brochures that will
be available. I have --
18 just have to get the
final sign-off. They will
19 be available when
you visit. I have a fact
20 sheet. We'll
post extras on the Internet so
21 you can see them.
22
I have the one pager. It's a little more
23 technical than the
public brochure. I'm going
24 to try to get those
to businesses along River
25 Street about the
monstrosity sitting on the
111
1
INJECTION SYSTEM UPDATE
2 barge. People
will ask questions and they will
3 be able to answer
them. It is a little more
4 technical version,
the one pager information
5 sheet, that we've
sent around to maritime
6 interests right now.
7
Because the monitors actually look like
8 they're boxes with
wires coming out of them, so
9 they don't look good
sitting on a dock
10 somewhere.
11
We had a lot of coordination with the
12 Coast Guard and the
pilots and folks like that,
13 so they understand
what these are. And that
14 one pager is a
little more technical in
15 explaining what the
units are, what they do.
16
We'll post it as soon as we get the
17 brochure
approved. I'll do that one pager
18 today, give that to
Larry. I'd send it out,
19 but the size of it
is a little larger than some
20 e-mails will accept.
21
MS. JENNINGS: The monitors, they're
22 measuring the amount
of dissolved oxygen at a
23 spot and --
24
MS. MOORER: Then the boat, Monday and
25 Tuesday, will be
going out in the channel and
112
1
INJECTION SYSTEM UPDATE
2 monitoring up and
down channel, vertical and
3 horizontal profiles
throughout the column of
4 ph, and salinity, and
temperature, and DO,
5 yeah.
6
We tried to get feedback from the
7 agencies, and
actually Jim Greenfield, who
8 works with EPA gave
us some input on what would
9 be useful for the
bigger issue, the TMDL issue
10 as well, because
this is all being considered
11 for that problem as
well.
12
So I'm trying to make this test project as
13 useful as we can, it
being a very short-term
14 demonstration
project, we're trying to make it
15 as useful as we can
for all the agencies.
16
MS. JENNINGS: So I think I've asked this
17 before, I realize
that's the kind of
18 information we're
getting; do any of the
19 biology agencies
want to know about the
20 behavior that they
might be seeing from the
21 seas, I mean like,
you know, a really rich
22 environment?
23
What if you get a lot of concentrations of
24 fish getting high on
oxygen? They could
25 actually get too
much.
113
1
INJECTION SYSTEM UPDATE
2
MS. MOORER: I've asked the question and
3 I've gotten feedback
from DNR about what
4 questions they have
about the operation of this
5 system, and how it
might impact the species.
6
I'm also working with Amanda Meadows of
7 the Nature
Conservancy. They're working on a
8 project with South
Carolina DNR with the
9 short-nose sturgeon.
10
They want to put radio tags on sturgeon or
11 radio monitors on
sturgeon or different
12 monitors out in the
channel. It's GPS-like,
13 they know where all
of them are, but when they
14 pass by a certain
radio monitor, then they know
15 that fish has gone
by. It's in this area.
16
So we're sharing data with them of when
17 this is starting,
and what are the levels of
18 oxygen, and they're
going to share data with us
19 to see if it has any
impact on that species for
20 one.
21
Right now, they're hanging out above the
22 Houlihan Bridge, she
said. I don't know if it
23 will -- the oxygen
will disburse that far and
24 get up there, they
will find it and come down,
25 what have you.
114
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2
I've heard that you might want to take
3 your fishing pole and
go down near where the
4 oxygen is coming out,
at the time, but other
5 than that, besides
getting feedback and then
6 having a final report
to share with the
7 biologist, I think
that's where we are with
8 trying to get
involvement. We tried, yeah, and
9 have gotten feedback,
so --
10
MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Next item
11 on the agenda,
Operating Guidelines report,
12 Will.
13
MR. BERSON: Am I still acting? I am
14 still acting.
15
MR. DYSART: No stars on your shoulders.
16
MR. BERSON: Y'all have to approve me
17 before I'm not
acting. The Operating
18 Guidelines Committee
met on June 10th, I think.
19
And in addition to discussing whatever, I
20 should serve as
chair, we looked at the Beach
21 Erosion Committee's
request to approve the
22 beneficial use of --
to do renourishment on
23 Tybee.
24
Since that time, I've circulated the
25 minutes, and Bill
Farmer came back with some
115
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 fairly appointed
points about what we had
3 decided.
4
The group, in its discussion, had come to
5 the conclusion that
the SEG is sort of in the
6 business of
delineating what ought to be looked
7 at, and seeing if
it's actually done, and less
8 in the business of
endorsing elements of a
9 project.
10
I'm going to use the prerogative of acting
11 chair. It's
been sort of a long meeting
12 already. If
y'all want to discuss it in the
13 open right now, we
can do that.
14
If we can get Bill to come and talk to the
15 Operating Guidelines
Committee, at the next
16 interim meeting, we
can handle that. I'm
17 amenable to both.
18
It's going to be a fairly protracted
19 discussion, I have a
feeling. I even left my
20 notes at home, just
to make it easier for
21 myself.
22
I'll leave it to you. I know we're under
23 a time constraint to
address this at this
24 meeting. If
I'm wrong, somebody please -- in
25 terms of the
schedule of the project, I don't
116
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 think there's
anything particularly pressing.
3
I think the larger issue, just to sort of
4 frame it, what is the
SEG's role in evaluating
5 reports from
committees; is it to sort of check
6 it off that it has
been done, is it to go
7 deeper and look at
the adequacies, or as in
8 this particular case,
the Beach Erosion
9 Committee has
suggested that the SEG endorse
10 renourishment.
11
And so the initial sort of discussion was
12 that that was not
what the SEG was going to do.
13 It wasn't going to
be endorsing elements of the
14 project in isolation.
15
I am happy to hear discussion today or if
16 it would be more
beneficial to do it sidebar,
17 at the next interim
meeting which everyone is
18 invited to the
interim meeting, which is better
19 for you. If
you come, I know it's such fun,
20 please keep that in
mind.
21
I'm not trying to move the conversation
22 away from the main
group. In the interest of
23 time, I wanted to
offer the alternative.
24
MR. DYSART: It would seem to me you've
25 got knowledgeable
parties, Bill representing
117
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 the Beach Erosion
Committee, and y'all
3 obviously have spent
time on this. If this
4 surfaced very
recently, there needs to be some
5 substantive
discussion among the people who are
6 well-informed, as
opposed to our simply
7 listening and being
observers; does that make
8 sense to you, Bill?
9
MR. FARMER: The -- not really. I think
10 the basic discussion
is what is the role of the
11 SEG. I'm sort
of amazed that we'd be
12 addressing that this
late, you know, eight
13 years into the
project.
14
But the Operating Guidelines were written,
15 and we're fairly
clear as to what the role of
16 the SEG was, and it
had a couple of components
17 to it. And
it's time now to implement one of
18 the components that
has not, thus far, been
19 implemented.
20
I think the SEG committee tried to do
21 that. We
really want to do that as the SEG. I
22 don't know -- are
you recommending a change to
23 Operating
Guidelines, Will?
24
MR. BERSON: No, I mean we actually --
25 it's my impression
that we looked at that same
118
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 material and decided
that that was not what was
3 required of us.
4
You, I know, from the e-mail feel
5 differently about
that. I'm more than willing
6 to listen or open it
up to the field, whatever
7 the pleasure is.
8
MR. DYSART: Larry.
9
MR. KEEGAN: As I recall the discussion of
10 the Operating
Guidelines Committee meeting, it
11 started to and
eventually revolved around
12 should the SEG
evaluate whether work or
13 studies, that were
done, were done in
14 accordance with the
scope -- the work was done
15 that was asked for,
and rather than the SEG
16 approving the
conclusions of the study.
17
That seemed to be a point of discussion,
18 was the SEG supposed
to say we accept the
19 conclusions; was the
SEG supposed to say yeah,
20 the work that was
asked for was done
21 appropriately, met
the scope and the technical
22 requirements and all.
23
So there's a difference there, what is it
24 the SEG is
accepting, is it the conclusions or
25 is it the way the
work was done; do I
119
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 understand that
correctly, from what you
3 remember, Will?
4
MR. BERSON: The other part is, in this
5 instance, we're being
asked to essentially
6 endorse an element of
the project. That's
7 another -- in
addition to do we like the
8 conclusions, in
addition to comparing the
9 product, how it was
specified, how it was done,
10 the Beach Erosion
Committee is asking the SEG
11 to endorse the beach
renourishment as a
12 component of harbor
deepening, which is an
13 extra step in my
opinion.
14
MR. DYSART: Morgan.
15
MR. REES: If I may, having been pretty
16 heavily involved in
the development of the
17 Operating
Guidelines, I'm sympathetic to
18 Bill's observations
in his e-mail, and I don't
19 want to say I
disagree with them.
20
I'm just not sure we're all on the same
21 semantic
wavelength. Some of you may recall
22 the semantics
police, when we were developing
23 the guidelines and
trying sort out whether we
24 are all using the
same definition for the same
25 terms.
120
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2
I think we might be, at this point,
3 because frankly in
the Operating Guidelines
4 Committee meeting,
and I agree with Will's
5 little report he
wrote up, I think he
6 characterized
correctly what we had in mind.
7
Why, is that a violation of the Operating
8 Guidelines, as I
think you did. So I think we
9 need to work out the
semantics among those who
10 have this keen
interest.
11
I don't think we tried to do anything
12 different from what
the Operating Guidelines
13 Committee or the
Operating Guidelines
14 themselves call for.
15
And if you think we did, Bill, then we
16 need to figure out
why you think that and why
17 we don't.
18
MR. FARMER: All right. Just thinking of
19 it in a broad brush,
take the chloride issue
20 here.
21
It was determined, by the SEG, that the
22 corps should study
and model the chloride
23 issue. They
went off and did that and came
24 back with the
results, and the city, they
25 weren't happy,
entirely, with the results.
121
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2
And therefore, it's an issue that is not
3 resolved.
Okay. So there was feedback from
4 SEG members, based
upon what the Corps had
5 done. Now, the
SEG had organized, in addition,
6 the individuals being
SEG inputters. They
7 established these
committees to be inputters to
8 the SEG also, rather
than just an individual or
9 a company or an
entity.
10
So we established all these committees to
11 really concentrate
on a few little fish, beach
12 renourishment, and
the committee concentrated
13 on beach
renourishment. Anyway, the Corps went
14 off and did
studies. They published the
15 studies. The
studies came to committee to see,
16 on behalf of the
SEG, whether the committee
17 liked the results or
agreed to it, whatever
18 like that, you know.
19
So the committee did that, and we wrote a
20 report to the SEG of
what the committee
21 thought.
22
And the SEG's Operating Guidelines are
23 fairly clear.
It says that all committee work
24 products will be
subject to approval and
25 acceptance by the
full SEG.
122
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2
Now, let me repeat that, all committee
3 work products will be
subject to approval and
4 acceptance by the
full SEG.
5
So after our committee looked at the
6 results of what the
Corps did, we came to a
7 conclusion, and we're
making that conclusion
8 known to the SEG for
approval and acceptance,
9 as per the Operating
Guidelines. So the issue
10 basically is, is
that sentence clear, or should
11 it be in there at
all, or should we take it
12 out.
13
I don't see a reason to take it out. Now,
14 as far as whether
it's beneficial to Beach
15 Erosion to keep it
in, keep it out, I don't
16 think that's
relevant. I think there's a state
17 law that got passed
that the Corps is
18 responding to.
I don't think the outcome of
19 what's in the
Operating Guidelines is going to
20 physically alter
what happens, but on a
21 theoretical basis,
why do we have all the
22 committees still in
existence?
23
They have recommended studies to be done
24 and the Corps' off
doing them, so we should
25 disband the
committees -- I mean, if they're
123
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 not going to review
the output of the Corps,
3 there's no reason to
have committees any
4 longer, is there?
5
MR. DYSART: David Kyler and then Hope.
6
MR. KYLER: This is just, you know, off
7 the top of the head
thinking. It seems to me
8 this is a bit
analogous to some of the things
9 we talked about in
the way of evaluating the
10 model, and the
impacts the model is trying
11 allegedly attempt to
address. That is the
12 systemic nature of
these and use of the
13 product.
14
In the statement Bill read, the product
15 could be an analysis
product, could be a report
16 with a
recommendation. I think that's the
17 source of the
semantic ambiguity here, but it
18 could be any number
of committee's "products"
19 would be accepted,
but when taken in their
20 entirety, because of
compounding interpretive
21 effects of multiple
recommendations, the
22 project -- some
aspect of the project, some
23 aspect of the
recommendations, those various
24 committee reports
represent, would not be
25 acceptable.
124
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2
MS. MOORER: That's exactly what we
3 discussed at the
meeting, is that in a lot of
4 other reports it was
data collecting, collect
5 this data, or make a
model, or give us your
6 opinion on where the
fish are what time of the
7 year -- go study that.
8
Those were studies -- and how much beach
9 sand will be lost to
the deepening, that report
10 does include, I
think, in the coastal erosion
11 additional analysis,
there is included that
12 determination, the
harbor deepening will have
13 this impact.
14
But what -- with the placement issue, what
15 we discussed, it
crossed over the line of a
16 report back of
impacts, and kind of moved into
17 what you're going to
do for the project for
18 mitigation, for
basically for mitigation, what
19 are you going to do
for the project, where are
20 you going to place
the sand.
21
And a problem that we discussed was can
22 you tell -- can you
really tell if that's
23 acceptable, when you
don't have the bigger
24 picture of the
entire mitigation plan
25 available. And
that's what kind of you're
125
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 talking about.
3
MR. KYLER: Exactly.
4
MS. MOORER: This is a small component.
5 How can you endorse a
small component, if you
6 don't know what
exactly it would have in the
7 bigger picture
component. That was kind of the
8 issue.
9
What we talked about was it wasn't
10 necessarily the
acceptance of the report.
11 Everybody thought
that was a part of our role
12 was accepting the
report back, but it was what
13 the report stated,
and it went to the bigger
14 picture of the final
project.
15
We study fish two years. They move here,
16 here, here. We
study the marsh. This is what
17 we found. It's
not -- it didn't move into
18 we're going to put a
new cut here, fill in this
19 cut -- do you accept
that?
20
Until you know the whole project picture,
21 you can't accept
that one little piece. That
22 was part of the
concern, I think, that people
23 had.
24
It wasn't necessarily -- it was a bigger
25 picture as well as
do we really -- should we
126
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 really accept that
recommendation, at this
3 point of the project?
4
MR. FARMER: That comes -- might become a
5 question too, when
and not if -- if. I think
6 the recommendation of
the committee was to say
7 no to the if, and not
a no to the when.
8
I think the Operating Guidelines say two
9 things. In the
very first paragraph, first of
10 all it says that one
of the deliverables or the
11 outputs is for the
SEG to approve the scope and
12 content of the
studies, okay, and then the
13 committee agrees.
14
That's one function the SEG should do.
15 Number two,
deliverable is to agree the SEG is
16 to agree to impacts
of the project and the
17 resulting
appropriate mitigation actions.
18
MS. MOORER: Right.
19
MR. FARMER: Now, as far as Beach Erosion,
20 they have determined
what the impacts are, and
21 they have also
determined what the mitigation
22 ought to be, in the
report.
23
So as far as the ocean side of beach
24 renourishment, they
are sort of done. So the
25 Beach Erosion
Committee said okay. You're
127
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 done. We
evaluated what they concluded. We
3 like what they
concluded.
4
Therefore, we're recommending to the SEG
5 they agree too.
It might be a valid point to
6 say well, we don't --
we shouldn't approve it
7 now. Maybe we
should wait until the very final
8 month of the whole
project to see if there's
9 not something else
that might affect that.
10
That might be a valid point. The point is
11 still the basic
point whether the SEG should
12 approve it at all.
13
I think the committee has concluded that
14 they should not, and
the Operating Guidelines
15 appear to say that
the SEG should, because the
16 function of the SEG
is clear, in the Operating
17 Guidelines, to be an
advisory to GPA.
18
If we are going to say we're not going to
19 give them that
advice, then we need to rewrite
20 the Operating
Guidelines and not do it. That's
21 up to the group
here, whether we want to give
22 advice, or whether
we want to have a public
23 forum and chit chat,
you know.
24
Again, it comes down to what is the basic
25 function of the
SEG? Is it to be a public
128
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 forum only, or is it
to be an advisory body to
3 GPA as written?
4
MR. DYSART: Larry, please.
5
MR. KEEGAN: As I recall the discussion,
6 unfortunately I
wasn't part of the e-mail chain
7 and the notes, but as
I recall the discussion
8 in the Operating
Guidelines Committee meeting,
9 part of that
discussion was trying to deal with
10 the specific wording
of the recommendation from
11 the Beach Erosion
Committee.
12
And there was some talk, as I recall,
13 about perhaps if the
wording were different,
14 then you know people
would feel more
15 comfortable with it.
16
There was no question, that I gathered,
17 about the
acceptability of the way the work was
18 done or the
conclusions, but I had the
19 impression that part
of the concern was because
20 of the way -- the
specific wording of the
21 recommendation of
the Beach Erosion Committee
22 was a bit beyond the
guidelines of the SEG.
23
I think we should not lose sight of that
24 fact. This may
not be something that needs to
25 be dealt with by
reexamination of the basic
129
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 Operating
Guidelines. Perhaps, a reexamination
3 should look at the
wording of the
4 representations to be
approved by SEG.
5
MR. BERSON: In any case, if we decide
6 that the SEG needs to
pass judgment on these
7 sort of things, there
are other studies we're
8 going to have to go
back and do that about.
9
MR. KEEGAN: Many.
10
MR. BERSON: Just to sort of -- there are
11 implications of how
we do not only going
12 forward, but
retroactively as well, and I'm
13 answering here to
other folks thinking about
14 I'm glad we're
having the discussion. That's
15 just as well.
16
MR. DYSART: Let's -- it's about 12:20.
17
MS. VAUGHN: We only have the room until
18 1:00 o'clock.
19
MR. DYSART: The views seem to be very
20 clear. On
Bill's views, on behalf of the
21 committee, views
have been expressed. I think
22 there needs to be
some discussion, and I think
23 there needs to be a
decision about do you want
24 to spend the next 40
minutes, in lieu of what
25 is on here, or would
it be more profitable for
130
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 the principals to
have this discussion off
3 channel, and bring it
back, as opposed to
4 people who are not
terribly invested in the
5 nuances here simply
spending 40 minutes
6 listening?
7
MS. MOORER: I would agree with you and
8 suggest maybe we have
the Operating Guidelines
9 Committee bring a
resolution, and bring it back
10 to the SEG.
11
I would also ask that I know Georgia DNR
12 has a concern with
the wording, and the way
13 it's written, and
voting to endorse something
14 at this point.
15
I don't know if other agencies do as well.
16 I would ask that if
other agencies would
17 participate, in the
Operating Guidelines
18 Committee, to
express views about the
19 importance with a
vote, which is a consensus
20 vote essentially,
but it is endorsing
21 something, at this
point, as opposed to later
22 on.
23
The agencies have another formal role, but
24 if you can't
participate in this part here, I
25 think it would be
important to have those views
131
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 as well.
3
MR. DYSART: My view is that there needs
4 to be further
discussion, before we continue on
5 this. I suggest
that for the consideration of
6 the body.
7
Is there a consensus on that? Is there
8 support for having
the discussions outside of
9 this meeting, and
bringing it back with a
10 report next time to
the full SEG?
11
MR. SCHALLER: Yes.
12
MS. JENNINGS: I agree with Hope that we
13 need -- if we take
it offline, we need more
14 people than we had
at the last conversation,
15 because we're not
going to be able to move any
16 further than we did
the last time without more
17 voices being at that
table.
18
MR. DYSART: This body would obviously
19 recommend all
interested parties be there, be
20 part of this
discussion, and seeing no serious
21 objection to that, I
recommend we do that, and
22 that's I would
suggest.
23
MR. BERSON: To advance this conversation,
24 what I would propose
is that Larry, I'll copy
25 you on this.
I'm sorry you didn't have it
132
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 somehow. I went
awry with your e-mail.
3
If you would post it, if you are not able
4 to make the meeting,
I would be pleased to hear
5 from you just in an
e-mail what your thinking
6 is based on that.
7
MS. MOORER: Bill -- if you could, post
8 Bill's response.
9
MR. WILLIS: If that's okay.
10
MR. FARMER: Sure. That's fine. I think
11 the basic question
is what is the function of
12 the SEG?
Either the words are not clear or we
13 want to change the
words. I think we ought to
14 address that issue
with all interested parties,
15 you know.
16
MR. BERSON: Please look for that, on the
17 website, in the next
day or two. I assume
18 when we get down to
scheduling the next
19 meeting, we want to
talk about Operating
20 Guidelines at the
next interim.
21
That seems to work pretty well. If it
22 causes a problem for
anyone, let me know. We
23 can rethink that.
24
MR. KEEGAN: This sounds like the
25 discussion could
take some time. I wonder if
133
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 we should piggyback
-- would it compromise an
3 SEG meeting?
4
MR. DYSART: Two thoughts here, one is
5 it seems to be a
generic issue here, seems to
6 be something that
needs to be worked out, and
7 it's appropriate that
it be brought here.
8
The second thing is, I think, it is
9 important to
recognize the importance of the
10 committee work, that
the committees have done
11 lots of work, and
there are several, one of
12 which is Beach
Erosion, one which is Economics,
13 one which is
Aquifer, so forth.
14
I think there's something here that
15 warrants more
attention than we can afford to
16 give it right here
today. So, we look forward
17 to a significant,
substantive discussion and
18 recommendation next
time.
19
MR. BERSON: One final note, if I may,
20 based on the outcome
of that discussion, you're
21 going to have to
vote whether I'm acting or
22 the real chair of
the committee --
23
MR. FARMER: I would move --
24
MR. BERSON: -- until I.
25
MR. FARMER: -- that needs to be
134
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 suggested. I
just move you become the real one
3 rather than the
acting one.
4
MR. BERSON: We can wait on that.
5
MR. DYSART: Any other active candidates,
6 Morgan?
7
MR. REES: I concur in Mr. Farmer's
8 suggestion.
9
MR. DYSART: The smiles of board approval
10 around the table
indicate we have reached a
11 consensus on
that. We demote Will from being
12 acting chair to full
chair.
13
MR. FARMER: And his salary should be
14 doubled.
15
MR. DYSART: Committee reports, Aquifer.
16 Bob Scanlon
indicates he has nothing to report
17 today. Bill.
18
MR. FARMER: The only thing I report is we
19 have a pending
motion, and recommendation, from
20 the committee to the
SEG which will be delayed
21 until some future
meeting.
22
MR. DYSART: Okay. Dredging and Disposal.
23 okay. Judy,
Economics Working Group.
24
MS. JENNINGS: Just waiting on the Corps
25 to be able to share
things --
135
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2
MR. DYSART: Okay.
3
MS. JENNINGS: -- with those who are
4 interested. I
do have one little question
5 though about -- I'm
just assuming that all of
6 the economics were --
will be finished,
7 analyzed, and
everything that goes into it
8 before the draft.
9
MR. BAILEY: Yes.
10
MS. JENNINGS: Okay. And that the
11 economics is an
input into the action, the
12 alternative
selection -- the selection of an
13 alternative.
14
MR. BAILEY: Correct.
15
MS. JENNINGS: I guess I'm wondering is
16 there anywhere in
between? I mean, you know,
17 this is our July
meeting, right -- is it August
18 -- okay, so
somewhere in the summer.
19
Where, in there, is there an opportunity
20 for people to have
-- well, for instance, as
21 we're just going
along here talking about the
22 beach erosion, the
economics is so extremely
23 large.
24
I don't think there's anybody, in the
25 Economics Working
Group, that could ever do
136
1
OPERATING SYSTEM GUIDELINES REPORT
2 anything other than
say sure does look like
3 they did all the
work. But I still think there
4 needs to be an
opportunity, because we had the
5 Economics Working
Group meetings and they were
6 well-attended by a
broad variety of people.
7
I'm wondering, is there going to be a
8 point, before the
economics is used, to input
9 into the
decision? Is there going to be a
10 point at which
people can give input, feedback,
11 into the economics,
before it becomes a major
12 driver into the
choice of an alternative, into
13 the recommendation
of the draft?
14
MS. MOORER: Judy, all I can say is I will
15 request that time,
but right now they are just
16 in the data input
collection mode, updating,
17 and I will request
that, that once they come to
18 a resolution, on
some of this data, that we get
19 a meeting before
when the planned selection may
20 be.
21
MS. JENNINGS: It goes back to talking
22 about the SEG and
whether or not we ever said
23 gee, we approve,
recommend, whatever.
24
If we have never had a chance to look at
25 it, ask questions,
and even be sure. I
137
1
COMMITTEE REPORTS
2 remember a time, not
too long ago, when we were
3 assuming the Panama
Canal wasn't going to
4 change.
5
If there is something like that, certainly
6 people who are
interested need to be able to
7 look at it, before it
becomes an ingredient in
8 a final draft.
9
MS. MOORER: I will request that.
10
MR. BERSON: Interim Ad Hoc Committee
11 which is me, I don't
have any report, zero.
12
MR. DYSART: Good. Striped Bass,
13 Operating Guidelines
Committee, we've already
14 heard about, and
Striped Bass, Will -- oh no,
15 that's you.
16
MR. FLEMING: That's me for right now. We
17 have not met and I
don't have anything to
18 report. I
would -- I just found out we can
19 change chair people,
and it seems like right
20 now I do need to
resign from that committee, at
21 least as committee
chair.
22
I kind of got appointed to that because
23 the division and the
management group, that I
24 was associated with,
with the WRD Fishery was
25 responsible for
striped bass.
138
1
COMMITTEE REPORTS
2
I've since left that division and have
3 gone to Coastal
Resources. I would like to
4 resign from that
chair at this point.
5
MR. FARMER: Why, just because you moved?
6
MR. FLEMING: I've moved divisions and my
7 responsibilities have
changed, so my function
8 has changed, and I
will not be closely
9 associated with
striped bass like I used to be.
10
MR. BERSON: He's bigger than them now.
11
MR. FARMER: Have you trained a
12 replacement?
13
MR. FLEMING: I don't know how it needs to
14 go -- sounds like we
voted you in, let's vote
15 me out.
16
MR. DYSART: We could do it that way or we
17 could let the
particular agency people, others
18 particularly
interested in this come up with a
19 consensus
recommendation, unless you have one.
20
Why don't we task the people interested in
21 that area to bring
us a recommendation. Thank
22 you.
Congratulations moving on. Okay. New
23 business, what about
the utility crossing,
24 Bill?
25
MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure exactly what was
139
1
COMMITTEE REPORTS
2 being asked on this
one. I will say that the
3 Corps has tried to
get information about
4 utility crossings,
pipelines or cables, or
5 something like that
that may be under the
6 river, just as part
of our evaluation of the
7 project.
8
We want to make sure that we know all of
9 the impacts of the
deepening. We have written
10 letters to
people. We put out a -- we put out
11 a public notice.
12
I guess the bottom line is if you haven't
13 contacted -- if you
do own a utility, that
14 crosses the river,
and you haven't been
15 contacted by the
Corps, then please talk with
16 us. That's
about it.
17
MR. DYSART: What about the IPR which
18 could stand for just
most anything you want it
19 to today --
in-progress review?
20
MS. MOORER: I would suggest that we defer
21 this discussion
until the next meeting when the
22 memorandum for
record is finalized. Hopefully,
23 it will be better
because it's impacting us.
24
I would suggest that to the group. Until
25 that is finalized,
we won't know exactly what
140
1
COMMITTEE REPORTS
2 headquarters there
has decided upon.
3
MR. KEEGAN: Once we have that final MFR
4 we can post that.
5
MR. BAILEY: Yes.
6
MR. KEEGAN: We'll put it on the Internet
7 so people can see
it. Maybe it will make more
8 sense to have the
discussion then.
9
MS. MOORER: At the IPR, it was addressed,
10 like Jasper County
was addressed, some
11 economics, like
passing lanes was addressed.
12
When we had the alternative formation
13 briefing, all these
things were addressed in
14 there. There
was a lot of discussions. Until
15 headquarters agrees
on the wording of what it
16 contains, we don't
have any final answer at
17 this point.
18
MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's see, how about
19 next meeting
date? We need to meet a month
20 from now, two months
from now; what's the flow
21 of new information
coming in? What are the
22 matters of your
knowledge that need to come
23 before this body?
24
MS. MOORER: I don't know of anything that
25 will come available
by August 7th. I'd suggest
141
1
COMMITTEE REPORTS
2 that we have the
Operating Guidelines
3 Committee, and the
Interim Committee meeting on
4 that day. And
if -- if, for some reason, the
5 Operating Guidelines
Committee discussion runs
6 long, we can send
back out a notice saying that
7 the Interim is going
to be another day.
8
I think the discussion could be held on
9 the 7th, and maybe
the following month an SEG
10 meeting.
11
MR. DYSART: Let's say tentatively
12 September 11th, and
we'll await guidance from
13 Operating Guidelines
or the Interim Committee.
14
Before everybody runs out, I wanted to
15 make one very brief
comment. My comment
16 earlier about Will's
question that it was --
17 seemed to be a
fairly straightforward question,
18 as you know, many of
you know, I have a very
19 dry sense of
humor. I hope that came through.
20
The important point I was making was that
21 this body has a
history, in recent years, of
22 being able to
discuss things very candidly.
23 And there is enough
mutual trust and respect
24 and openness, so
forth, within the body that
25 somebody can ask a
very straightforward
142
1
COMMITTEE REPORTS
2 question, with little
corners on it, as opposed
3 to dancing around on
the heads of pins.
4
As I sometimes do, I was using Will's
5 participation as
commending it, as typifying if
6 you have a question,
ask it. Make it nice and
7 clear so somebody can
give a clear response.
8
So there was not any kind of other
9 nuances. Nobody
is talking about this in the
10 interim, but I
wanted to make that very clear.
11
I think some of you, who have been coming
12 around a long time,
know there was a time when
13 we couldn't have a
broad discussion based on
14 trust, mutual
respect, and so forth.
15
That is, to me, a positive comment
16 concerning how this
body deliberates, and
17 people who are
answering questions will give
18 straight answers to
their best ability, based
19 on the facts that
you know, and we can keep on
20 having good,
meaningful discussions. Bill
21 Farmer, you've got a
tent up there.
22
MR. FARMER: Right. There's another
23 suggestion that we
all go to the website and
24 look at the draft of
the final report of the
25 SEG.
143
1
COMMITTEE REPORTS
2
At present, the final report draft is
3 three pages long with
several appendices. I
4 finally got around to
looking at that a couple
5 of weeks ago.
6
I talked to Larry at the break. He said
7 my comments may be
the only comments that are
8 received back on the
initial draft, which I
9 believe was posted a
half a year ago, which
10 means basically,
maybe, no one else has noticed
11 it there.
12
It comes down to again what's the basic
13 function of the SEG;
what is our final report
14 going to look like;
what should be in there;
15 what shouldn't be.
16
I wanted to mention -- suggest everyone
17 look at that.
Come up with input. That goes
18 back to Will,
because he's editor and chief of
19 the final report.
20
MR. DYSART: That's why he gets paid twice
21 as much as you do.
22
MR. FARMER: Right.
23
MS. MOORER: One question, the September
24 meeting dates are
tentatively the 11th, 4th or
25 -- the 11th -- the
11th? I wanted to make sure
144
1
COMMITTEE REPORTS
2 for the announcement
we send out. Thank you.
3
MR. DYSART: Any other questions? Seeing
4 no hands up, what
not, I declare the meeting
5 adjourned.
Thank you for all your
6 participation.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
145
1
2
3
C E R T I F I C A T E
4 G
E O R G I A :
5
CHATHAM COUNTY :
6
7
I hereby certify that the foregoing
8
transcript was taken down, as stated in the
9
caption, and the questions and answers thereto were
10 reduced
to typewriting under my direction; that the
11
foregoing pages 1 through 144 represent a true and
12 correct
transcript of the evidence given upon said
13
hearing, and I further certify that I am not of kin
14 or
counsel to the parties in the case; am not in
15 the
regular employ of counsel for any of said
16
parties; nor am I in anywise interested in the
17 result
of said case.
18
This the 6th day July, 2007.
19
20
_______________________________
21
Kathleen Dore, Certified Court
22
Reporter, B-2041
23
24
25