1 2 3 4 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 5 6 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 7 8 JANUARY 11, 2000 9 9:00 A.M. 10 MIGHTY 8TH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 11 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 5 I N D E X 6 7 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 4 8 FACILITATOR'S HANDOUTS ------------------------ 7 9 AGENDA DISCUSSION ----------------------------- 10 10 OLD BUSINESS ---------------------------------- 21 11 ad hoc committee ------------------------------ 71 12 BEACH EROSION --------------------------------- 120 13 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ------------------------- 152 14 MTRG ------------------------------------------ 152 15 SHORTNOSE STURGEON ---------------------------- 155 16 STRIPED BASS ---------------------------------- 157 17 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE --------------------- 180 18 ECONOMICS ------------------------------------- 207 19 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 221 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 MR. DYSERT: Okay. It's 9:13 a.m., and I 3 officially call the meeting of the Savannah Harbor 4 Improvement Project Stakeholders Evaluation Group 5 to order. 6 I'm Ben Dysert, your facilitator, and today 7 our official court reporter, to make sure that we 8 have a verbatim legal transcript of everything that 9 is said, is Kathleen Dore. 10 So I asked her how she got so lucky to come 11 here. She said they pass the hard work around to 12 different people. I asked her -- I'm making up a 13 story -- Kathleen, I said, what makes it hard? She 14 said, apparently it's lots of going back and forth, 15 lots of discussion, technical and so forth. It 16 wasn't -- that was the nature of that. 17 I think that any of you who have reviewed the 18 verbatim transcript of the last couple of hearings, 19 or meetings, or group sessions, know -- can 20 appreciate the challenge of trying to get all of 21 the record down. 22 Trish, how many pages were in the last 23 verbatim transcript? Did you bring that? 24 MS. REESE: It's 238. 25 MR. DYSERT: 238 pages, and I'm sure that will 4 1 2 be a treasured memento, all of you who found that 3 on your web site. It's really amazing all the 4 words that get poured out at the meetings. So 5 anyway, I'm sure that many of you have gone through 6 it word for word, and are pleased that we have 7 people like Kathleen to capture all of this. 8 Okay. Could we do introductions around the 9 table, say who you are and who you are here 10 representing. Stuart, why don't you start off? 11 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens, Georgia DNR, 12 Custom Manager. 13 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia DNR, Wildlife 14 Resources Division. 15 MR. MERONEK: Tom Meronek, Georgia DNR. 16 MR. STAFFORD: Tom Stafford, Ogeechee Audubon 17 Society. 18 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, City of Tybee 19 Island. 20 MS. LEFFEK: Teri Leffek, representing Sierra 21 Club, Stevens Shipping, and also the interests of 22 Robbie Harrison. 23 MS. JENNINS: Judy Jennings, Georgia Sierra 24 Club. 25 MS. PERLING: Florence Perling, League of 5 1 2 Women Voters, as an observer. 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: Chris Schuberth, representing 4 the Chatham Environmental Forum and Tybee Beach 5 Task Force. 6 MS. REESE: Patricia Reese, Georgia Ports 7 Authority. 8 MR. GALE: Jeri Gale, Georgia Conservancy. 9 MS. THORPE: Dale Thorpe, the Georgia 10 Conservancy. 11 MR. MIKELL: Rob Mikell, South Carolina DHEC 12 Coastal Program. 13 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers. 14 MR. PHILLIPS: John Phillips, Georgia 15 Department of Transportation. 16 MR. CALHOUN: Andy Calhoun, The Colonial 17 Group. 18 MR. PARSONS: Keith Parsons, Georgia 19 Department of Natural Resources. 20 MR. ROGERS: Larry Rogers, Georgia DNR and 21 EPD. 22 MS. NELSON: Christie Nelson, Lockwood Greene 23 Engineers. 24 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 25 Authority. 6 1 2 MS. ELLIS: Bo Ellis, Applied Technology & 3 Management. 4 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, Georgia Ports. 5 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia Ports. 6 MR. BROWN: Tommy Brown, Savannah Pilots. 7 MR. McINTOSH: Neff McIntosh, Coastal 8 Environmental Organization. 9 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo. 10 MR. PLACHY: Doug Plachy, Corps of Engineers, 11 Savannah District. 12 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, Fish and 13 Wildlife. 14 MR. DRAKE: Sam Drake, Fish and Wildlife 15 Service. 16 MR. KING: Mitch King, Fish and Wildlife 17 Service. 18 MR. MORRIS: Charlie Morris, South Carolina 19 Department of Natural Resources, and Office of 20 Environmental Management. 21 MR. BREWTON: Ben Brewton, Coastal Environment 22 Organization. 23 MR. DYSERT: Back row, Brittany. 24 MS. ROBINSON: Brittany Robinson, 25 International Paper. 7 1 2 MR. JUE: Harry Jue, City of Savannah. 3 MS. KRUEGER: Gail Krueger, Savannah Morning 4 News. 5 MR. YANDELL: Justin Yandell, Coastal 6 Environmental Organization. 7 MR. McDONALD: Jim McDonald, Coastal Captain 8 at the Port. 9 MR. DYSERT: Okay. As I indicated before, 10 anybody who is on the back row, who would like to 11 sit at the table and have a name tag in front of 12 them, so the court reporter can capture your name 13 more easily, feel free to join the table. 14 If you are sitting on the back row, please be 15 sure to state your name when you speak. We'd 16 appreciate that. And we're going to be trying to 17 make sure that everybody speaks up one at a time, 18 so that they can be captured for the record. And 19 if you'll cooperate, I've asked our court reporter 20 to please remind me and feel free to break in 21 whenever things get a little confusing. 22 Okay. So far as the item -- pass out the 23 handouts, Cathy. After introductions, I have a 24 brief set of comments here that are going to be 25 faster than usual. 8 1 2 I'd simply point out the Stakeholders 3 Evaluation Group is beginning its second year of 4 doing business. This is the 13th month that you 5 have been in business. 6 I don't know whether there's anything magic 7 about 13 months or what not, but I would urge each 8 of you to reflect back on what has been done in the 9 last year, and you need to decide; are you 10 satisfied; are you on target; are you doing what 11 you think you need to do? 12 Coming around is two or three handouts that 13 you have seen before, in case anybody wants one. 14 If you don't, just keep them passing. There's a 15 handout on the mission, which all of you have had 16 an opportunity to be aware of, and that's what 17 we're here to be dealing with. 18 The second and third handouts are the results 19 of the two opportunities that the entire group has 20 had to speak on what its priorities, preferences, 21 interests, and focus was. 22 And so I would simply say today, and in the 23 rest of the second year, the third year, whatever 24 is ahead of you, please try to decide how much you 25 want to focus your time and energy on driving the 9 1 2 scientific mission of this body. Then, it's your 3 group. You can do what you want to. 4 You have an opportunity to make a difference. 5 There, presumably, is some kind of time window. 6 There's a radar screen of things that need to be 7 defined, in the way of scientific studies that need 8 to be done, and things that need to be actually 9 done, and you need to form consensus on these and 10 report this. 11 So you're aware of that and you know, science 12 is what this group is about. You decide how 13 vigorously you wish to move forward on that. What 14 should be passed around by now is the draft agenda, 15 and you can look at it. 16 There are no surprises in the format. It's 17 a format that was developed and adopted by this 18 group some months ago. You can take a look at it, 19 and if -- whatever your pleasure is -- someone 20 wishes to amend it, adopt it, whatever; let me hear 21 from you. 22 MS. VAUGHN: Excuse me, Mr. Dysert. People 23 requesting the other handouts, there weren't 24 enough. Do you have anymore copies of the first 25 one? 10 1 2 MR. DYSERT: I think I brought 40 of the 3 mission, and 20 of the other two, and 70 of the 4 agenda. I assume that on the handouts from the 5 April meeting when the body, the members spoke, and 6 in October that had been handed out, you know, 7 several times before. And so many of you were 8 familiar with that. 9 Anybody who is missing anything, let me know 10 and we'll make sure you get a copy electronically. 11 I know how to get in touch with you, and we can 12 zap it to you immediately. 13 So anyway, that was an effort to prevent 14 cutting down one more tree, just to have 20 of 15 those that had gone around several times before. 16 Comments, views, or action on the draft agenda? 17 Ben Brewton. 18 MR. BREWTON: Yes. The only thing I would 19 comment on, I think there's been a little bit of 20 change from the format that the group approved 21 several meetings ago, in that the old business 22 within that category, action items were supposed to 23 come first, and then discussion items. And you 24 have segregated it by a different method of what 25 you call -- in your judgment are science, and 11 1 2 mission specific, and administrative. 3 And I think, in fact, I have here the October 4 report that was approved that said, old business 5 action items should come first. Within that, if 6 you would like to put a priority on scientific, I 7 think that's fine and would certainly agree to do 8 so. 9 But I think all action items are supposed to 10 come before any discussion items; that is, the 11 administrative action items should come before 12 scientific discussion items. Same thing within the 13 new business category. 14 MR. DYSERT: Actually, this agenda here, for 15 the most part, is identical to what was approved 16 last time, since most of the items were carried 17 over. 18 So it's pretty much what you approved last 19 time, and I certainly recognize that action items 20 come before discussion. 21 As we've discussed a number of times before, 22 within the old business, new business, and 23 committee major categories, there does seem to be a 24 general preference within the body to deal with 25 the science before administrative and other 12 1 2 matters. That's my reading. 3 MR. BREWTON: Well, Mr. Dysert, if I might 4 respond. I'm not sure how you interpret your 5 general preference, but there was actually an 6 official action taken on the October report that 7 specifically says -- here, I can give you a copy if 8 you need that -- that the action items would come 9 before discussion. I would just recommend that 10 within this section -- 11 MR. DYSERT: Okay. 12 MR. BREWTON: -- we can go ahead and start, 13 use this as a starting point, but within each 14 section, I think we need to take the action items 15 first. So I would propose that we adopt the agenda 16 with that stipulation. 17 MR. DYSERT: In fact, at the beginning of each 18 section in italics on my copy, it states which have 19 action items for prior placement. So if anybody 20 has any specific action items that they wish to 21 have -- to have prior to placement, please identify 22 them and we will reorder them within the groups. 23 MR. BREWTON: The other comment I'd like to 24 make is that, I think, by trying to make an 25 interpretation of what you personally think is 13 1 2 mission specific or not, I think you are perhaps 3 creating a divisive error in the group. 4 For instance, I notice under old business, 5 under science mission specific, you have updated 6 the appendices of the Operating Guidelines, updated 7 the communication list, and such things as that. 8 I think arguably, those should be in the 9 administrative category, if we're going to do this, 10 but I don't recall that being part of the 11 recommendation, or the group recommending we try 12 do that, and create a tug of war among the members 13 here, but -- 14 MR. DYSERT: You said you did not recall a 15 recommendation from whom about what? I'm not clear 16 on that. 17 MR. BREWTON: The recommendation was approved 18 by the communications -- by the SEG -- simply 19 called for new business before -- old business 20 before new business rather. 21 MR. DYSERT: Right. 22 MR. BREWTON: And action items before 23 discussion items. 24 MR. DYSERT: Right. 25 MR. BREWTON: The additional separation, 14 1 2 apparently, has been done by the facilitator, and 3 that's okay. I'm just saying I think, in your 4 judgment, in trying to -- for you to make a 5 judgment about what is or isn't mission specific, I 6 think it creates a point of contention that, 7 rather than bringing us together, it sometimes 8 serves to bring us further apart. 9 MR. DYSERT: As -- excuse me -- as you know, 10 everytime the group has been asked what their 11 priorities and preferences were, they have clearly 12 indicated a primary interest in focusing on 13 science. 14 So that, to me, when the body has spoken 15 clearly, I do not feel I have the latitude to 16 ignore that. That is in addition to the 17 recommendations that were adopted from the 18 Communications Committee. 19 Now, if this body wishes to mix the 20 administrative and scientific, and not make that 21 distinction or prioritization, then they can decide 22 to. 23 MR. BREWTON: Well, sir, I don't think the 24 body ever decided to do that. I don't want to 25 belabor the point. I think we need to get on with 15 1 2 the important business and mission of this group, 3 if I might borrow your words. 4 I would just suggest, as I did before, I 5 propose that we adopt the agenda with the note 6 that within the old business category, within the 7 committee reports category, and within the new 8 business category, that we take action items of all 9 types before discussion items. 10 MR. DYSERT: What is the pleasure of the body? 11 Do you wish to -- are you advocating, Ben, that the 12 scientific and the administrative matters be 13 merged, or that there not be a distinction or 14 no priority? 15 MR. BREWTON: I'm advocating the distinction 16 first be given to action items. After you take 17 action items first, within the subcategory of 18 action items, then we can take the scientific 19 action items before the administrative action 20 items, but all action items should be completed 21 before any discussion items. That's my motion and 22 recommendation. 23 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Under old business, can 24 someone tell me which of the items under old 25 business are indeed action items? David Schaller. 16 1 2 MR. SCHALLER: No, I can't tell you that, but 3 I think that, you know, Mr. Brewton's right. I 4 think, let's move on. 5 I think that is -- the Communication 6 Committee's recommendation addresses this very 7 point, and to spend time here debating that now, I 8 don't think that serves any useful purpose. 9 MR. DYSERT: Okay. What are the action items 10 under old business, and we will take them first? 11 Are there any action items under old business? 12 Mitch. 13 MR. KING: I guess one action item I've got to 14 throw in here is closure to the issue we had last 15 month on the web site and Communications Committee. 16 I think we charged that committee with going 17 back and revisiting that subject, and hopefully 18 baking that cake a little bit more, before they 19 brought it back to committee. So I'd say that's an 20 action item. 21 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Okay. Good. That's item 22 5 Roman V-7. 23 MR. KING: Yeah, I think that's right. 24 MR. DYSERT: Yes. So that's an action item. 25 Any other actions items? Rob. 17 1 2 MR. MIKELL: Bill Farmer's matrix that we 3 discussed. 4 MR. DYSERT: Would that be considered Roman 5 V-4, the update on appendices B and C; would 6 that be considered that? Okay. That's an action 7 item. 8 MR. STEVENS: I don't think that. 9 MR. DYSERT: Stuart. 10 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens, DNR. Rob, I'm 11 not sure what he just said is what you were after. 12 Aren't you talking about old business V-1, the 13 matrix? 14 MR. DYSERT: Yes, yes. 15 MR. STEVENS: Okay. 16 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Thank you, Stuart. 17 Ben Brewton. 18 MR. BREWTON: Before you -- could somebody 19 refresh us what V-4 is at appendices B and C. 20 MR. DYSERT: Update of appendices B and C, 21 that's the list of issues that are being focused by 22 the Stakeholders Evaluation Group, and I believe 23 the list of members of committees. Morgan Rees. 24 MR. REES: If I may, in looking at those two 25 items, Roman V-1, and Roman V-4, I think they're 18 1 2 the same item. They're part of the Operating 3 Guidelines Committee activity, and I think we can 4 put them together. 5 MR. DYSERT: Okay. 6 MR. BREWTON: I would concur with that. 7 MR. DYSERT: Neff McIntosh. 8 MR. McINTOSH: Neff McIntosh, CEF. As far as 9 the tidal amplitude, I would like it to be 10 considered as an action item, only as we have 11 some closure on what action we take going forward, 12 whether the committee or GPA initiates a study or 13 something. 14 MR. DYSERT: Are there other actions item 15 under the old business category? Okay. Those have 16 been designated for priority consideration under 17 old business. 18 While we're here, let's look at the committee 19 reports. Which ones of the committee reports are, 20 indeed, action items? Any of the committee 21 reports, scientific or otherwise, to be considered 22 action items? Stuart. 23 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens, DNR. I might 24 suggest that really, without having the reports, we 25 wouldn't know that. 19 1 2 The committee chairs might offer whether 3 they're going to present something that requires an 4 action, is that correct? 5 MR. DYSERT: Seems reasonable to me. Okay. 6 Under new business category, which of these are 7 action items, and therefore warrant being 8 considered first before others? Bruce. 9 MR. BREWTON: Excuse me one minute, please. 10 MR. DYSERT: Yes. 11 MR. BREWTON: Under the committee reports, I'm 12 assuming that most of the Communications Committee 13 items will be taken care of under the old business, 14 but if there's anything left that we want to defer 15 until later in the meeting, it may come up at that 16 point that you had here as item VII-7. 17 MR. DYSERT: Okay. What was Roman V-7 -- was 18 the ad hoc committee dealing with the web site. 19 The Communication Committee's report VII-7. Was 20 there anything else that -- I had no idea what that 21 might be. 22 MR. BREWTON: Right. I guess, that's all 23 really old business. It would be the remaining 24 items on the earlier thing. We may not need any 25 time there at all, if we finish it all under the 20 1 2 other section. 3 MR. DYSERT: Okay. So we'll move it to action 4 items, old business. Any other modifications you 5 would like to make on the agenda? Seeing none, are 6 you ready to approve it as modified? Any 7 objections? 8 MR. BREWTON: Motion for approval. 9 MR. DYSERT: I declare that a consensus was 10 reached and we do not need votes on that. Okay. 11 The next item is item four, approval of previous 12 meeting summaries. 13 We have one item. There is the summary or 14 verbatim court reporter transcript from 15 December. Is there any discussion that is 16 necessary on that? Ben Brewton. 17 MR. BREWTON: The only thing I noticed, I 18 think an excellent job was done. The only thing I 19 noticed was your name was misspelled, D-Y-S-E-R-T, 20 rather than D-Y-S-A-R-T. 21 MR. DYSERT: Well, I'll tell you what, I take 22 no offense at that. I wouldn't suggest anybody 23 waste their time changing that. We'll note that 24 for the record. 25 MR. BREWTON: Other than that, I would move 21 1 2 that we adopt it as presented. 3 MR. DYSERT: Is there a general consensus on 4 approval of the December verbatim transcript? I 5 see smiley faces, nodding heads. I declare that to 6 be a legitimate, honest-to-goodness consensus. 7 What about, do we have any action, Ben, on the 8 backlog of summaries, transcripts, and so forth? 9 MR. BREWTON: No. We sort of tabled that and 10 put our work time into resolving these web site and 11 other communications issues, so we don't have 12 anything to present on that at this time. 13 MR. DYSERT: Okay. So now let's go to section 14 five, old business, and the first item that has 15 been flagged as an action item is adequacy of 16 current Impact Committee, so forth, basically the 17 matrix area. Bill, would you and Morgan care to 18 proceed on that however y'all desire? 19 MR. FARMER: I'll bow to Morgan first, if he 20 would like to start. 21 MR. REES: I had put out a, what I call an 22 electronic committee meeting with some suggestions 23 on three issues. 24 One was the definition of consensus that we 25 had talked about at the last SEG meeting. Another 22 1 2 was the matrix. And another was any amendments to 3 any of the appendices in the Operating Guidelines. 4 I got some feedback, and the bottom line is 5 that we didn't come to closure on any of those 6 issues, and have decided to have a face-to-face 7 meeting. 8 So I sent a follow-up memo asking people 9 to let me know their availability. I haven't heard 10 back from anybody. 11 I hope that e-mail went, but if anybody didn't 12 get it, they're interested in being on the 13 Operating Guidelines Committee, we do want to 14 schedule a meeting. I need to know peoples' 15 availability so we can do that. 16 MR. DYSERT: You might want to consider, 17 Morgan, if there's no objections, you might declare 18 a consensus. 19 MR. REES: Well, I thought about that, but no, 20 we won't do that. 21 MS. JENNINGS: What time frames are you 22 looking at for the meeting? 23 MR. REES: The question is what time frames -- 24 I would like to meet as soon as possible, but I 25 don't know when the right people are available. I 23 1 2 need to know that first. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 4 MR. FARMER: The other interesting thing about 5 the matrix is that I've been sort of anxious to get 6 all the X's in the right places, and then set that 7 aside. 8 But it appears that every week or so, one 9 committee says they want to add one more X in there 10 or whatever. 11 In reflecting upon this, it looks like that's 12 not a bad thing. There's no real reason to have a 13 final issue, and then set it aside. 14 It can be a growing thing. As committees get 15 into their work, they determine they need to look 16 at one more thing, or whatever. So, I'll keep -- I 17 happen to have that matrix in the computer. I'll 18 just keep on putting it out with fresh X's all the 19 time. 20 I think what the X's mean is that the 21 committee is looking at that issue within their 22 particular committee activity. And I think that's 23 about all that it means. 24 It also indicates when there's more than one 25 committee that has the same X, so to speak, that 24 1 2 somehow they need to cooperate and coordinate their 3 activities. 4 So we're -- the other purpose is when you see 5 an issue that has no X's, the SEG should 6 determine what to do about that; whether or not 7 some new committee needs to get formed, or whether 8 the issue goes away, or some existing committee 9 needs to absorb that issue unwillingly or 10 something, you know. 11 So, those are the three kinds of things that 12 are occurring, but at this point, there's no 13 decision for the committee to make -- for the SEG 14 to make. 15 MR. DYSERT: I think when the Farmergram came 16 into existence, you know, the objective of that was 17 to make sure that the issues that had been 18 identified by this body, that somebody had 19 ownership, that somebody, some committee was 20 actually moving things forward toward identifying 21 the science that was the needed. 22 I think your point is well taken. If it's 23 an issue that doesn't have any or much coverage, 24 this body needs to decide whether it needs to go 25 off the list, or whether it needs action. 25 1 2 I think the second point that comes from your 3 comments, Bill, is that if there is more than one 4 committee that is looking at, dealing with, or 5 interested in something; there needs to be 6 coordination among those committees to make sure 7 that somebody has the lead action, and is pushing 8 things forward to actually get the science defined, 9 as opposed to simply being interested in it, and 10 thinking about it, that something is actually being 11 done that can satisfy the mission. 12 So we will look forward to that coming back up 13 from you and Morgan, when you have something 14 additional to report. Who was next? I see Morgan. 15 I see Neff. I see Mitch. I see Ben. 16 MR. BREWTON: I think Mitch was. 17 MR. KING: Mitch King, Fish and Wildlife 18 Service. One of the things that I'd like to 19 suggest, we now have those Operating Guidelines, 20 and somebody take a close look at is the issue, not 21 just the definition of consensus, but how we are 22 using it here? 23 I saw, last time in the meeting, there was a 24 lot of difference of opinion on whether or not we 25 voted, whether or not we didn't vote, how this 26 1 2 group operates with that consensus in mind. 3 I don't think that's necessarily the 4 definition of consensus, but it is how we use it 5 here. And should we be voting on issues, what are 6 the problems if you vote on issues of identifying 7 who the voting members are, and how many votes each 8 person has or each group has? 9 Those kinds of things, I think, are 10 problems. I'm sort of drifting into a discussion 11 of committee problems. I'd sure like to have the 12 committee come back and get started and say, we'll 13 never vote on another issue again, or we're going 14 to vote on an issue. 15 Make it clear, so we don't have this continual 16 difference of opinion. I'd like to recommend that 17 the committee take that up as one of their charges. 18 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Good points. Who was next 19 of the three that are up now? 20 MR. McINTOSH: I think Ben was before me. 21 MR. BREWTON: I wanted to again compliment 22 Bill Farmer for trying to keep track of these 23 varied things. I wanted to amplify on something he 24 said in his comments there, and we discussed this 25 at some length earlier, but I just want to state it 27 1 2 as a reminder. 3 That is, the presence of an X, in one or even 4 several of those boxes where an issue is being 5 looked at by a committee, does not imply that that 6 issue is being looked at in total or even 7 comprehensively. 8 In fact, any given committee, or a combination 9 of those committees may be looking at specific 10 aspects of that committee. So just as we want to 11 be aware of what to do when there's no X there, and 12 just as we want to make sure there's coordination; 13 we also want to continually remind, and refresh, 14 ourselves to what extent each committee is looking 15 at it, to see if there are other areas of any 16 particular issue that needs further examination. 17 MR. DYSERT: I couldn't agree more with what 18 Ben just said. I think that is very, very 19 important, and that's why, I think, it is important 20 that the working committees bring things back to 21 this body, because somebody can say, here's our 22 interest in it. 23 When it comes back before this body, there is 24 a broad spectrum of interests, and concerns, and 25 wisdom within this body. That's why I think the 28 1 2 group is interested in getting the reports from the 3 scientific committees back here, so you can have an 4 opportunity to react, so thank you. 5 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. 6 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Neff, and then we'll go 7 with Chris. 8 MR. McINTOSH: I wanted to ask a question, is 9 there any thought to or any plans in the works -- 10 I'm Neff McIntosh, Coastal Environmental 11 Organization, to get the matrix on any of the 12 web sites or bulletins boards that we have? 13 It would seem to me that is one of those 14 resource items that we have sort of conjured up out 15 of the blue. It does make sense to have it 16 available to everybody someway, somehow. Bill. 17 MR. FARMER: I've sent it out electronically, 18 and someone else needs to know how to get it into 19 the web site. 20 MR. REES: I'll take my turn. I'll respond. 21 MR. McINTOSH: Have I received it? 22 MR. FARMER: I don't know. 23 MR. McINTOSH: Did you send it to me? 24 MR. FARMER: No. 25 MR. McINTOSH: Okay. I probably haven't 29 1 2 received it. 3 MR. FARMER: There's e-mail and there's 4 web sites. E-mails you receive. Web sites you 5 have to go look for. 6 MR. McINTOSH: Have you sent it to my e-mail 7 address? 8 MR. FARMER: You're beyond my comprehensive. 9 MR. REES: If I may take my turn, I'll respond 10 to Neff. Yeah. My intention, you know, this is 11 something for the Operating Guidelines Committee. 12 We haven't come to closure on it yet. I don't 13 see -- I can't imagine there would be any dissent 14 that the matrix would become an appendix to the 15 Operating Guidelines, and incorporated into it by 16 virtue of becoming an appendix of the Operating 17 Guidelines, be on the web site, be an official part 18 of the SEG activities. 19 And I just -- one of the other things I want 20 to say, point out, when we established the appendix 21 for the guidelines -- for the Operating Guidelines, 22 they were established in the context that these 23 were living documents, and they could change and 24 probably would change. 25 So Bill's comment earlier about, you know, 30 1 2 this is a living document, it's going to change. I 3 agree 100%. I agree with everything everybody's 4 said so far. 5 MR. McINTOSH: That's on the web site now? 6 MR. REES: Not now, because we haven't had our 7 Operating Guidelines Committee meeting to come to 8 closure. We thought we had it closed last month, 9 but the Fisheries Committee raised some questions 10 that we're working through. 11 I don't think we have any problems working 12 through them, but we just haven't completed that 13 yet. I think as soon as we have it, the Operating 14 Guidelines Committee meeting, all that stuff will 15 come to closure. 16 MR. McINTOSH: Has it been e-mailed to the 17 group? 18 MR. REES: To the SEG? 19 MR. McINTOSH: Yes. 20 MR. REES: No, I don't think so. Bill has 21 shared within the Operating Guidelines 22 Committee. If you want a copy, we'll get you a 23 copy. 24 MR. FARMER: I think at the last SEG meeting, 25 I think the recent issue of it was distributed 31 1 2 around. 3 MR. REES: That's right. It was handed out. 4 MR. FARMER: I think there's been a couple of 5 minor changes since then. 6 MR. REES: In fact, it's been handed out at 7 several meetings, now that I think about it. 8 MR. FARMER: Yeah, but I will e-mail you the 9 latest thing tomorrow. 10 MR. McINTOSH: My question, and my sort of 11 urging and encouraging, was that you can't hand it 12 out today if it changes tomorrow, or if it changes 13 tonight, because of things that occur the day of 14 the meeting. 15 We're not going to get a copy tomorrow, unless 16 it's up somewhere, or unless you're e-mailing it to 17 me. It would seem to me, as committees are formed, 18 and I hope some are, and as committees jointly 19 convene on a particular scientific issue, as I hope 20 they will, that the matrix -- if we are going to 21 use it as sort of a guideline as to who is doing 22 what, and who to call on what; then it ought to be 23 more alive. It ought to be on the web site or 24 maybe everytime its changed, it pops out on the 25 e-mail. 32 1 2 MR. FARMER: That could probably be done real 3 easily, couldn't it, Morgan? 4 MR. REES: I would think so. Again, I'm 5 electronically challenged, but I think it can. 6 MR. FARMER: Larry King is on the committee. 7 He does web site. I think he can be asked to 8 put the status of what we have on there. People 9 can follow the changes. 10 MR. DYSERT: Chris. 11 MR. SCHUBERTH: Chris Schuberth. It's 12 refreshing to see this political correctness around 13 the table. I find it nice. I wanted just to piggy 14 back on what Mitch said, the matter of consensus 15 and voting. 16 I think we have a real deep problem in 17 resolving that, simply because this is an 18 open-ended body. We all recognize this, we're an 19 open-ended body. 20 We're not congress, and there are not 38 seats 21 around this table with alternates, and whether this 22 will ever result in some kind of an effective 23 conclusion, I really don't know. I mean, soon 24 we're going to be reaching consensus, or voting, or 25 approving by acclaim, some aspect of a scientific 33 1 2 study. 3 I think the Operating Guidelines Committee 4 really needs to sit down with this question and 5 ultimately bring forth some kind of an agreed upon 6 resolution. 7 MR. DYSERT: I consider Chris to be one of the 8 great sources of wisdom within this group; not the 9 only one, there are several, but I think his 10 comments there are certainly -- certainly strike me 11 as being very important and thoughtful comments. 12 And I think, you know, there's a comment -- I 13 believe Mitch referred to the matter of who are 14 members, who has votes, and so forth. 15 Your point, Chris, is right on target. This 16 is an open group. Anybody that walks in the door, 17 and declares themselves to be an interested party, 18 has a seat at the table and has a vote, you know. 19 This is a very loosey-goosey situation to try 20 to facility. I mean, it is different from a 21 typical situation. So, you know, it is not for me 22 to say what kind of procedures, that is for y'all 23 to decide. 24 And I welcome, as I'm sure everybody 25 around the table would welcome, something back from 34 1 2 the Operating Guidelines Committee that can be 3 useful, and can be acceptable, and can be 4 comfortable with this body. 5 So we will -- we will look to Morgan and his 6 committee to try to grapple with that. I think 7 that is very important, and I, you know, wish y'all 8 well. Ben Brewton. 9 MR. BREWTON: I wanted to concur with your 10 evaluation of Professor Schuberth's wisdom. 11 MR. KING: No wonder we got 200 pages. 12 MR. DYSERT: Excuse me, Ben. I declare that a 13 consensus has been reached on an item. 14 MR. BREWTON: You didn't hear the rest of what 15 I was going to say. We think the same thing about 16 Mitch King, and it could just be the rather 17 distinguished looking beard and moustache both of 18 them sport. 19 Assuming it is wisdom, I have suggested and 20 Morgan has concurred with me that we invite them to 21 join us on the Operating Guidelines Committee, 22 particularly because of their very articulate 23 remarks over the past couple of months on that 24 issue. 25 I guess it should be said too, like all the 35 1 2 committees in the SEG itself, the Operating 3 Guidelines Committee is an open body. Anyone else 4 who has an interest in that, I think, would 5 certainly be invited to join us in trying to work 6 those issues out for recommendations to the body. 7 Thank you. 8 MR. DYSERT: In addition to their being 9 articulate, they have something to say that is -- 10 that seems very fundamental, and very helpful. We 11 all appreciate that. Okay. So we have dealt with 12 our first action item. Morgan Rees, the guy who 13 puts highlighting on his cards so it can't be 14 missed. 15 MR. REES: You're giving me a complex here. 16 MR. DYSERT: Okay. 17 MR. REES: There were a couple of other things 18 that I didn't say when I had my card up earlier. I 19 deferred to Chris. Anyway, there has been a 20 question to follow-up on what has just been said. 21 There has been a question of who is actually 22 a member of the Operating Guidelines Committee. 23 One of the original members was Jim Baker. We 24 don't see Jim around much anymore. 25 I wonder if there was anybody from his current 36 1 2 or former organization that was going to sit on his 3 behalf. I listed Brittany. I don't know whether 4 Brittany is interested in serving or not. Your 5 call. I don't mean to force you into doing 6 something you don't want to do, but anyway, I just 7 put the general question out. 8 If there's anybody, who has not received my 9 last couple of e-mails on the Operating Guidelines 10 Committee, who wants to be on the Operating 11 Guidelines Committee, let me know. We'll include 12 you. All right. 13 I want to thank Bill Farmer for volunteering 14 to be the keeper of the matrix. One of the 15 responses I got in one of the recent electronic 16 committee e-mails was that somebody ought to be 17 assigned as keeper of the matrix. Lo and behold, 18 Bill volunteered. I thank you for that. 19 One of the things we talked about in 20 connection with the matrix is the interaction among 21 committees. And I want to really emphasize that 22 point, that there are a number of different 23 concerns that come up about each individual issue 24 and each individual committee. 25 What we, from GPA, would really like to see 37 1 2 and really urge the committees when they are 3 meeting to think about, whatever they are 4 recommending, it would be very helpful to know the 5 context of that recommendation, how it fits into 6 the larger picture, how it fits into the channel 7 deepening proposal, and not just -- that leaves us 8 with a problem of making -- thinking about letting 9 contracts, thinking about spending money out of 10 context. 11 We really do need to know the context. We 12 need to be sure that whatever is going on is going 13 to be supportive in the overall broader effort. I 14 encourage the committee to think about that when 15 they're generating their recommendations. 16 MR. DYSERT: Are you through Dr. Rees? 17 MR. REES: I put my card down. 18 MR. DYSERT: Okay. I would like to ask people 19 who have not introduced themselves so far to please 20 do so 21 MR. PARROT: My name is Dan Parrot, 22 P-A-R-R-O-T, like the bird. I'm late because I 23 have a little British car. It's on the side of 24 the road -- Army Corps of Engineers 25 MR. TOLLISON: Trip Tollison, Jack Kingston's 38 1 2 office, T-O-L-L-I-S-O-N. 3 MR. JORDAN: Dave Jordan. I'm from Hilton 4 Head Island. I temporarily represent the Sierra 5 Club, because I'm a brand new member -- proof of 6 the open-ended policy. 7 MR. DYSERT: Anybody else slips in, we want to 8 make sure they get introduced as well. Tidal 9 amplitude, that's been identified as an action 10 item. 11 MR. McINTOSH: I suppose that would be me, 12 Neff McIntosh, Coastal Environmental. 13 MR. DYSERT: You originally brought it up, and 14 then Teri said she thought it needed some more 15 discussion. 16 MS. LEFFEK: I just wanted to make sure it 17 stayed on the agenda. 18 MR. DYSERT: Okay. So Neff. 19 MR. McINTOSH: I guess I would ask the 20 question originally, are there other committees 21 or any other committee that has tidal amplitude as 22 a charge? 23 If so, what are they doing to address the 24 tidal amplitude question? 25 MR. ELLIS: Bo Ellis with Applied Technology & 39 1 2 Management. The MTRG is dealing with tidal 3 amplitude in that the hydrodynamic model is being 4 calibrated and put together right now to handle 5 tidal amplitude as part of the calculation. 6 It handles hydrodynamics of the system, and 7 therefore, will be able to predict any changes to 8 that. As far as having a tool that will be able to 9 look at any type of impact that would be associated 10 with the project, the model already is planned to 11 incorporate all of that water. 12 MR. McINTOSH: I guess I would ask the 13 question then on the prior model, which you were 14 not a part of, right -- correct? 15 MR. ELLIS: There have been several prior 16 models. We have -- the tier one EIS, we did put 17 together a hydrodynamic model which also included 18 tidal amplitude, and we used that to show that 19 there was really insignificant increase in the 20 water levels, as a result of changes to tidal 21 amplitude in the EIS. 22 MR. McINTOSH: So the model predicted or 23 indicated there wouldn't be any change? 24 MR. ELLIS: Insignificant. 25 MR. McINTOSH: What is insignificant? 40 1 2 MR. ELLIS: Less than a tenth. It's in the 3 EIS. I'm not sure -- I don't know exactly the 4 number. 5 MR. McINTOSH: If there were other scientists 6 interested in the amplitude issue and had reason 7 to believe, and I think based on their own 8 analysis, some prior studies, it was far beyond 9 insignificant; how would you address that, or how 10 should we address that? Any suggestions how we 11 should address that? They're talking 14 to 18 12 inches -- 13 MR. ELLIS: That they predict will be the 14 increase caused by this project? 15 MR. McINTOSH: Increase caused by the prior 16 project and this project, right. 17 MR. ELLIS: Prior project? 18 MR. McINTOSH: Uh-huh. 19 MR. ELLIS: We have not analyzed the prior 20 project. Was that the last deepening? 21 MR. McINTOSH: No. The last deepening, the 22 one most prior to this -- 36, 42 -- 23 MR. ELLIS: I would doubt that. I would doubt 24 it would be anywhere close to that, but -- 25 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton had his card up. 41 1 2 Then Judy, do you have something -- do you have 3 something you need to pop right in on, then Chris. 4 MR. SCHUBERTH: If I may, Chris Schuberth. 5 MR. DYSERT: Wisdom over -- 6 MR. SCHUBERTH: No, no, please. I already 7 took my wallet out to see who I have to pay off. I 8 think Neff is raising a very important point. I 9 think it is an underlying question here. If not 10 ATM, who is the authorized organization to do a 11 particular study in this case? 12 We're talking tidal amplitude, whether that 13 hydrodynamic model includes changes in a storm 14 surge with a hurricanes that may target the coast 15 40 miles south of Savannah, or at Savannah, or 40 16 miles north of Savannah. 17 If someone else who is -- has equal 18 scholarship, and equal interest independent of 19 ATM, comes up with conclusions that counters a 20 comment by Bo Ellis, who says we determined this to 21 be insignificant, and they say oh, wait a minute. 22 I think it's significant. 23 Bo Ellis can say, well, I simply dismiss it 24 because you're not authorized. That's my question. 25 What do we do, and to address the question that was 42 1 2 just raised by Neff -- 3 MR. REES: Can I respond to the question? 4 MR. DYSERT: You have an urgent look. Is 5 there an urgent response? 6 MR. REES: Yeah, a direct response to Chris 7 and a direct question. Two things, Chris. Number 8 one, the work in the tier two process is not being 9 done by ATM and ATM alone. 10 They're the contractor to GPA. The work is 11 being guided by the MTRG. That's the committee of 12 this group, just so you understand. Okay. It's 13 being guided by MTRG, and any of the critical 14 conditions that will be evaluated, as a result of 15 the deepening project, will also be guided by the 16 MTRG and by this committee. 17 So to think that ATM is going off by 18 themselves and doing something is not the right 19 model of how this group is working. 20 And number two, even if ATM was going off by 21 themselves, which they're not, but even if they 22 were, the process requires an exclusive explanation 23 by law. They cannot, under the law, dismiss any 24 comment without the substantive response. I 25 wouldn't worry. I wouldn't worry. 43 1 2 MR. SCHUBERTH: Trust me. Believe me, I've -- 3 MR. REES: That's why this group is here. 4 That's why the MTRG exists. All the work ATM is 5 doing is going through the process and through SEG. 6 MR. ELLIS: Let me add, to answer Chris' 7 technical question, there are other causes of 8 changes in water level. I think you've mixed tidal 9 amplitude in with hurricane surges, and the regular 10 tidal dynamics, sea level rises; things like that 11 affect the water level. 12 Our model will be able to isolate just the 13 changes in tidal amplitude, that's, I think, all 14 we're talking about right now, and filter out all 15 the other effects of the water level, and give you 16 the incremental change caused by the projected 17 deepening. 18 All I'm talking about is the tidal amplitude, 19 and the incremental impact of the changing tidal 20 impact. Our model is state of art and is 21 calibrated to handle it. 22 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton, then Judy. 23 MR. BREWTON: I have a possible suggestion 24 here. I think this is an important issue. I, too, 25 have heard differing opinions. And I guess we 44 1 2 don't know right now the extent to which the MTRG 3 has actually looked at this issue, or it's been 4 considered a focus of what the model might be 5 trying to predict; although I understand and accept 6 it is a part of your model. 7 I would like to make a suggestion that we 8 establish, I'll say an ad hoc committee at this 9 point, and ask Chris, and Neff, and any others here 10 who are interested in that issue, to perhaps talk 11 with ATM, as well as some of these independent 12 experts, and to determine basically three things, 13 or to give some opinion on three things. 14 One would be looking at the extent of what the 15 ATM, MTRG model will do in predicting tidal 16 amplitude changes. Two, examining the area that it 17 covers, and see if the area that that model covers 18 is adequate for the evaluation of tidal amplitude 19 changes. And three, look at, I guess, the 20 qualitative aspect, as well the quantitative. 21 They're telling us they're going to have 22 numbers and data. I think the other part of 23 the equation is what do the numbers mean? Whether 24 it's a tenth of foot, or foot and a half; what do 25 those numbers mean in terms of affecting water 45 1 2 intake, storm drains, and other such things? 3 And so I'd like to make a proposal that we ask 4 them initially, as a one-time basis, to take a look 5 at that. And then it may be it's something that 6 could be handed off to another committee, or if it 7 is big enough, it may warrant a committee studying 8 that on its own. I propose that at this time. 9 MR. DYSERT: Is there support for establishing 10 such an ad hoc committee within the group? 11 MR. ELLIS: Some other technical 12 representative of Georgia DNR had asked a couple 13 Skidaway modelers be involved in the MTRG, 14 especially looking at hydrodynamics. They would be 15 good resources. I think they will provide a 16 valuable technical man. 17 MR. DYSERT: Is that support for Ben's 18 recommendation? 19 MR. ELLIS: No. 20 MS. JENNINGS: I'm not -- Judy Jennings. I 21 don't think my card was recognized in order, but 22 at any rate, oh well. Bo, you have an MTRG meeting 23 scheduled for January 28th? 24 MR. ELLIS: Yes. 25 MS. JENNINGS: How much time would you be 46 1 2 willing to spend, at that meeting, just explaining 3 the input that goes into your model, in determining 4 the amplitude changes? And how much time would you 5 be willing to spend, at that time, in terms of 6 educating a laymen in how you are determining 7 amplitude -- potential amplitude changes? 8 For instance, it's a technical question, and 9 maybe we don't want to get bogged down with it 10 here. I'm sure you have considered various changes 11 and releases from upstream dammings and potential 12 interbasin transfers. 13 I can just imagine there are a lot of things 14 involved that will have a difference. So, I mean, 15 at your January 20th meeting in Savannah, is that 16 a topic that would get two or three minutes, a 17 topic that would get 15 or 30? 18 Would it be enough for somebody with my 19 background to walk away understanding what you are 20 doing? 21 MR. ELLIS: We could fit in, you know, a 22 reasonable discussion. I would try to hold it to 23 30 minutes. We have a full agenda, and not a lot 24 of time allotted to the meeting. We could bring it 25 up. It's not on the agenda for that meeting. 47 1 2 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 3 MR. DYSERT: Neff, David and Stuart. 4 MR. McINTOSH: Stuart, were you up before me? 5 MR. STEVENS: I'm sorry. 6 MR. McINTOSH: Go ahead. 7 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens, DNR. I don't 8 have any problem at all with what's been suggested. 9 I think anybody who wants to have some input or 10 should go to the MTRG should do that and try to 11 understand what's going on. 12 I would suggest we just tell Bo one of the 13 issues we're interested in is impacts on tidal 14 amplitude, and make sure that your model does 15 address that, and that you do have some discussion 16 about that. 17 Make sure the other scientists involved in the 18 modelling effort understand that's an issue that 19 the SEG thinks is important. 20 Report back to us what the model says. 21 Really, that's the bottom line. I think that ought 22 to charge to that subcommittee too. Make sure 23 that's included. 24 MS. JENNINGS: I heard Bo say he's willing to 25 give 30 minutes at the next meeting. Is that a 48 1 2 place we could start -- it's a starting place? 3 MR. ELLIS: We can see if anybody at the MTRG 4 -- yeah, 30 minutes would be a good start. 5 MR. DYSERT: Neff. 6 MR. McINTOSH: Jumping forward with what Ben 7 had suggested, and maybe adding to what Stuart had 8 suggested, if I might be so bold to suggest, if, in 9 fact, one of the charges of our congressionally 10 mandated charge is to have some sort of consensus 11 on the adequacies of scientific research and 12 analysis, that this is one of those spots on that 13 map. 14 I believe, based on what I have read and what 15 I've seen, there's an election going on today in 16 the Second District of the Georgia Senate, that one 17 of the prime, if not the prime issue between the 18 two candidates has been the flooding. 19 And I understand from the people that I'm 20 close to, and by personal experience, a lot of 21 what's gone on on the Garden City corridor, and 22 the west side flooding area has a lot to do with 23 tidal amplitude. 24 For Bo to say he'll give it 30 minutes, I'd be 25 happy to go and hear what they had to say, I would 49 1 2 be bold enough to suggest that the SEG and Georgia 3 Ports, if it need be funded, acquire and hire, if 4 necessary, its -- a person to evaluate, if you 5 will. 6 I'm not a modeller. Apparently, it's a very 7 technical process. Someone we believe has a 8 broader grasp of this issue, because it is a fairly 9 broad issue, about the why the tide might be 10 rising. 11 There may be sea level rising issues. There 12 may be hydrodynamic changes off the coast that are 13 not related to the deepening. But if, in fact, the 14 deepening itself, in and of itself adds to and 15 exacerbates that problem over time, and then as 16 Chris has suggested, given the climatic crises, the 17 hurricanes and Northeasters that we have, adverse 18 conditions that would take the deepening or use the 19 deepening, although the model wouldn't predict or 20 suggest it would be a problem, but waiting until it 21 happens to find out that, in fact, it's going to be 22 48 feet, floods most of the west side of Savannah, 23 and renders useless all the new pumping stations 24 built for millions of dollars, it seems we would 25 not have accomplished our mission and have done our 50 1 2 task. 3 So I would suggest that we have somebody go to 4 the MTRG meeting, who understands what they are 5 doing, not a layman like myself or Judy. If need 6 be, hire them. I have some names, but I would 7 suggest that. 8 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers. 9 I have question for Bo, doesn't the CEO have a 10 representative, used to have a technical expert, a 11 modeller? 12 MR. ELLIS: Yes. I don't know if he was a 13 modeller, but he was a scientist. 14 MR. BAILEY: Representing them on that 15 committee? 16 MR. ELLIS: Right. 17 MR. BAILEY: May want to reenergize him again. 18 MR. ELLIS: I wanted to respond to Neff's 19 comment. It's important, especially for those of 20 us dealing with the model, to understand the 21 difference between tide rising, and all the 22 different things that might impact a water level 23 rise and tidal amplitude. 24 Tidal amplitude is something that we can model 25 with our model, and we can predict increases based 51 1 2 on any scenario you give us of the deepening 3 project. 4 So tidal amplitude is one aspect of that. 5 It shouldn't be mixed in with tide rising, sea 6 level rise, all the other things that affect the 7 tidal range and water level. 8 MR. McINTOSH: How can you differentiate 9 between those? If you deepen, and you can predict 10 an insignificant tidal amplitude change because of 11 the deepening, but then the deepening interacts 12 adversely with these other climatic changes that 13 are occurring. 14 MR. ELLIS: I think the main distinction is 15 that the deepening project will affect tidal 16 amplitude to some degree. We think, based on 17 our preliminary modelling, it's going to be 18 insignificant, but it will affect it. We can 19 measure it with this model. 20 The other things like sea level rising and 21 other things that affect water levels, storms, 22 things like that, the deepening can -- it has no 23 effect on it. The deepening won't add to it, 24 except for that little bit of tidal amplitude. 25 So the issue, as far as I know, in the SEG is 52 1 2 tidal amplitude. And we're saying that our tool 3 will be able to predict any change, any scenario, 4 any reasonable scenario that's offered by this 5 group. 6 MR. DYSERT: It's 10:15. I would like to ask 7 the body, how much more time do you want to spend 8 on general discussion of this issue? Are you ready 9 to see it wound up? Are you ready to see some kind 10 of decision made? Are you happy you've had this 11 discussion and feedback with the MTRG and so forth, 12 and are ready to move on? Is there any 13 recommendation within the group? Ben Brewton. 14 MR. BREWTON: I made a proposal that's 15 somewhat been amended. I would like the 16 opportunity to restate and ask the group for 17 action. Perhaps we can conclude with that. 18 MR. DYSERT: Okay. 19 MR. BREWTON: I want to address two things I 20 heard there I think are very important. One, with 21 respect to Bo as a member of this group, he 22 certainly has the right to express his opinion. 23 I think the way I understand this process to 24 work, the data is taken by the ATM, and 25 subcontractors, and so forth, and it is really up 53 1 2 to this group to take that data and evaluate the 3 significance of it. 4 So it disturbs me a little bit to hear the 5 person collecting the data already declaring it is 6 expected to be insignificant. I think that is 7 something this group as a whole needs to decide. 8 The second issue I would bring up is, I think, 9 the question Neff or someone phrased that, I would 10 like to restate my call for an ad hoc committee is 11 the importance to determine the adequacies of 12 the existing efforts. 13 They may be completely adequate or maybe not. 14 There are people very knowledgeable on this. We 15 have some people here on the group, Chris and Neff, 16 who have spent some time examining this. 17 So to put that in the form of a suggestion, or 18 motion, or proposal; I would go back again and 19 suggest we establish an ad hoc committee, for the 20 purpose of determining the adequacy of the existing 21 effort. 22 Part of what that committee would do, perhaps, 23 is have someone attend this MTRG and find out what 24 efforts are going on now. They can talk among 25 themselves and consult the other experts, and then 54 1 2 report back to us as to whether they feel that it 3 is adequately being covered, or whether we need to 4 look at additional coverage on that issue. 5 MR. McINTOSH: That would be acceptable to me. 6 MR. DYSERT: Okay. I would like to ask the 7 question again, is there within the body, is there 8 support for that recommendation? 9 MR. MIKELL: Yes. 10 MR. DYSERT: Rob Mikell said yes. Morgan 11 Rees. 12 MR. REES: I have a question, I guess, a 13 matter of clarification. I'm not expressing 14 support or not support either way. My 15 understanding of the MTRG is to do precisely what 16 Ben and Neff are asking to be done. 17 So I'm confused about what additional is being 18 asked. I don't know whether to support or not. I 19 think my understanding was that's what the MTRG 20 is supposed to do. 21 MR. DYSERT: Can someone say who is the MTRG, 22 for the record? 23 MR. ELLIS: All of the members? 24 MR. DYSERT: Well, I mean, we're talking about 25 wanting an ad hoc committee to go review what MTRG 55 1 2 is doing; who is MTRG? Who, or what bodies, or 3 what's the representation there for clarification? 4 MR. ELLIS: ATM, the Corps, the Harbor 5 Committee, EPA, EPD, DHEC, Georgia DNR, South 6 Carolina DNR, the CEO, Skidaway. 7 MR. FARMER: It's on X's, by the way. 8 MR. ELLIS: Bill can read it off. 9 MR. DYSERT: You're just about to catch up 10 with Chris. 11 MR. ELLIS: And U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 12 MR. DYSERT: So what's being proposed is an ad 13 hoc committee from this body to see whether that 14 body -- okay. 15 MR. BREWTON: To clarify just a little bit 16 more, I think as Bo stated a little earlier, they 17 are looking at it from a pretty narrow perspective. 18 That is, I think you said this needs to be 19 separated and not mixed in with the others. 20 But the realty is, that whatever rise is 21 caused by the harbor deepening is mixed in with any 22 and all other causes, resulting in whatever total 23 cumulative effect there is. To borrow the old 24 expression, the straw that broke the camel's back. 25 It could be the insignificant few drops of water 56 1 2 the GPA'S project might add to this, or may be, in 3 fact, enough to cross some line that there's 4 some detrimental effect. 5 So I think we need a little broader view than 6 just what the MTRG is looking at, and simply, at 7 this time, an evaluation to come back to this group 8 with about whether they feel the effort by the 9 MTRG, not whether it is good or bad, but simply 10 whether it is adequate to address the concerns that 11 have been raised here. 12 MR. DYSERT: I would consider the tense up to 13 be discussion on the recommendation Ben Brewton 14 made. David Schaller. 15 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia Ports 16 Authority. It seems to me we may run out of 17 experts, in order to assemble a group of experts 18 to look after a group of experts, who are engaged 19 in precisely the activity we're talking about. Bo 20 has named a dozen groups that are involved in MTRG, 21 and the question of tidal amplitude is part of that 22 effort. 23 Where are we going to get more experts to look 24 after the experts who are doing that work is my 25 question? 57 1 2 MR. DYSERT: Chris. 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think we're touching on 4 what's really a very important, again, bottom line 5 issue. I don't think there's any question about 6 the validity of the work that's being done, and the 7 qualifications of the individuals that are part of 8 that. I don't think that -- I don't think that's 9 the question. 10 The question is that if this body of experts 11 draws a conclusion that is, for example, 12 insignificant just locking on that -- don't mean 13 to, but it happens to be a good hook to lock this 14 on, but someone else who has qualifications says 15 wait a minute. My model that I have done in the 16 basement of my cellar, and I qualify because I do 17 ABC and D, challenges that. Morgan assures me that 18 all viewpoints will be considered. Trust me -- I 19 understand the trust me statement -- no, no. I 20 understand that. 21 MR. REES: It's the law. It was not a trust 22 me statement. I want to be sure you understand 23 that. 24 MR. SCHUBERTH: What then becomes the process, 25 in the event, an august body comes to a conclusion 58 1 2 that some minor voice says, wait a minute. I think 3 you guys left something out. Oh, how does this 4 come about? 5 That's basically what's being said with all of 6 this. Ben is sort of saying, you know, 7 insignificant may not be insignificant. Judy, 8 Tom, Mitch, David and then Bo. 9 MS. JENNINGS: I guess I'm somewhere in 10 between part of what I'm hearing. To me -- it 11 seems to me like with any given committee, if you 12 have something to contribute or questions to ask, 13 then you need to be at the committee table. 14 I've also heard Bo say that, in terms of a 15 scientific explanation, tidal amplitude is a fairly 16 narrow question. And it's possible if we're asking 17 larger questions, then put the larger questions on 18 the table. If you are interested in the answers, 19 show up at the meeting and ask them, and make sure 20 they're being scientifically accounted for. 21 I'm just a little confused. If there are 22 other questions that need to be answered, by all 23 means let's put them on the table. If you are 24 interested in knowing the answers, by all means go 25 to the table. 59 1 2 MR. SCHUBERTH: Some of us have jobs. 3 MR. DYSERT: Tom. 4 MR. MERONEK: I want to say I agree with Ben, 5 but I'm not sure which way we need to approach it, 6 whether or not it's a committee. I also agree with 7 David and Chris. You can't make experts out of 8 people that are not experts. We already have the 9 experts on the committee. 10 I think more what we're looking at as in any 11 scientific process is peer review. It's just up to 12 GPA or the group to identify peer reviewers that 13 can take the scientific data and review it, as any 14 scientific data would be peer reviewed. 15 That's the best we can hope for. It's true, 16 you never make -- not to knock Bo or anything -- 17 yes, anytime you write a scientific paper, you 18 don't suggest whether or not the results are 19 significant. You let the reviewers determine 20 whether or not it's significant. So that's all I 21 wanted to say. I think we're more looking towards 22 a peer review. 23 And then if any committee itself believes that 24 the results are significant to their objectives and 25 their goals, then it is up to them to bring that 60 1 2 up. 3 MR. DYSERT: Mitch. 4 MR. KING: I think Tom has got some good 5 points there. Just to touch on a few things here. 6 If you go back and look at what, I think, this 7 group and the results of all this information 8 that's being passed around is supposed to do, it's 9 supposed to be put in some form of a NEPA document. 10 I don't think you'll ever come to an 11 agreement, a total, full agreement that the impact 12 is insignificant, but what we need is good 13 clarification that all points of view have been 14 explored, and that all the little pieces have been 15 put out for public review in the end. 16 That's going to be the bottom line. When this 17 is all said and done, there will be a document and 18 the document will address tidal amplitude, and it 19 should address it fully. 20 I'm not inclined to support Ben's 21 recommendation of another team of experts to look 22 at the team of experts, but I'm inclined to support 23 his intention. I think his intention is to make 24 sure that the team of experts we had don't just 25 disregard something as being insignificant, but 61 1 2 analyze it fully. 3 Because in reality, if you happen to have a 4 refuge that's about to be over-topped by existing 5 tides, and if those tides increase the tidal 6 amplitude by 3%, and that 3% causes $300,000 7 worth of dike damage, that's significant. 8 If you happen to be a company that's pulling 9 salt water or fresh water into your intakes for 10 some process in the City of Savannah, and this 11 tidal amplitude causes you to have to do $1,000,000 12 worth of upgrade or remove your intakes because now 13 you've got salt water, I think that's significant. 14 I think all we can ask that group to do, Ben, 15 is very clearly lay out what that impact on tidal 16 amplitude is, so that all the people that review 17 this final document; whether it's the Fish and 18 Wildlife reviewing it for impacts on refuges, or 19 whether it be such and such processing company 20 reviewing it for impacts on their particular intake 21 know what they can expect and feel comfortable 22 with. 23 I guess what I'm saying in a whole lot of 24 words, let's not put together another committee. 25 Let's reemphasize the importance of this 62 1 2 issue, and ask the MTRG not to just disregard, as 3 insignificant, but lay out all the details. 4 MR. DYSERT: David Schaller. 5 MR. SCHALLER: Yeah. This is a comprehensive 6 search, if you will, for scientific facts. If 7 anyone has any information about tidal amplitude, I 8 would respectfully ask that they let it be known 9 today, and right now, so that it can get cranked in 10 and considered as the experts review their program. 11 If that doesn't happen, if there's just merely 12 speculation that there is something wrong with the 13 MTRG and the model and the findings with respect to 14 tidal amplitude, the law provides that there will 15 be several -- I yield to Mitch and others who are 16 more expert than I -- opportunities embodied in the 17 law that say, wait a minute. We've got a question 18 about your findings relative to tidal amplitude. 19 We don't think they're accurate. Here's why, and 20 you know, we're compelled to reevaluate, 21 reinvestigate, sort it out, find the truth. 22 So there are opportunities. Anybody has 23 anything now known relative to that subject, please 24 take it to the MTRG. Let them know about it. If 25 not, you'll have another opportunity. 63 1 2 MR. DYSERT: Bo. 3 MR. ELLIS: I just want to clarify just to 4 avoid any confusion, Ben's earlier 5 characterization of my explanation. We've felt 6 like water level rise in the Savannah Harbor has 7 been important ever since we started this project. 8 Even in the tier one, the model was selected 9 to be able to handle tidal amplitude. That would 10 be the change in water level caused by this 11 project. 12 We agree that it is important issue, and 13 possibly a significant issue, water level rise in 14 the harbor, but our modelling, our preliminary 15 modelling, whatever you want to call it from the 16 tier one, using a very good model that deals with 17 that predicted insignificant change in tidal 18 amplitude. 19 I don't want to say that the issue is 20 insignificant, the impact is insignificant, only 21 the predicted change was very, very small. 22 MR. DYSERT: Two others cards that went up 23 Dave Jordan and Ben Brewton. 24 MR. JORDAN: It's been mentioned already by 25 one of the previous speakers there have been 64 1 2 several previous models. Brings to mind to me the 3 question do we yet have the proper model, how far 4 along in the evolution process are we, how's this 5 present model which predicts an insignificant 6 amount of tidal rise compare to previous 7 predictions, are decreasing, increasing, or 8 whatever? 9 Any kind of modelling, which is not something 10 you do with a handheld calculator or on the back of 11 an envelope anymore, there are often very large 12 numbers of variables that have to go into the 13 prediction. A lot of these are not fact, but 14 assumptions. 15 I would like to be comfortable with 16 understanding the assumptions that are made, in 17 generating the predictions for tidal changes. Now, 18 again, that requires putting this in laymen's 19 terms, which has been asked for previously, but we 20 have to understand what the assumptions were, what 21 the alternative, valid assumptions are, and what is 22 the range of predictions that these assumptions 23 give. 24 You can skew the prediction to any kind of 25 number you want, but the assumptions are all 65 1 2 important. I would like to understand what the 3 assumption are being made in any process of this 4 sort. 5 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton. 6 MR. BREWTON: Couple of things I would like to 7 address. One, as far as participation in 8 committee, CEO has participated, from time to time, 9 in committee, and has, on a couple of occasions, 10 contracted with someone to go -- of a more 11 technical nature -- to go represent us there. 12 Because of the frequent and lengthy meetings, 13 and the movement of the meetings from one place to 14 another, our budget is just not what GPA is, and 15 we're not able to have a representative at every 16 meeting. 17 In fact, I would suggest this issue of tidal 18 amplitude, even at the earlier meetings, has not 19 been discussed as a significant issue, and 20 certainly was not really part of those detailed 21 papers and task statements, although I recognize 22 it is part of your overall discussion. 23 I think what we're really to trying determine 24 here again is the adequacy of the scope of what 25 MTRG is looking at; how narrow or broad is it, how 66 1 2 adequately does it cover the interrelationship 3 between this rise and others, will the rise caused 4 by the harbor deepening simply be an arithmetic 5 summation added onto the existing factors, or will 6 it be, in fact, be a geometric multiple that 7 exacerbates some other factor in a greater manner. 8 I don't know the answers to those questions. 9 I don't know how many of those questions the MTRG 10 is looking at. 11 I'd like to observe that, once again, what 12 we've spent a lot of time doing is we had a couple 13 of people here in the SEG bring up an issue that 14 was of concern to them, and rather than just 15 sanctioning them, saying go ahead, you have our 16 sanction to go investigate this and give us a 17 report, we spent 30, 40 minutes, I don't know how 18 long basically debating and arguing about whether 19 we should even look at it or not. 20 I would suggest, in the interest of getting 21 the maximum amount of information out on the table, 22 if any member in this group, in this case Chris and 23 Neff, raises a question about an issue and would 24 like us to say okay, it's okay to go look at it, 25 they're going to invest their time. 67 1 2 If there are other experts that we don't have 3 in the mix right now, they will go talk to them. 4 They will go talk to Bo, perhaps attend the 5 meeting, and come back and say we're satisfied, it 6 looks good to us, or say, we looked at it, we think 7 the group needs to take it more seriously. 8 I don't have a problem with that. If any 9 member of this group has an issue that's of concern 10 to them, if they want to look at it, I don't have a 11 problem with us officially giving them our 12 blessing to take a look at it and report back to 13 us. 14 I think that is the more constructive way to 15 go, rather than so often when one of the 16 suggestions comes up, we debate about whether we 17 ought to do this or not. If they're willing to 18 invest the time, I say let them go. 19 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Let me ask you this, are 20 you ready to make a decision? I'm getting ready to 21 ask for the third time. What is the level of 22 support for Ben Brewton's recommendation? Okay. 23 Charlie Moore, then Morgan Rees, then Bo, then 24 Teri, then Judy. Okay. 25 MR. MOORE: I'd like to make a comment. 68 1 2 Charlie Moore, South Carolina DNR. I'll be very 3 short. It seems like to me a lot less time's been 4 spent. Basically, I'm not going to say, everybody 5 knows, we've spent the last 30, 40 minutes. We 6 can simply ask, as a group, MTRG to make a 7 presentation at the next meeting for 15 minutes, 8 and solve basically many of the problems and 9 concerns of this group. 10 Instead of forming a committee to go find out, 11 come back, and they're going to spend 15 minutes 12 telling us what they found out secondhand, let's 13 ask the experts to come in and basically tell us 14 what they're looking at, what approach they're 15 taking, where they are, and hear any of our 16 concerns, or additional questions that ought to be 17 asked. 18 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton. 19 MR. BREWTON: If I can interrupt maybe just 20 one second, I can cut this short. I think 21 Charlie's got a great idea. I would amend my 22 suggestion to ask the MTRG to come and make a 23 formal presentation at the next meeting about the 24 scope of that particular question. And I would 25 like to perhaps add to that that Neff, Chris, 69 1 2 anybody else who has friends, acquaintances, 3 associates interested in the issue, or outside 4 experts, let's ask them to come and sit in and 5 listen, ask questions if appropriate. 6 MR. DYSERT: Is there support, within the 7 group, for Charlie's recommendation that has now 8 been endorsed by Ben? Please raise your hands or 9 somehow express support. 10 I see a strong consensus for support, 11 enthusiastic support. I'd make a declarative 12 statement to that effect. Anybody else wish to 13 continue to talk about this issue? Judy. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Just to make the comment that 15 how ever much time we've spent on this, what we've 16 ended up with, I cannot see any difference than 17 what we started out with. I really can't. I can't 18 see what we've got now that is any different than 19 what we started out. 20 MR. DYSERT: Teri Leffek. 21 MS. LEFFEK: I was just going to make an 22 observation. I don't know if there was as much 23 contention over whether the issue is valid or not, 24 but what's the proper way to handle it? Like Judy 25 mentioned, we're sort of back to where we started 70 1 2 from, which is looking at what the MTRG has for 3 giving a presentation, and then letting the experts 4 decide whether it's valid or not, or if it needs 5 to be modified, or all the questions have not been 6 answered which, again, is the charge of this group. 7 MR. DYSERT: Bo. 8 MR. ELLIS: I think some of the value of the 9 discussion is educating us all in coming to an 10 agreement of what our terms are, not mixing the 11 different issues. 12 What I would like to ask is any resources, or 13 information, be provided to the MTRG ahead of time, 14 be sent to me, and I will forward it to the MTRG 15 before the meeting, so we're prepared to discuss 16 it. 17 MR. McINTOSH: Where is the meeting going to 18 be held? 19 MR. ELLIS: Savannah Corps of Engineers. 20 MR. BREWTON: The 20th? 21 MR. ELLIS: The 20th. 22 MR. DYSERT: We'll move on. It is refreshing 23 to see broad participation around the table on 24 something that relates to science. I'm sure that 25 many of you are happy about that. So, I think it 71 1 2 has been useful. 3 MR. BREWTON: Motion for break. 4 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton moves for a break. 5 MR. BREWTON: Seconded by the court reporter. 6 MR. DYSERT: Seconded by the court reporter, 7 and we don't need to vote. 8 (Short Break) 9 MR. DYSERT: Okay. It's 10:50 a.m., and we're 10 resuming the SEG meeting. The remaining designated 11 action item under old business is the item dealing 12 with the ad hoc committee report dealing with the 13 web site. And Ben and GPA were asked to deal with 14 this, and I throw that on the floor. Y'all proceed 15 as you wish. 16 MR. BREWTON: You have called on me, is that 17 what you have just done? 18 MR. DYSERT: I have called on whoever is 19 supposed to be talking on this. Take it away, Ben 20 Brewton is recognized. 21 MR. BREWTON: Let me start by passing out some 22 copies of the latest report, and that's for you. 23 I've got some I'll pass out. I'll provide this to 24 our court reporter at the conclusion of the 25 minutes. 72 1 2 We're going to pass out these copies of the 3 communications report. There are two pages and 4 they are not stapled together. If you will make 5 sure you've got a page one and page two. I'm happy 6 to report my computer and printer are now 7 communicating. I have corrected my page numbering 8 problems. I'll wait just a minute while we're 9 passing those out, also let the other folks get 10 back in the room. 11 For those of you coming in, we're passing some 12 copies of the report around. It is two pages. 13 Make sure you get a page one and page two. They 14 are not stapled together. 15 The -- as you'll recall, we spent quite a bit 16 of time, at the last two meetings, on the web site 17 portion of the Communications Committee's report 18 and seemed at somewhat of an impasse. The 19 committee was asked to meet again to try to resolve 20 this. 21 We put out notices to the full SEG, posted 22 on the web site additional notices to the committee 23 members, and polled all the committee members. 24 We felt a key element was to have Dave 25 Schaller present, and we established a time in 73 1 2 his schedule where we could meet, and we did meet. 3 We had present on January 5th, John Robinette 4 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Doug Plachy from 5 the Corps of Engineers, Judy Jennings from the 6 Sierra Club, Patty McIntosh from Georgia 7 Conservancy, myself, and then for portions of 8 the meeting we had Justin Yandell from Coastal 9 Environmental Organization, Sam Drake from Fish and 10 Wildlife, and Patricia Reese and Dave Schaller from 11 Georgia Ports Authority. 12 The full committee met for about four hours, 13 and we appreciate the time Dave to was able to take 14 out of his schedule and join us for a portion of 15 that. We worked very hard, had some very good 16 suggestions, and reached a total consensus, 17 unanimity, or whatever you want to call it, in 18 making some recommendations and modifying the 19 original recommendation in such a way we feel we 20 have a good compromise that will provide the needed 21 communications, and enhance information exchange 22 ability, and will simultaneously address some of 23 the concerns that have been raised about that. 24 We did take something initially, item one, I'm 25 going to come back to that. It has to do with the 74 1 2 recommendation from Dave Schaller. Yes, Dave. 3 MR. SCHALLER: Excuse me for interrupting. 4 May I ask, is your handout the same as the e-mail 5 exactly, or has it changed? 6 MR. BREWTON: It has changed in format, not in 7 content. 8 MR. SCHALLER: The same words? 9 MR. BREWTON: Same words. It's organized a 10 little bit differently. There were some 11 suggestions. I'll say there's a couple of minor 12 typo changes, but Dave, if you didn't get one, I 13 can give you one of today's. 14 MR. SCHALLER: I got one you passed out. I 15 had made some notes myself on the one you e-mailed. 16 MR. BREWTON: We heard back -- I didn't hear 17 from you prior to the final revision. We did hear 18 from several members of the committee that made 19 suggestions and endorsed the report. I had only 20 positive feedback on the report. 21 I'll start here with item two. Item two is 22 basically a revisit to what was item 10-A in the 23 October report regarding use of the web site for 24 communication -- not communication -- but rather 25 for exchange of information among SEG members. 75 1 2 The types of items that we're talking about 3 here is if someone wanted to submit some 4 background information for an upcoming agenda item, 5 if someone wanted to see documents such as the 6 chief's report and other things of that nature 7 posted; how would that be done. 8 If someone had come across an article in a 9 scientific journal, or a trade magazine, or 10 something that they wanted to exchange or make 11 available for the other members of the group 12 relevant to an issue being discussed by the SEG, 13 there were some concerns about how this could 14 be interpreted, and about possible misuse of the 15 web site. 16 I'm just going to go through step by step with 17 how we attacked this, and what the recommendations 18 are we are recommending to you as a solution for 19 this. We did invite all the committee members to 20 submit any alternative methods, and to do 21 demonstration if appropriate. We didn't have 22 anything submitted ahead of time. We did discuss 23 the listserve format, but found that there were -- 24 although it had some pros, there were also numerous 25 cons, particularly regarding people who don't want 76 1 2 a lot of unsolicited e-mail, particularly with 3 large attachments. 4 Larry Keegan did research a free Internet 5 group service that, we think, could be useful for 6 one portion of the recommendation. We'll talk 7 about that in a minute. 8 So I'll move down to item three now, which I'm 9 calling revisions to the original recommendation 10 10-A regarding web site use. Basically, the 11 committee reaffirmed the previously stated need for 12 the use of web site for distribution, and posting 13 of background materials, and other relevant 14 information. 15 Let me move over to page two now. We feel the 16 potential benefits of this will be better for 17 prepared meeting participants, more efficient use 18 of our meeting time, the ability to share multiple 19 viewpoints, and easy access to important reports 20 and correspondence. The committee considered the 21 concerns that had been previously raised by Georgia 22 Ports Authority and others, regarding possible 23 inappropriate use of web site, or misinterpretation 24 of materials posted. 25 And what I'll call a compromise approach was 77 1 2 developed with the following elements. These are 3 the committee recommendations at this time, item I, 4 an area should be provided on the official SEG web 5 site for information related to any topic that has 6 been placed on the agenda for an upcoming or past 7 SEG meeting. 8 Such materials will be automatically posted 9 when submitted by an SEG member, and we'll discuss 10 in a moment what constitutes an SEG member. This 11 was discussed at length. It is the, I believe, 12 unanimous feeling of those present at the time of 13 action on this at the committee meeting, that it is 14 appropriate and important to allow members to 15 submit material related to a topic that has been 16 identified and sanctioned by SEG for inclusion on 17 the agenda. 18 Item ii, an area should also be provided 19 for posting of important project-related reports, 20 correspondence, and other information arising 21 between meetings. An example being the Corps of 22 Engineers Chief's Report, when such item is 23 submitted or requested by an SEG member. 24 Now, as some of you may recall, when the 25 chief's report came out, there was really nowhere 78 1 2 you could go and get it. What I received was a fax 3 of a fax of a copy of a fax of a copy. It was 4 barely legible. I had numerous people call me and 5 ask me if I had a clean copy. There was a lot of 6 scrambling around trying to get a copy. 7 We feel this type of thing that is directly 8 project-related or project issue-related would be 9 very beneficial to be able to post that type of 10 information, even if it arises between meetings, 11 and even if it is not directly related to agenda 12 items. 13 Some of these things came about by surprise. 14 To address the concerns voiced about how would this 15 be screened, whose duty would it be, who would be 16 the gate keeper, would the things be censored, and 17 how would it be approved; there was a suggestion 18 that a steering committee be used to quickly 19 circulate a request for posting this information. 20 We'll talk about that steering committee in a 21 moment. 22 The areas, I guess iii there, the areas 23 described in items i and ii would be subject to the 24 following guidelines. 25 A, in some cases it may only be necessary to 79 1 2 post a hyperlink to a URL where reference material 3 is already published. We don't see the site as 4 trying to duplicate other material that's 5 published, but it may be convenient to have a link 6 where someone looking for a document can simply 7 click on it and go to that. 8 For instance, had the Corps' chief's report 9 been published somewhere else, it might not be 10 necessary to republish it on the web site, but 11 simply provide a link so you could get to it. 12 B, there should be disclaimers which 13 accurately describe the non-official nature of 14 the links or the information posted, and those 15 should be included at appropriate locations on the 16 web site. 17 The idea here is to address the concern that 18 someone might confuse individual submissions with 19 an official position of the SEG. That should be 20 clearly stated and posted. 21 Item C, there should be some form of 22 registration for those who are going to submit 23 information for posting; that is, it wouldn't be 24 open for everybody in the world, but we didn't want 25 to try to determine what the method of registration 80 1 2 or the definition of member might be -- thought 3 that should be decided by this full group. 4 One possibility suggested, though, was simply 5 the requirement that anyone wanting to submit 6 information for posting had physically attended and 7 signed in to at least one SEG meeting previously. 8 D, members would be requested to submit 9 information in electronic form, however, we would 10 ask SEG webmaster to handle conversion of printed 11 documents, if needed for this category. We have 12 some other categories, it would be up to those 13 submitting to do so, but this would be for topics 14 placed on an SEG agenda, and formally taken up by 15 the SEG. 16 Item E, there would be an understanding this 17 web site would be used for the posting and exchange 18 of informational materials, and would not be used 19 as chat areas to promote or criticize the project. 20 Item iv, an additional web site area should 21 be set up independent of the SEG web site for the 22 purpose of posting information not falling into the 23 categories specified in i and ii above. 24 The committee recommends that the free group 25 service, investigated by Larry Keegan and noted 81 1 2 in 2-A iii, be evaluated on a trial basis to 3 determine if it will be effective in meeting this 4 need. 5 This site, again, would be open to anyone 6 for viewing, but registration would be required in 7 order to submit a document. The site would be 8 basically an automated site that would not take any 9 manpower, except for a brief period to set it up 10 initially, possibly an hour or so is my 11 understanding. 12 Users on this site would be responsible for 13 handling their own document preparation and 14 uploading. This site also would not be used as 15 a chat area. This would be a little more open than 16 the other in that issues, that have not yet been 17 placed on an agenda but that people believe are 18 relevant to the project and the project impact, 19 could be posted on this site. 20 So we don't get talking about 10 things at 21 once, what I would like to do at this point is see 22 if any of the committee members have any additional 23 comment to the group on this section three, the 24 recommendations regarding web site, and then we can 25 open up for questions and discussion. Hopefully, 82 1 2 we did achieve some unanimity on the committee, and 3 hopefully we'll be able to move through and take 4 action on this much quicker. 5 MR. DYSERT: Is there discussion on the 6 recommendation number three that Ben just presented 7 on the part of committee members? David Schaller. 8 MR. SCHALLER: I'm not a committee member. 9 MR. DYSERT: As I understand, this was 10 referred from this body to Ben and GPA, so as far 11 as I'm concerned, the two polar groups were 12 supposed to get together. So would you define 13 committee, your intent, Ben? 14 MR. BREWTON: I think what we did is took the 15 base, being the members of the Communications 16 Committee. We extended a specific invitation to 17 David Schaller and John Robinette, who offered some 18 good suggestions at the last meeting, to join us on 19 the committee, as well as anyone else who wanted to 20 participate. 21 So we're certainly willing to consider David 22 as a committee member on this particular item, and 23 would invite him and welcome him to join us on any 24 other discussions, meetings in the future. 25 MR. DYSERT: I think in the spirit of the 83 1 2 transcript, 70 or so pages dealing with this issue 3 last time, it was clear that the names you 4 mentioned were supposed to be involved, and it was 5 the intent of this body. David, speak. 6 MR. SCHALLER: Thank you. I want to reiterate 7 for the record that we support open and effective 8 communications. That's been one of our objectives 9 from the very beginning. We want to see that 10 through to its appropriate conclusion all the way 11 through. 12 May I ask before I comment relative 13 specifically to the recommendations that came out 14 of the committee efforts on the 5th -- was that the 15 day we met? 16 MR. BREWTON: The 5th of January. 17 MR. SCHALLER: Is anybody, any SEG member 18 having trouble communicating? 19 MR. DYSERT: I take that as a request. I 20 will, as facilitator ask. Are there members of the 21 SEG who are having trouble communicating, is that 22 your question, David? 23 MR. SCHALLER: Yes, and quite frankly, I 24 didn't think that there were -- excuse me. 25 MR. DYSERT: Sam Drake. 84 1 2 MR. DRAKE: I guess there was some confusion 3 on the Operating Guidelines, how things get from 4 point A to point B. We've got an agenda item on 5 the last meeting on the Fish and Wildlife Service's 6 research needs. It's the last item of this 7 meeting. 8 It would be helpful if there were some way 9 that this information could be put out to the group 10 prior to the meeting, so we can have good 11 discussion and meaningful discussion. And right 12 now, without it being an official committee 13 established to look at this, it's kind of falling 14 into Never Never Land. 15 It would be the type of information you throw 16 out on one of your web sites. So this is the 17 proposal, review it prior to the meeting, and right 18 now, I don't know which avenue to take on that type 19 of issue. 20 Pat McIntosh has been wanting to 21 distribute some information on aeration, and pros 22 and cons on existing aeration-type things. Again, 23 it's not an official agenda item. It's kind of 24 been put up with that type of information to 25 circulate prior to the meeting. 85 1 2 We can make more efficient use of our time 3 during the meetings. Nobody likes to get something 4 cold, not have time to review, and that type of 5 thing, and that seems to be what's happening now. 6 MR. SCHALLER: With respect to the first 7 point, I would think that we could make some 8 accommodations for committee chairs to have access 9 to a location on the web page that says bone up on 10 this particular point, you know, it's forthcoming 11 at the next meeting, as you have suggested, Sam, 12 so it could be reviewed and people could be 13 knowledgeable in advance of that meeting. 14 With respect to the second point, by just 15 simply communicating information that one thinks 16 might be important, we have e-mail lists, and 17 everybody can be touched via an e-mail method. So, 18 you know, I think that is a possibility. 19 Let me state my concern. As I read and 20 understand the committee recommendation, there will 21 be four different communication networks. There 22 will be the main SEG web page. There will be an 23 area on the official SEG web page related to any 24 topic for upcoming or past SEG meetings. There 25 will be an area provided for posting important 86 1 2 project-related reports. And then there will be 3 an additional area for the purpose of posting 4 information not falling into either of the other 5 two categories. Now we've got four. 6 I'm concerned that people will be confused 7 about where and how this body communicates, where 8 do I go for that information, what channel do each 9 of us use to communicate with one another. If I'm 10 using site four and Bill Farmer wants to find me, 11 he's looking in site two and three, that's a 12 problem. 13 I'd like to simplify the communication, 14 make them open and effective. We'll try to do 15 that. If I'm reading that wrong, Ben -- 16 MR. BREWTON: Yes. Let me correct something 17 there, perhaps a misinterpretation. I sure wish 18 you could have stayed with us. I know you had to 19 leave pretty shortly after the meeting started, but 20 I wish you could stayed with us. 21 All those things were addressed, and these are 22 not separate web sites. These are just buttons on 23 the web site, just like all the other buttons. 24 There's 10 or 15 buttons there now for this 25 committee or that committee or committee reports. 87 1 2 This would be another button that would take you 3 to a library of sorts where these documents exist. 4 It's also very easy and possible, on the 5 agenda when it is posted, for a hyper link to be 6 there, such that if Sam has contributed some 7 information in advance relative to an item Fish and 8 Wildlife wants to bring up, you can simply click 9 there, and not have to click on any buttons, and it 10 will take you right to that material. So these are 11 not separate -- the area is just -- we shouldn't 12 get bogged down in semantics. Everything on the 13 web site essentially is in its own area for the SEG 14 for organizational purposes to make it easy. 15 That is, you have a section that is SEG 16 agenda, you have a section that is SEG meeting 17 summaries. You have a section that is the 18 Operating Guidelines documents, and so forth. 19 So this would just be another button there 20 that is member contributed documents. The second 21 thing I would say in regard to the question about 22 is anybody having communication difficulties, this 23 particular type of information sharing is something 24 that arose because of requests many, many months 25 ago, and was sanctioned, and we were asked to look 88 1 2 at it. 3 I think the premise of what we want to do is 4 well-established. I think Sam gave a good 5 explanation of that. One other item, when you said 6 possible process through the committee chairs, 7 that's exactly what Sam was talking about. 8 His work, his information, does not fall under 9 any specific committee at this time. What he would 10 like, and what others would like, is the ability to 11 share that information with everyone in advance of 12 it being discussed here, so we can be better 13 prepared, and expedite our meetings a little more, 14 and ask some more intelligent questions perhaps. 15 Then the outcome of that, maybe it gets 16 assigned to a committee, or a committee is created; 17 but until that happens, there would not necessarily 18 be any committee chair through whom that could 19 appropriately be handled. 20 MR. SCHALLER: I support Mr. Drake's interest 21 and want to accommodate it -- will work to 22 accommodate it. In the interest of time, so we 23 don't get bogged down here again, let's take it 24 back. 25 I regret, Ben, I couldn't spend more time. 89 1 2 I know you've made a big issue of that. I'm sorry 3 you have, but if I could have spent more time, I 4 would have. 5 MR. BREWTON: I simply thanked you for it 6 Dave. I wasn't making an issue of it. 7 MR. SCHALLER: I'll make another opportunity 8 to visit and accommodate these particular issues, 9 and get this resolved once and for all. 10 MR. BREWTON: Well, I'd like to offer that's 11 what we're here for. We've had several separate 12 meetings, taken a lot of time. I think there are a 13 lot of us here that would like to see this resolved 14 today. 15 So if you have voiced your concerns, maybe 16 some other people have some thoughts on it, and 17 then perhaps we can take an action one way or 18 another on it. 19 MR. DYSERT: I recognize John Robinette, 20 please, and then Neff. 21 MR. ROBINETTE: Basically, you know, what you 22 have just agreed to, Dave, is this topic is the 23 number one area that should be provided where 24 information on related topics can be placed on the 25 agenda -- can be put on the web site, so we can 90 1 2 review those prior to the meeting to see if we can 3 agree on that point. 4 I'd also like to bring up the fact, one thing 5 we discussed was this item number one, was at the 6 end of each meeting, discuss the next meeting's 7 agenda, and the SEG should establish a steering 8 committee that would sort of put that agenda 9 together. So, we have the groups represented here, 10 from maybe the committee chairs, for one thing. 11 If you have got reports coming up, or requests 12 for additional funding for research, or something 13 like that, and itemize that, this is what we need 14 to get done first; one, two, three, four -- 15 prioritize that. 16 So if we can agree on number one, and we could 17 agree to have an area put on the SEG web site where 18 we could post pertinent information based on that 19 agenda; at least, we would be better prepared for 20 the meeting. We could at least knock two or three 21 out. We could go back and work on the rest of it 22 again. 23 MR. BREWTON: This would be for clarification, 24 3-B i, little i there John is referring to as one 25 at the top of the second page, and that 91 1 2 recommendation would be subject to the guidelines 3 in iii there. So that's really the first 4 recommendation. You've got some other cards there. 5 MR. REES: Repeat that, Ben. You lost me. 6 MR. BREWTON: What John was calling item one 7 is number one under B. To be specific, it is on 8 page two. That would be 3-B then the little i, 9 lower case i, then the area should be provided on 10 the official SEG web site. 11 MR. ROBINETTE: Also, these first two under 12 number 1-A and B. 13 MR. BREWTON: You might not have been in the 14 room there. We sort of skipped over that. We were 15 going to come back to that keep the discussion on 16 one item at a time. Did you want those considered 17 as a package, John? I mean, it's okay with me. 18 MR. ROBINETTE: I think we ought to figure out 19 everything we can agree to right now, go ahead and 20 pass that. Stuff that we can't agree on, we can go 21 back and work that out. 22 MR. BREWTON: Let's see if we can go down the 23 list. What I was doing, I was taking item three 24 which is the web site thing first. I was going to 25 go back to one and then four. 92 1 2 MR. DYSERT: John, was it your intention to 3 deal with these item by item that seems to be 4 agreement on, or is it y'all's desire to build 5 a package? 6 MR. ROBINETTE: I'd like to go down through 7 here and decide which one of these we can agree 8 on. Let's agree to agree on those, get those 9 passed. The ones we can't agree on, the committee 10 can go back and hash this thing out again. 11 MR. DYSERT: For example, are you saying -- 12 MR. ROBINETTE: I think we have an agreement 13 on 3-B i, right, is that right, David? 14 MR. SCHALLER: As far as I'm concerned. 15 MR. DYSERT: Let me make a declarative 16 statement. There is an agreement between the 17 parties that were asked to do this at the last 18 meeting on item 3-B little i, in the Communications 19 Committee's report that was just handed out to 20 today dated January 11th. 21 MR. BREWTON: Okay. So then the next part 22 would be the ii, which is providing also that area 23 or similar area on the web site for posting of 24 other important project-related reports, 25 correspondence, and other information arising 93 1 2 between meetings. 3 Is there any objection to that, and then we 4 can talk about the methodology of doing it? But in 5 concept, is there any -- 6 MR. DYSERT: Is there support within the group 7 that was asked by this body to go off and agree? I 8 think that's the first question. 9 MR. BREWTON: We're presenting it to you as 10 a -- 11 MR. McINTOSH: I think Ben's question is 12 actually better posed, what's the objection? 13 MR. BREWTON: Or is there one? 14 MR. McINTOSH: Rather than trying to find our 15 what can agree on, ask where the objections are, 16 where the objections fall. If we can overcome 17 them right now, expeditiously do it; if we can't, 18 take them back like John said. 19 MR. DYSERT: It's my understanding from 20 reading the 70 pages that dealt with this topic 21 last time, the two groups, Ben and GPA were asked 22 to go and agree and bring things back here. My 23 point, Neff, was if Ben and Mr. Schaller agree, 24 then it's something that can roll on the table 25 here. You can object, you can indicate you like it 94 1 2 or don't like it. 3 I wanted to know, is there agreement between 4 the two parties that were asked by this body last 5 time on item 3-B ii? 6 MR. BREWTON: If I might give the preface to 7 the report again, a committee meeting including 8 David was set. The committee worked. The 9 committee came up with a recommendation. All of 10 the recommendations were adopted unanimously, 10 by 11 consensus, of the people present at the time. 12 David was not present for all of the 13 recommendations. I sent a committee draft report 14 out on Sunday, and it was circulated around Sunday 15 and Monday to members. 16 I had several requests for revisions to the 17 report, and I made those revisions. I did not have 18 any comment from anyone at GPA on the report at 19 all. So whatever we're hearing from David on the 20 items after he left is new here today. So I have 21 no way, on my part, of answering that question. 22 MR. DYSERT: Is there -- Trip Tollison 23 MR. TOLLISON: In the interest of time, I 24 think Neff has a very good point. This is 25 something presented by the Communications 95 1 2 Committee. Everybody had a copy since -- I don't 3 want to say everybody. I mean, you can call Ben 4 Brewton and ask for this. This is something -- we 5 all agreed to come to the meeting prepared to look 6 at this and discuss it. 7 Well, if you object, I think we need to focus 8 on the objection and bring it to the table and move 9 forward. I don't think that it's hard. Secondly, 10 in the interest of time, we need to have a better, 11 I don't know, maybe when we come in here on a draft 12 appendix, set forth a time line on how much time 13 we're going to spend on each subcommittee and who 14 for. 15 If the Communication Committee gets 20 16 minutes, that's their 20 minutes. The Fisheries 17 Committee gets 20 minutes, and that's their 20 18 minutes. We have to get it sized. 19 Also, you know, Sam Drake brought up 20 something very important. We really need get to 21 the item ix 3, new business. I'm sorry. I'm very 22 frustrated. 23 As everybody knows, I've talked to everybody 24 in here. I mean, this stuff we really need to 25 start talking about. I think we need to focus on 96 1 2 objections here, go through this, have the report 3 and move forward. That's -- I'm sorry. I'm sorry. 4 We need to do this. 5 MR. BREWTON: Well, I agree with Trip. We 6 worked very hard on this to try to come up with 7 something that everybody could live with, which is 8 what we were asked to do. A lot of time was spent 9 on it initially. A lot of time was spent on it by 10 this group at the last meeting. And a lot of time 11 was spent on it by the committee again to try to 12 come up with a package of things that would 13 acceptable and address things. I would like to try 14 to move on toward a decision or -- 15 MR. DYSERT: Are there objections to item 3-B 16 ii. Please indicate -- David. 17 MR. SCHALLER: Yes, there are. And for the 18 record, I'm quite agreeable to take this back and 19 address it privately off the record so as not to 20 waste the time of group. If the group insists we 21 address it, then I'll be happy to participate. 22 MR. BREWTON: One of the things that I have 23 a concern with, Dave -- 24 MR. SCHALLER: With regard to item -- the 25 question that was asked, item 3-B ii would be 97 1 2 contrary to what I stated when I first spoke of 3 on this issue. We would not subscribe to a 4 screening method, a censorship program. I object 5 to yet another area, as I expressed earlier, where 6 we've got another communications program going. I 7 think we can work this out, if we have an 8 opportunity to meet privately. 9 MR. BREWTON: I think the Communications 10 Committee, we could ask, that would be agreeable to 11 remove the screen requirement. That was actually 12 put there to try to satisfy your concern, Dave. If 13 it is not of value to you, we can certainly remove 14 that right now. 15 We did go and meet and try to meet 16 semiprivately with you on this. I just wonder how 17 many times we're going to redo this, and redo this, 18 and redo this before we make a decision. 19 MR. KING: Mitch King. I think I just heard 20 an agreement here. The GPA said they didn't like 21 B-2 because of the screening, and the committee 22 chair said they would pull the screening sentence 23 out. So if we strike the last sentence, do we have 24 agreement? 25 MR. SCHALLER: Mitch, I also indicated that's 98 1 2 yet another location where we have communication. 3 Can't we centralize? I think we're going to have 4 an official communications program be the web page 5 and an unofficial back channel informal, whatever 6 you want to call it, communications position on 7 there. Then shouldn't we stop there and not have a 8 third and fourth? 9 MR. KING: I guess I have to go back to what 10 Ben said earlier, is that the need for this issue 11 has been brought up and settled previously. And I 12 think it's inappropriate to bring it up again here. 13 And what I'm hearing here is we have one 14 individual, one group that is concerned and 15 everyone else seems to be -- does not have an 16 objection here. I don't like the idea of sending 17 it back to committee just because one group is 18 concerned. 19 Let's try to solve it. If it is unsolvable, 20 then there's no sending it back. I think it is 21 time to do something here. 22 MR. DYSERT: John. 23 MR. ROBINETTE: I was put on this committee as 24 sort of a mediator, I guess, was my position. And 25 Dave, we tried our best to take into consideration 99 1 2 your concerns that were relayed to us before you 3 left, to design this in a way that would meet your 4 needs and meet our needs, particularly when it 5 comes to documents, you know, like the chief's 6 report, stuff like that. 7 It would be nice to have that in one place, 8 you know. The filing system that you and I both 9 have on this probably takes up a room. That would 10 make it so much easier when we needed to go back 11 and pull something out and look at something, what 12 did that say again, what was done there. 13 The committee reports and the next upcoming 14 meeting, we'll be able to review that stuff before 15 we got here. I think we agree there's a need to do 16 that. We worked pretty hard to try and take in 17 those considerations. I mean, I think we were 18 there like four hours. 19 MR. SCHALLER: Okay. 20 MR. ROBINETTE: We didn't dismiss everything 21 you wanted. We did try. We made a salient effort 22 to incorporate that. 23 MR. DYSERT: Fred. 24 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason. A comment, we're 25 here as an advisory group to suggest to GPA what 100 1 2 the regulatory groups would like to see to make a 3 decision. I think all we can do is make a 4 suggestion. The balls in GPA's court. If they 5 want to listen to it and respond, they will do 6 that. 7 They will do that in their best interests to 8 persuade the advisory group to make a decision. My 9 feelings are if someone put up a point that GPA 10 fails to address it because they chose to fail 11 address it, then it's going to be evaluated when 12 you make the determination at the end of road. 13 I don't think -- maybe GPA or anybody else can 14 do anymore than what they're going to do. You can 15 only suggest. It's a good faith suggestion. It 16 will be received in good faith and responded to 17 in good faith. 18 If it's not adequate, the proof's going to be 19 at the end of day when the groups sit down and say, 20 you didn't look at the red string when I asked to 21 look at it. I got to have an answer to vote yes. 22 It's that simple. 23 MR. DYSERT: Jeri. 24 MS. GALE: Jeri Gale, Georgia Conservancy. 25 This is only my second meeting. So maybe I didn't 101 1 2 know what to except from the proceedings. It seems 3 to me, although it's not proper, it's certainly 4 time to call a vote, based on the fact at the last 5 meeting we did spend a lot of time talking about 6 what the recommendations are. Now, the 7 recommendations are here. 8 It's yes or no. It seems to me there are two 9 things making it a little crazy this morning. We 10 keep talking about a public, open-ended group, but 11 we keep fussing about putting information out. I 12 frankly don't understand what could possibly be 13 lost providing the kind of information we're 14 talking about. 15 And the other thing, my eight old asked what 16 we talked about at the meeting. I thought about 17 it and I thought, well, you know, there's fish -- 18 no. We don't talk about fish. Well, maybe it's 19 water quality -- no. We don't talk about water 20 quality. 21 It seems to me we're so process heavy that -- 22 I don't know how you refine the process. I guess I 23 just think that this web site discussion is maybe 24 not a great example of how well we're working 25 together toward our goals, as I understand it. I 102 1 2 know it's difficult to bring all of this together 3 on agreement, but at least on this point we 4 followed the rules. It seems to me it's time to 5 vote. 6 MR. DYSERT: Mitch. 7 MR. KING: It's nice to hear fresh voices on 8 this. You're very right, Jeri. To speak to the 9 point I heard down here from Fred, I can't 10 disagree more. 11 This group is not an arm of Georgia Ports 12 Authority. This group is a group that, in my 13 opinion, is charged with reviewing; one, whether or 14 not we need a deepening of the harbor; two, what 15 all of the aspects of the scientific impacts of 16 deepening that harbor are, and trying to share that 17 information. 18 And if, in fact, what we're doing here is -- 19 the names of our organizations are being put on 20 documents. We're being portrayed as supporting 21 issues and not supporting issues. We need to not 22 be just a group of advisors to the Georgia Ports 23 Authority. 24 And if that's what this group has decided in 25 some sort of mission before this, I wish someone 103 1 2 would corner me sometime and tell me that. Because 3 that's going to make a big difference in whether or 4 not we participate, and continue to participate in 5 this effort. 6 It's not something we all make 7 recommendations, and the Georgia Ports Authority 8 agrees to it. Okay. If that's the case, we need 9 our own web site. We need to be completely 10 separated from Georgia Ports Authority. 11 In fact, I would suggest because congress has 12 put this group in their documents, and at least in 13 some way made the point that this group is settling 14 some of the problems associated with the deepening 15 of Georgia Ports, I would suggest that the funds 16 congress is providing to Georgia Ports Authority, 17 and the State of Georgia, is to be used to develop 18 and produce the web site of SEG, not a GPA web site 19 explaining SEG activities. 20 I'm really taken aback by the statement down 21 here if we give our recommendation to GPA, that's 22 as far as it goes. If that's what we're here for, 23 folks, we need to know that right up front, then 24 make a decision whether or not you and your 25 organization want to participate in the effort 104 1 2 ongoing. 3 MR. DYSERT: Two cards up. Morgan and Ben, 4 Trip in the back. 5 MR. REES: Mitch, just clarification. There 6 is no congressional money involved in this at this 7 point. Your suggestion that we use some of 8 congressionally appropriated money to do one thing 9 or another, there is none. 10 MR. KING: Morgan, you know better than that, 11 Morgan. 12 MR. REES: No, I don't. 13 MR. KING: There's money coming. You're 14 betting on the come on this. Don't say you're not. 15 MR. REES: Okay. All right. Well, let's make 16 that clear. The money is not there. It may or may 17 not be there. For the whole project, the money 18 won't be there. 19 MR. BREWTON: May I take a moment here as 20 the committee chair to try to rein us back in -- 21 MR. REES: Ben, thank you very much. I'm not 22 done yet. Ben, if you would provide at least that 23 little bit of respect, I would appreciate it. 24 Thank you. Anyway, now, I've lost my train of 25 thought. 105 1 2 MR. BREWTON: Money, you're not getting any. 3 I just wanted to say that it seems like these 4 discussions, one of the things that takes so long, 5 we start getting into some real fundamental issues 6 and fundamental differences that exist here. 7 I just had a little plea for a moment to get 8 away from these basic philosophical differences, 9 and see if we can work through this one item here, 10 so that all this time is not necessarily charged to 11 the Communications Committee. 12 Because that's certainly not the scope of our 13 recommendation to examine those things. We just -- 14 it sounded like to me, though, someone said maybe 15 we had an agreement on B ii, after striking the 16 screening portion of it. I would like to ask -- 17 MR. DYSERT: Morgan, is your card still up? 18 MR. REES: I recall the other point I wanted 19 to make relevant to this discussions. Again, it 20 goes to Mitch's comment. I don't mean in any way 21 to be argumentative or confrontational. 22 Point of information, the SEG was, at least in 23 my judgment, designed to provide input to GPA, and 24 has, again in my judgment and my understanding of 25 it, has no decision authority, has no decision 106 1 2 responsibility. 3 And we were very explicit, when we developed 4 the guidelines, that none of the participants would 5 be held to anything that went on in the SEG. These 6 were advisory situations, and the GPA had the 7 ultimate responsibility to decide things. 8 And we spent a lot of time in earlier meetings 9 on that. I don't want to go through all that 10 again, but if anybody -- I would ask everybody to 11 go back and read the operating guidelines, please, 12 and give me your input before the next meeting of 13 the Operating Guidelines Committee. 14 It seems to me a lot of people have a lot of 15 different understandings of the nature of the 16 group, and how we're supposed to proceed. So that 17 would be a big help to me and the Operating 18 Guidelines Committee for people to do that. 19 MR. DYSERT: Trip had his hand up. Trip. 20 MR. TOLLISON: I was going to bring this up 21 today, now is an appropriate time to bring it up. 22 As far as the matter of time, we start our 23 appropriation hearings in March on energy and 24 water. We are on the committee. And in order if 25 money is going to be appropriated for the harbor 107 1 2 deepening this year, I would say we probably have 3 to make that decision this summer. 4 I just want to let everybody know that. It 5 may not happen this year or it may happen next 6 year. This may shed some light on all the time we 7 are wasting, you know, like right now. We need to 8 get on with some decisions, because we do start the 9 process in March. The house will write the bill 10 in June. 11 Whether or not we stick money in there for 12 harbor deepening, you know, I don't see how we can 13 get a consensus by June at the rate we're going. 14 Everybody needs to know that. 15 MR. DYSERT: I want to ask two questions. 16 That item with the 3-B ii with the screening 17 deleted, I want to ask, I'm going to ask two 18 questions. 19 You can figure out which order you want me to 20 ask them. I'm going to ask you to express your 21 support for adoption or acceptance of that. 22 I'm going to ask who objects or can't live with it. 23 I don't care which order. 24 MR. McINTOSH: Objection first, please. 25 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Neff McIntosh, so please 108 1 2 indicate, any of you who have objections to item 3 3-B ii with the screening provision deleted, as I 4 think Mitch pointed out. Please indicate if you 5 have objections. I see no hands raised, no 6 expressions of objection. If you support that -- 7 MR. KING: No -- done. 8 MR. DYSERT: Done, done. Next item. 9 MR. BREWTON: Okay. We'll try to move very 10 quickly. The next item is item three, which are 11 simply -- I'd just like to clarify, the group has 12 endorsed these guidelines for the posting on one 13 and two. 14 The only thing, if you endorse that 15 generally, is just to decide if you would agree or 16 want to have a provision that someone can submit 17 something for posting to the web site, that they or 18 their organization would have been here physically 19 at at least one meeting. That's a decision we left 20 up to this group. 21 MR. DYSERT: Recommendation 3-B iii is in 22 place. Any discussion? David. 23 MR. SCHALLER: Let the record reflect that my 24 silence shouldn't be construed to be an endorsement 25 of the recommendation. 109 1 2 MR. DYSERT: So noted. Any discussion, other 3 comments? Please indicate if you have objections 4 or can't live with item 3-B iii. None are noted on 5 the floor. 6 MR. BREWTON: Just for clarification, 7 Mr. Facilitator, are we agreeing that this 8 registration requirement would be in place? That 9 is, that before someone could submit stuff, they 10 would have to have attended an SEG meeting. 11 MR. DYSERT: That would seem to be some 12 reasonable criteria, Ben. I have been consistent. 13 Anybody who walks in the door, I consider them to 14 be a member. That seems to be consistent with what 15 we've done. I don't see any problem with that. 16 MR. BREWTON: Okay. Tell you what I'm going 17 to offer here, with the permission of the committee 18 members, and somewhat of I'll say of a conciliatory 19 gesture to Dave and GPA for agreeing to the other 20 items, perhaps we could table item four, and see if 21 most of our needs are met by the implementation of 22 one and two. If not, we will revisit item four. 23 Would that be agreeable to the committee members 24 first? We'll just defer anything on that separate 25 site -- Judy? 110 1 2 MR. DYSERT: Judy Jennings, committee member 3 has a comment. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Wait a minute. I'm not sure. 5 Number four has a member contact list? 6 MR. BREWTON: No. I'm sorry. This is iv, B 7 iv. This would be that free group circulation 8 service. It may be that most of our needs are met 9 by these other two. 10 Would that be agreeable? If it is, then we'll 11 withdraw, at this time, iv. I don't know if 12 there's some irony in saying we'll withdraw the iv. 13 MR. DYSERT: That's scary, the same thought 14 was going through my mind. Withdraw the iv. I 15 presume that there was no objection to that, and 16 that is a decision that is acceptable to the body. 17 So iv has been tabled by the committee. 18 MR. BREWTON: Okay. Item up to regular number 19 four here, recommendation for member contact list. 20 One of the things that came up to try to facility 21 easier communication, and more readily targeted 22 communication, was that it might be advisable, and 23 this would be at the option of each of you 24 individually, you wouldn't have to be listed if you 25 didn't want to, but for those of you willing to be 111 1 2 listed, there would be a member contact list that 3 would have your name, organization contact 4 information, indicate any primary areas of 5 interest; that is, if you're interested in dredge 6 disposal but, not interested in DO and the river, 7 you could put those areas of interest. 8 And if you wish to receive e-mail from others 9 about those topics, you could list that. So our 10 recommendation is to establish a contact list that 11 would be posted with each member having the option 12 whether they were there, to what extent their 13 personal information was given out. 14 MR. DYSERT: Any objection to that 15 recommendation? Seeing none, we have another 16 declarative statement that consensus has been 17 reached. 18 MR. BREWTON: Okay. That leaves us with one 19 item on this report, which is the recommendations, 20 and I'll just go ahead and get this out of the way. 21 We won't have to come back up. 22 Dave Schaller had noted at the last meeting 23 that he liked the idea that the last couple of 24 meetings we'd taken a few minutes at the end of 25 the meetings to discuss topics, or suggest topics 112 1 2 that needed to be on the next agenda. 3 So item 1-A is just to simply formalize that, 4 and ask on the standard agenda where we have old 5 business, new business, committee reports, et 6 cetera, that an item be added right before 7 adjournment that would be, discuss next meeting's 8 agenda. The committee endorsed that, and hopefully 9 the SEG will. 10 MR. DYSERT: I presume the steering committee 11 would make sure it was on there. Any discussion? 12 MR. BREWTON: I was going to take B 13 separately, since there was really two parts 14 MR. DYSERT: Any discussion about 15 recommendation 1-A, concerning devoting the last 16 part of the SEG meetings for preparing the agenda 17 for the subsequent meeting? 18 MR. BREWTON: I think Dave was thinking this 19 would be a five minute proposition generally. 20 MR. DYSERT: Any objections to that? Charlie 21 Moore is nodding that he is happy with it. I note 22 that it's been accepted by the group. 23 MR. BREWTON: Item 1-A is off this report, 24 1-B, I'm going to read this and ask Sam Drake and 25 some of the others who suggested this to elaborate 113 1 2 on it. 3 The idea being that the SEG should establish a 4 steering committee, that would meet immediately 5 after each meeting, to prioritize and prepare the 6 draft agenda that could be for the next meeting. 7 It could be posted almost immediately. 8 The structure of the committee is something we 9 thought maybe Operating Guidelines Committee could 10 take up. 11 This would just be something to help give the 12 facilitator a head start on preparing the agenda, 13 to sit down and prioritize, and maybe do some time 14 allocations. Sam, since you made this suggestion, 15 I'll let you say anything further. 16 MR. DRAKE: Okay. A lot of the groups I've 17 worked on utilize a steering committee, primarily 18 to assist the facilitator in doing several things; 19 number one, establish priorities on agenda items; 20 number two, some time allocations; number three, 21 helping identify whether there's going to be an 22 action item decision making or just information 23 sharing. 24 It helps with the flow of items on the 25 agenda, and because really your facilitator needs 114 1 2 some guidance from the group on what's important to 3 the group, if you are going to get an end point 4 we're shooting for. So this gives us a group that 5 can meet after each monthly meeting, kind of look 6 at the potential agenda items. A lot of times if 7 you have got to arrange speakers, somebody has to 8 get in touch with them, do some of the 9 coordination. This group can help with some of 10 the coordination. 11 Cathy, it may take some of the workload off 12 you, you know, these things coming in at the last 13 minute, because this group will feed information to 14 you on the meeting agenda. 15 That's the way I've seen it working. I've 16 seen it utilized in other forums. I was just 17 wondering if it wouldn't help in this one. Anybody 18 have questions or concerns? 19 MR. BREWTON: The committee heard Sam's 20 suggestion, and unanimously endorsed that, and 21 present it to you now. 22 MR. DRAKE: One thing that did come out of 23 the committee was that, I kind of said the 24 committee chairperson would be on the steering 25 committee. Then somebody else said it should be if 115 1 2 anybody else in the group wanted to participate, it 3 shouldn't representative, but the chairperson would 4 be open to a couple of other folks at large to be 5 on the steering committee. 6 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Discussion. Bill Farmer. 7 MR. FARMER: I don't know if there's an issue 8 that you are trying to solve. Was that made clear 9 somewhere in there? I thought the preparation of 10 the agenda was fairly smooth. There were no issues 11 there. 12 MR. DRAKE: I meant the time allocation, 13 prioritizing. 14 MR. FARMER: Just add the timing -- why don't 15 we ask him to add the time allocation? 16 MR. DYSERT: Just as a matter of information, 17 on a number of requests I have made, I have asked 18 is this action item, is this for information, 19 approximately how much time is needed, and I get 20 virtually no input. I'll just say virtually no 21 input. 22 MR. BREWTON: I think this might have been 23 somewhat of an effort to force people to sit down 24 and do that and give you that information. 25 MR. DYSERT: I think to the extent that from 116 1 2 key people within this body, you can float out, 3 Sam, priorities, estimated time allocation, and 4 flagging them information or action, that would be 5 very helpful. Further discussion. Mitch. 6 MR. KING: Just one, a few words of 7 endorsement of this idea. I didn't hear about it 8 until yesterday afternoon, but when I did hear 9 about it, I was pretty excited about it. 10 I think this is -- I also have dealt in a lot 11 of large committees. Sometimes they can -- they 12 can get in a quagmire over some small stuff. I 13 think a small steering committee, that is a mirror 14 of the larger group, would certainly be something 15 that would be valuable for this group. 16 Just based on what I have seen in the last two 17 months of me being at these meetings, it seems like 18 we are lacking a steerer, so a steering committee 19 might be a way to try to put us on track. 20 I would caution to keep it small. Committee 21 chairs and maybe a couple of people that you select 22 would be the best way to go. Don't let it get more 23 than five or six. Their meeting would be easy to 24 formulate. 25 MR. BREWTON: I have a suggestion maybe to 117 1 2 consolidated all that into somewhat amended 3 recommendation here. If the group likes the idea 4 that's presented, we can either refer the structure 5 to Operating Guidelines, or there's been a couple 6 of suggestions put out here immediately. The 7 thought that comes to mind is maybe we would say 8 the steering committee would consist of the 9 committee chairs. 10 Since I think most people here at the end of 11 the meeting are ready to get out of here, we can 12 just say it would be open to others who wanted to 13 participate, who perhaps had an interest in a 14 specific item on the upcoming agenda or whatever 15 and leave that open, unless it grew too large as to 16 be manageable, Mitch, 17 I'm thinking otherwise we could say the 18 committee chairs, plus others who wish to 19 participate. If that would be agreeable as a 20 starting point, I would submit that for 21 consideration. 22 MR. DYSERT: Neff McIntosh. 23 MR. McINTOSH: In the interest of keeping it 24 simple, why wouldn't you just start with committee 25 chairs and let them decide who else they might 118 1 2 invite or might -- 3 MR. BREWTON: That was discussed. There was 4 some feeling there are some people who aren't 5 involved in any of the committees, or who don't 6 have issues related to committees, and that sort of 7 independent issue or voice, such as the tidal 8 amplitude question, or ballast water, or something 9 that might not be as well represented as necessary. 10 MR. DYSERT: Judy Jennings. 11 MS. JENNINGS: I support the creation of 12 the steering committee, and reiterate the openness 13 of the communication process -- Ben's right. 14 MR. DYSERT: Are there any objections to 15 the recommendation 1-B as just modified to be 16 committee chairs, and open? No objections are 17 noted. Another declarative statement, that that 18 recommendation, as modified, has been adopted by 19 this body. 20 MR. BREWTON: Good. I appreciate that. That 21 concludes this report. I think there was a 22 remaining item on the old report about something 23 about e-mail. I would just defer that to a future 24 meeting, so we can move on with some other things. 25 I'd also like to thank the members of the 119 1 2 committee who worked so hard. Doug Plachy, and the 3 guys from Fish and Wildlife who joined us to help 4 reach these compromises. 5 Also note, these hopefully are one time 6 things. They're things to address the process one 7 time, so we don't have to debate about it each 8 month. And hopefully, they will serve that 9 purpose. Appreciate your indulgence and approval 10 of recommendations. 11 MR. DYSERT: It's amazing what you can do when 12 you have a 15 minute time allocation. Anyway, 13 that's humor. I'm glad that we have gotten this 14 worked through the body. And I do appreciate that. 15 What is your pleasure now? It is, I note that 16 it's now eight minutes to twelve. 17 Do you want to continue with the old business 18 items, or do you wish to go on and get into the 19 committees? 20 MS. LEFFEK: I would submit that we move to 21 the committee reports, if at all possible, since it 22 is almost noon, unless anyone else has other 23 objections to that. 24 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Presumably, we have now 25 completed all of the things that were designated as 120 1 2 action items under old business. Unless there are 3 objections, we'll now proceed with the committees. 4 Seeing none, we will. 5 Okay. Generally, we go through committees 6 fairly fast. Last month we had 17 minutes left at 7 the end of the meeting to deal with committees, and 8 we just zipped right through them. Hopefully, we 9 can have more today. How about Bill, Beach Erosion 10 Committee report. What do you have for us today, 11 sir? 12 MR. FARMER: All right. I have a written 13 report. Take one and pass it, please. 14 MR. FARMER: We had a significant event, so I 15 wanted to alert you to pay attention to this 16 significant event occur. We were developing 17 two scientific study recommendations for the SEG, 18 one of which was to study the coarse/fine ratio for 19 sand placement on the beach and so forth. 20 The committee was getting ready to develop 21 that recommendation to the SEG. Charles Griffen 22 was there representing Larry Keegan, who was 23 representing the Georgia Ports Authority, and 24 Charles said that okay, we'll just go ahead and 25 study it. We don't really need to have a 121 1 2 recommendation from SEG before we start studying 3 that. 4 So that was the significant event that 5 occurred, which was quite amazing, and did I see -- 6 is the GPA still here? 7 MR. KING: Patted on the back and they're not 8 here. 9 MR. FARMER: Yeah, they get so few pats on the 10 back, I think they need to get a pat on the back. 11 MR. DYSERT: Why don't we just see if they 12 read the transcript, and we'll find out, get a 13 delayed play. 14 MR. FARMER: My key question was whether 15 Charles has communicated his decision to the other 16 GPA and they concur, and they will, in fact, study 17 this issue without representation from SEG. Them 18 not being here, I really can't ask them that, I 19 guess. 20 So the other study was to do a comprehensive 21 benefit cost analysis of trying to basically merge 22 beach restoration projects and harbor deepening 23 projects, because they both involve digging sand up 24 and putting it someplace. So they would somehow be 25 combined, and you might get some very significant 122 1 2 cost ratio benefits out of it. 3 We decided to defer that as not being in the 4 scope of the harbor deepening project; therefore, 5 not being eligible for funding with federal 6 dollars. We're not going to not recommend that to 7 this body at this time. End of report. 8 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton. 9 MR. BREWTON: Question, has the committee 10 itself established the scope of the study regarding 11 the coarse/fine sand? 12 MR. FARMER: What happened there was Charles 13 said the Port Authority would study that. He 14 immediately turned to Bo Ellis, who is ATM on the 15 same committee, and requested ATM to develop the 16 task statement in very specific words, how to do 17 it, when to do it, why to do that, and sort of 18 thing. So the first step is have a task statement 19 developed, and that's underway. 20 MR. BREWTON: One of things that concerns me 21 here, normally in this process, the committee 22 establishes the parameters, and has provided a 23 scope of study, which has been approved by the SEG. 24 And then the study has been conducted within those 25 parameters. 123 1 2 One of the things, while I commend GPA for 3 their willingness and eagerness to offer to do 4 this, I don't think that if it is something that a 5 SEG committee has identified as being needed, that 6 we should forego the right of the SEG to have some 7 input into the scope of study. 8 That is, we shouldn't take a needed study and 9 preempt it before the parameters have been defined 10 by those of you who are working with it and 11 concurred with by the SEG. 12 So I would just ask for some assurance that 13 the study, at some point, if it's going to be 14 something that an SEG committee or the SEG is going 15 to be making a decision on somehow or other, the 16 SEG and its committee have a chance to review that 17 scope of work. 18 MR. DYSERT: Stuart. 19 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens, DNR. As a 20 committee member, we did discuss that, Ben. The 21 idea was that Bo was going to go back and develop 22 this scope of work, and then bring it to us to 23 review. 24 I, and others on the committee, would work 25 directly with him to develop that scope of work. 124 1 2 We will be involved in what goes into the study, 3 and agree or disagree with what we expect for the 4 outcomes, before we undertake the study. 5 MR. BREWTON: One of the things that I would 6 ask perhaps be clarified somehow or other, when you 7 have this sort of thing occurring in an individual 8 committee, or individual members of that committee, 9 its relationship to the SEG, to the SEG process, 10 the SEG sanction of it, and in fact, the SEG's 11 possible use or interpretation of that data in 12 making a decision, and that may be actually 13 something Operating Guidelines needs to look at, as 14 to what happens in the event of a GPA study that's 15 initiated by GPA at the -- at the initial request 16 of an SEG committee, but not totally developed 17 through the normal process. 18 MR. DYSERT: Further discussion on beach 19 erosion? 20 MR. FARMER: If the SEG would like take the 21 position of recommending this to the GPA also, that 22 would not be out of order. If you look at the 23 report, it's about three, four lines on the report. 24 It's basically, if you find the big B on 25 there, it reads as follows; a scientific study to 125 1 2 determine the three coarse/fine sand ratios 3 suitable for the beneficial use of dredge materials 4 in three alternate locations; one, on the 5 shoreline; number two, adjacent to existing sand 6 dunes or construct new sand dunes; and three, near 7 shore areas. 8 What this amounts to is establishing criteria. 9 If you have some dredge material here, you analyze 10 it and see where it is suitable to be placed. That 11 needs a little bit of study to make sure that 12 you're not placing in unsuitable place. 13 So if the SEG wanted to recommend the study to 14 GPA, that's fine. I think that was Ben's point. 15 Somehow this came out of SEG's effort, and maybe 16 SEG ought to have a hand on it. 17 MR. TOLLISON: Do you know how much it will 18 cost by any chance? 19 MR. FARMER: Not yet. Maybe Bo has a feel for 20 it. Intuitively, maybe it's 1 or $200,000, but 21 that's not my job to figure that out, you know. 22 MR. BREWTON: I just rounded Dave Schaller up, 23 so perhaps he can answer the question Bill posed 24 earlier. 25 MR. FARMER: David, Charles Griffen attended 126 1 2 our committee meeting, Beach Erosion Committee, and 3 said the GPA would undertake a study to analyze the 4 issue of suitability of dredge material analysis, 5 which comes down to a ratio of coarse sand to fine 6 sand. 7 The question was, first of all, 8 congratulations to the GPA for being so outgoing. 9 Secondly, I wanted to make sure he spoke for the 10 GPA. 11 MR. SCHALLER: I think so, but let me 12 confirm -- 13 MR. FARMER: Okay. 14 MR. SCHALLER: -- if you don't mind, please. 15 MR. FARMER: Okay. 16 MR. DYSERT: So you have asked your question. 17 MR. SCHALLER: We can confirm. My expert said 18 it was discussed and done. 19 MR. DYSERT: Stuart, Chris, Sam. 20 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens, DNR. To 21 address, partially address Trip's question, one of 22 the things we asked for, Trip, was an estimate of 23 cost to do this study. 24 Bill Bailey, on behalf of the Corps, did offer 25 it is a cost sharable effort to undertake. So if 127 1 2 the project is funded, it would be something that 3 could be partially refunded. 4 MR. TOLLISON: By the City of Tybee? 5 MR. STEVENS: No, by the federal government in 6 cost share. 7 MR. DYSERT: Would you repeat your comment? 8 MR. TOLLISON: Just watching out for the 9 dollars, just watching out for the money. 10 MR. DYSERT: Chris. 11 MR. SCHUBERTH: I wasn't at this Beach Erosion 12 Committee meeting, so I just see this in print. 13 What I'm assuming is that there may be three 14 different coarse/fine ratios developed, one 15 specific to placing that ratio on the shoreline, a 16 different ratio specifically to placing the 17 sediment on the sand dunes, and a third specific 18 ratio of coarse to fine specifically for near shore 19 areas. 20 My question, if that interpretation of these 21 words of this language is correct, is that the 22 ratios could conceivably all be the same for the 23 three different locations, or they could be 24 different for all three locations. Am I 25 interpreting this correctly? 128 1 2 MR. FARMER: Yes. 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: Is there evidence that the 4 coarse/fine ratio for a dune placement is going to 5 be different for a coarse/fine ratio for a 6 shoreline placement. 7 MR. FARMER: The only evidence I have was an 8 off the cuff remark by Stuart Stevens, that said 9 the further out in the water the material is 10 placed, the higher the ratio ought to be. 11 MR. DYSERT: Stuart. 12 MR. STEVENS: If I might address that, Chris. 13 I think intuitively, there is a reason why you 14 would expect different ratios, but we don't know 15 the answer to that yet. That's the reason to do 16 the study. 17 MR. SCHUBERTH: Okay. I just want to make 18 sure I'm understanding. 19 MR. DYSERT: Mitch. 20 MR. KING: Could I get a minute or two from 21 the committee on the study that you decided wasn't 22 applicable, and then disregarded? Can you 23 elaborate on that a little bit? 24 MR. FARMER: Someone else could probably 25 elaborate better. William Bailey, you still down 129 1 2 there? Could you address his question? 3 MR. BAILEY: Still here. We're looking at 4 combining benefits from different projects, 5 benefits from placement of sediments in a certain 6 location, if that would benefit the beach, or if 7 that would benefit near shore, whatever benefits. 8 If they could be quantified in dollars and 9 cents, and then using those to justify the 10 additional cost of that placement. Because that's 11 something that combines different congressional -- 12 because it combines the Corps, the Authority. 13 That's something that we couldn't do just on 14 this one little project, a big project that even if 15 we came up with a number we couldn't do it on that. 16 That's why we thought it was beyond the scope of 17 the project. 18 MR. STEVENS: Also, if might do add to that, 19 Stuart Stevens, DNR. The question becomes if you 20 determine there are beneficial uses of material 21 that doesn't enter into the cost benefit ratio, 22 we've already determined it's a beneficial use. 23 The only question is which benefit do we want 24 to exercise the right to do, and can we pay for it? 25 That's not part of a cost benefit analysis. That's 130 1 2 a beneficial use question. Even if we determine 3 the beneficial uses, if it's material, whether it 4 is deepening or O and M, the question comes, how do 5 we pay for that beneficial use? That was really 6 not a study to be done. 7 MR. KING: I guess I asked the question, we've 8 got a lot of valuable brains sitting around the 9 table talking about a lot of things that relate 10 to the environmental health of Coastal Georgia and 11 the savannah River system. 12 As a result of some of these discussions, 13 something that's needed from the standpoint of 14 a study of some sort for the health of the Georgia 15 coastal islands pops up, maybe we shouldn't spend a 16 lot of time on trying to put it all in a good sound 17 package, but we ought to at least keep it from 18 falling into a crack, into trash can, and put it in 19 a parking lot somewhere. 20 Maybe there will be a time this group can say, 21 in addition to the deepening of Georgia's port, we 22 need some help in this kind of environmental study 23 on the coast. That's why I'm trying to grab that 24 before it all goes in the trash can, someone can 25 put it in a parking lot -- 131 1 2 MR. STEVENS: Well, to address that question, 3 and again, I compliment Charlie Griffen on 4 volunteering for this to be done. He asked Bo 5 to develop a second scope of work to address that 6 very question; what are the potential beneficial 7 uses of material, and what the cost might be 8 associated with that? 9 That's a separate study. Then we would try to 10 review that and seek a funding source actually to 11 do that work. Again, we think it's probably 12 outside the harbor deepening issue question, but 13 it's something that needs to be done. And he asked 14 Bo to develop that scope of work, and take a 15 look -- 16 MR. KING: Good, because the Georgia State 17 Legislature is just kicking off right now. They 18 have been talking about spending money on 19 environmental issues on the coast. 20 MR. STEVENS: Yeah. 21 MR. DYSERT: Chris. 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: Just so that I understand 23 clearly what's being said here with this point A 24 is, earlier, months ago, now in our discussions we 25 were talking about paradigm shifts, we were talking 132 1 2 about vertical stove pipe mentality. We were 3 talking about trying to find a way to go against 4 what has historically been done to maximize 5 different projects, studied in different buildings, 6 by different people, who think vertically and are 7 trying to now think a little bit horizontally. 8 Am I to understand now that this more 9 horizontal way of thinking is basically being 10 trashed with -- under A, and what Mitch is trying 11 to say is, if that's what's happening, let's keep a 12 little string on this thing so it doesn't slip away 13 entirely? 14 MR. STEVENS: It is. I'm sorry, Bill. I 15 don't mean to dominate the committee business. 16 It's not being trashed by any means. The effort, 17 the offer that was made by Charlie, which I'm 18 hearing from David is agreed to, is that Bo would 19 develope a second scope of work that may be beyond 20 the harbor deepening question, but still an 21 important issue related to the harbor, O and M 22 especially. 23 And then we could look for a mechanism to try 24 fund that. It's not being trashed. We got a 25 commitment from GPA months ago that they would try 133 1 2 to do anything certainly related to deepening, and 3 anything not related to deepening, they would help 4 us look at the mechanism to fund it. This falls 5 into that category. 6 MR. DYSERT: Ben and Morgan and then we'll 7 consider we've concluded this committee report. 8 MR. BREWTON: Just as looked at various 9 issues, related and unrelated, think about the 10 issue taken up before; one question I want to pose 11 to the committee, there has been some mention of 12 the suggestion before that the effect, if there is 13 an effect on erosion of the channel deepening, 14 dredging, so forth, that it does not affect just 15 Tybee, but also has an effect on the sand, on the 16 down drift, the southerly islands, and down drift 17 area. 18 It could perhaps have an effect on their 19 erosion, and the type and availability of sand for 20 sea turtles nesting, bird nesting, and other 21 things. Is the committee -- I guess I'm trying to 22 determine if your committee is looking at this, or 23 another committee somewhere needs to be looking 24 at that issue? 25 MR. FARMER: The A study, the comprehensive 134 1 2 study was initially thought of as addressing all of 3 that together; in other words, looking at the total 4 coastline in a horizontal and vertical fashion, and 5 doing a gigantic, comprehensive benefit cost 6 analysis, identifying all the benefits and all the 7 costs with moving sand around. 8 And we were advised that the GPA could not 9 spend federal money and state money to accomplish 10 that study. So the -- I guess, the decision is 11 we're going to develop the scope of work anyway, 12 and then go find some money someplace else. 13 I think that's within the scope of GPA, in 14 that they said things that come to them as 15 recommendations, they would either address them as 16 part of the harbor project or, help those issues to 17 be addressed someplace else. So I think we're in 18 the someplace else part of world right now with 19 that. 20 MR. BREWTON: The only other comment I'd like 21 to make on that, if there's erosion effect on Tybee 22 because of the channel, according to the best 23 informative I've received, there's some effect on 24 the down drift islands, and I do not know the 25 degree of that effect. It seems like determining 135 1 2 the degree of that effect should be a 3 harbor-related project. However, so long as it's 4 done, it doesn't matter to me how GPA gets it paid 5 for. 6 I would like to some assurance that is an 7 issue we have on the table. If it's not, get it 8 added to list of our issues. 9 MR. FARMER: I believe the beach erosion study 10 GPA is doing right now. It includes all the 11 islands for a certain distance, Bo. 12 MR. ELLIS: Yes. 13 MR. FARMER: How far? 14 MR. ELLIS: Ten. 15 MR. DYSERT: Morgan Rees. 16 MR. REES: Stuart, I wanted to get a 17 clarification. When the question came up earlier 18 about GPA, Charlie was at the meeting had agreed to 19 fund some work, my understanding of that work was 20 a drain-size ratio analysis. 21 MR. STEVENS: Correct 22 MR. REES: What you said a minute ago, I 23 understood, would be different from that, or have I 24 misunderstood? 25 MR. STEVENS: I think you might have. I could 136 1 2 have said it wrong. I hope you misunderstood me. 3 The commitment was that we would do a scope of work 4 on the drain-size analysis. GPA would seek a 5 mechanism, hire, whoever to do that work and 6 accomplish it. 7 The second thing that Charles committed is 8 that Bo would develop a second scope of work 9 related to beneficial use of the material, and then 10 we would to try to farm that out to find funds. He 11 did commit the GPA would fund that, but simply 12 develop a scope of work. 13 MR. DYSERT: Trip had his hand up back there. 14 MR. TOLLISON: I'm being a little cautious, 15 because we did have a briefing from Charles 16 yesterday. He didn't mention it. If he made the 17 commitment. I'm not backing away from the 18 commitment. I'm just trying to understand what's 19 going on. 20 MR. STEVENS: Let me ask the chair. Bill, did 21 you understand what I said to be correct? 22 MR. FARMER: Yes. 23 MR. REES: That part we'll have to confirm. I 24 can't affirmatively confirm that now. If there's 25 any problem with it, we'll get back to you right 137 1 2 away. 3 MR. DYSERT: John Robinette and Ben Brewton's 4 cards have come up since we cut things off. John. 5 MR. ROBINETTE: I think prior to the Fish and 6 Wildlife Service being involved in the SEG process, 7 I was on the Beach Erosion Committee and would like 8 to serve on that again, if you don't mind. 9 MR. FARMER: I don't know, Stu, think we ought 10 to let him in? 11 MR. ROBINETTE: The service does have some -- 12 MR. FARMER: Bill, is that okay with you. 13 Okay. You're in, John. 14 MR. ROBINETTE: Because the Fish and Wildlife 15 Service does have some concerns, we've got problems 16 on Wassaw, problems on Blackbeard. 17 I know Ossabaw has got some terrible problems 18 with beach erosion. Stuart certainly knows what 19 that's doing to the sea turtle recovery efforts on 20 the coast of Georgia. 21 I do have one question, and that is, are we 22 going to be looking at other things besides beach 23 renourishment, that may be a possible 24 recommendation for some of our beach erosion 25 problems? Is there some other technology out there 138 1 2 that could maybe offer a more permanent solution? 3 And the other thing is that the study here, I 4 think the Service thinks that does fit into harbor 5 deepening that has caused a lot of our problems, 6 and it is linked with that. So however it is done, 7 it needs to be funded. It needs to be done. We 8 need some answers. 9 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton. 10 MR. BREWTON: Yes. I wanted to follow-up on 11 what Bo or whoever responded regarding the 10 mile 12 distance of the erosion study. Is that 10 miles 13 from the channel? If so, can you tell me precisely 14 where the southernmost boundary of the study area 15 is? 16 MR. ELLIS: The Corps has a requirement to 17 look at potential impacts of a navigation project 18 10 miles on either side of the channel. It is 10 19 miles either side of the channel. 20 MR. BREWTON: Where does that fall to the 21 south? 22 MR. ELLIS: I don't know exactly. 23 MR. BREWTON: Anyone here have idea any idea, 24 hazard a guess where 10 miles from the channel 25 is to the south. 139 1 2 MR. STEVENS: Probably the middle of the south 3 end of Ossabaw. 4 MR. ROBINETTE: I would say Wassaw. 5 MR. ELLIS: I would think that study is 6 sufficient. 7 MR. BREWTON: I'm sorry. 8 MR. ELLIS: I would thing that study is 9 sufficient. 10 MR. STEVENS: I don't know how long Wassaw 11 is, probably -- John, how long is Wassaw Island. 12 MR. ROBINETTE: About seven, eight miles. 13 MR. STEVENS: Tybee is two or three. 14 MR. FARMER: Right. 15 MR. BREWTON: You've got Williamson, Little 16 Tybee. 17 MR. STEVENS: Yeah. 18 MR. BREWTON: Possibly be somewhere in the mid 19 to southern point of Ossabaw, I mean Wassaw Island. 20 MR. STEVENS: No. I think it would go close 21 to Ossabaw. 22 MR. BREWTON: If it's 10 miles and Wassaw 23 is seven and Tybee is three, plus you have 24 Williamson, Little Tybee and the sound in between. 25 MR. STEVENS: You're right. 140 1 2 MR. BREWTON: Probably mid Wassaw Island, do 3 we have any information that would indicate to us 4 that that is or isn't a sufficient distance for, or 5 is there any study underway that would determine 6 whether that is a sufficient distance to measure 7 the possible impact? 8 MR. ELLIS: Based on preliminary tier one, 9 that was well inside the range of any project 10 impact. That area would encompass way beyond the 11 project impact. 12 MR. DYSERT: I do not see any further name -- 13 Neff McIntosh. 14 MR. McINTOSH: I was waiting for discussion to 15 end before I thought of one on John Robinette's 16 motion about item A. If we want to beat the 17 science drum here, I don't have a drum to beat, but 18 if I did, I would. If we want to beat the science 19 drum, how can we expand his query into, is A the 20 comprehensive benefit cost of that study, how can 21 expand or encourage us SEG'ers to include that in 22 the process? I'm not on the committee. Do I have 23 to come to the committee and beg, or can we beg 24 now? 25 MR. FARMER: I think it would be within your 141 1 2 right if you so wanted to recommend that the SEG 3 recommend to the GPA to do A. 4 MR. DYSERT: Is this something that it is 5 reasonable to settle today, or is this -- what is 6 the body's will? Do wish to continue on the beach 7 erosion issue? 8 MR. McINTOSH: It's science. 9 MR. STEVENS: I was going to offer -- 10 MR. DYSERT: Excuse me. 11 MR. McINTOSH: You asked the question. It's 12 science. 13 MR. DYSERT: There are five other committees. 14 I don't care which we talk about. Stuart. 15 MR. STEVENS: As a solution to move this 16 forward, we do expect to get a scope of work that's 17 related to A, that would bring back to the SEG, and 18 if the SEG agrees it says this need to be done, 19 then you take position and say this needs to be 20 done. 21 MR. BREWTON: Could I make a brief request 22 then? 23 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton is recognized. 24 MR. BREWTON: If you are going to do that, 25 could you provide some feedback to us as to whether 142 1 2 the committee feels that the 10 miles from the 3 channel limit is adequate to measure, and consider, 4 and predict all impacts of the channel on the 5 erosion of other down drift islands? 6 MR. STEVENS: We can the ask the chair to put 7 it on the committee. 8 MR. BREWTON: Can we do that? 9 MR. STEVENS: Sure. 10 MR. BREWTON: Okay. Thank you. 11 MR. DYSERT: Trip Tollison. 12 MR. TOLLISON: The Corps -- the Corps is doing 13 this study, correct? The current study, 10 miles 14 -- is that federally mandated? Is that something 15 we're imposing on this specific project? 16 MR. BAILEY: It is normal policy? 17 MR. TOLLISON: Normal policy, we do it 18 nationwide? 19 MR. KING: It is just a guideline. It says go 20 out 10 miles. 21 MR. TOLLISON: There are other projects 22 nationwide that go further than 10 miles. 23 MR. BAILEY: They may choose to go 10, 10 is 24 the requirement. 25 MR. BREWTON: Minimum. 143 1 2 MR. TOLLISON: In California, you may have 3 a project that goes 20 miles. I'm just using 4 that as an example. 5 MR. BAILEY: There could be a project where it 6 would seem -- there probably is a project that 7 would have impacts beyond 10. 8 MR. McINTOSH: Mississippi goes out what, 60 9 or 70? 10 MR. DYSERT: That's Neff McIntosh to be 11 followed by Ben Brewton. 12 MR. McINTOSH: It goes out a long way. There 13 was a show on recently where they had the Corps of 14 Engineer guys. It was all about the rising water 15 level and the change in the direction of a second 16 river. 17 They talked about how far they have the little 18 data sample. It's way out. They had aerial photos 19 showing their scope of work. It was like 60 or 70 20 knotical miles out directly into the Gulf, and also 21 into an exit of that second river. It was a huge 22 scope of work. 23 MR. DYSERT: Trip, did you have your hand up? 24 MR. TOLLISON: The reason why I ask, I wanted 25 to make sure this is inclusive to the harbor 144 1 2 deepening. I don't think necessary for us to do 3 more work non-related down on Blackbeard. I want 4 to make sure this is purely necessary in the aspect 5 of deepening the Savannah River. 6 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton's card is up. 7 MR. BREWTON: I wanted to address Trip's 8 question. I agree with him. We're certainly not 9 wanting to spend our tax dollars needlessly. I was 10 simply wanting to have a preliminary look at 11 determining if there's reason to suspect that we 12 need to look further down the coast. 13 I ask that with no predisposition as to what 14 the answer to that question is. Since things 15 change, or there are differing conditions in 16 different areas. I'd like to hear from someone 10 17 miles is the standard figure that is applicable and 18 comprehensive for our project. 19 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Mitch has a card up and 20 then we will move on. 21 MR. KING: I just want to close this out. I 22 agree with what I've heard. We don't want to 23 extend it any further than we have to. Keep in 24 mind, you've got two national wildlife refuges, one 25 wildness area, extremely important for endangered 145 1 2 species and other migratory shore birds issues. 3 You need to keep that in mind where you draw 4 the line on where you impact. There is probably 5 going to be a lot of questions asked in the end 6 about what are the impacts to Blackbeard, Wawsaw. 7 I just want to emphasize that. I think the 8 committee has heard from the group how important we 9 think that is. Let them work. 10 MR. DYSERT: At 12:24, I recognize Fred 11 Beason, how about let us hear about the dredging 12 and disposal area. 13 MR. BEASON: We had a meeting yesterday, and 14 17 participants decided we would look at the past 15 dredging and dredging projects in the Savannah 16 Harbor. 17 We are going to look at the sediment quality, 18 as far as testing South Carolina versus Georgia, 19 versus EPA fresh holes. We elected a chairman, and 20 we will give you a report at the next meeting. 21 (Short Break) 22 MR. KING: I had a question for the Disposal 23 Committee. Has GPA or the committee taken up the 24 issue of future expectations for disposal sites, 25 and sort of put that on the table? 146 1 2 I mean, in the next 30 years, what are we 3 going to need for disposal sites, so that this 4 group can -- instead of looking at a snapshot of 5 what we're asking, or what's being asked of 6 congress and the committee now, but looking on 7 and saying over the next 30 years, this is the 8 expansion of Georgia Ports' expectation. We're 9 going to be looking to deepen in 10, or we are 10 going to need another 300 acres of disposal area, 11 we're going to have to build this levy up; has any 12 of that discussion gone on in the disposal site -- 13 MR. BEASON: Mitch, we began talking about 14 that. There's a meeting tomorrow with the GPA, 15 excuse me, Georgia Department of Transportation. 16 When we come back next month, we'll be able to tell 17 you our best and current knowledge as to where the 18 disposal sites currently stand, what the impact of 19 additional deepening will do to the capacity, what 20 the annual past volume requirements were for 21 maintenance dredging, and we can give a best guess 22 what the life would be existing of those disposal 23 sites. 24 We mentioned it yesterday, but we didn't get 25 deep enough in the details to give you anything 147 1 2 that I felt would be determinative into how we make 3 the decision. We're going to post that next time. 4 MR. KING: I guess I'd like to know from the 5 standpoint of the SEG, if possible, and definitely 6 Fish and Wildlife Service, I'd like to request 7 the committee delve into the long range plan of 8 the disposal site, so we, in this group, have the 9 value of knowing what the expectation is and where 10 we see it going. 11 MR. BEASON: That's one of the top questions 12 asked. 13 MR. KING: Thanks so much. I'm done. 14 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton. 15 MR. BREWTON: I'd like to see Mitch's 16 request and raise it one in that. One of the 17 things that has been a little disturbing to me is 18 seeing on these projects, while the impact and the 19 dredging would be of a perpetual nature, that the 20 provisions or requirements or minimum requirements, 21 if you will, for study of disposal are for a finite 22 term. 23 So one of our interests is seeing that there 24 is a perpetual or sustainable method of dealing 25 with dredge disposal, that is the not limited to a 148 1 2 10, 20, 50, or 100 finite time period, but rather 3 would last for the duration of the maintenance of 4 the channel. Thank you. 5 MR. DYSERT: Judy. 6 MS. JENNINGS: No, I'll have to wait. Excuse 7 me. 8 MR. FARMER: Fatigue has set in. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Excuse me. Long-term 10 management strategy, I know that's out there. Can 11 you tell me, do you know, it was addressed to some 12 extent yesterday? It just occurs to me there must 13 be something on the LTMS part I missed, but -- 14 MR. BAILEY: The Corps has put out EIS about 15 five years ago that laid out the disposal area 16 needs for, I think, at least 20 years. Within that 17 20 years, it was identified the year of each 18 disposal area improvement, by area, by amount of 19 improvement. 20 It was either 20 years or 15, it was at least 21 20. I'm not sure if it was 50. That was done five 22 years ago. I believe the Port Authority updated 23 that in tier one EIS. They probably updated it 24 again in tier two EIS. 25 MS. JENNINGS: What was -- was it originally 149 1 2 a periodic requirement, or a congressional mandate; 3 how did you undertake the work five years ago? 4 MR. BAILEY: There is a requirement for a 5 dredge material management plan that establishes 6 how you're going to operate, so that you can 7 budget, schedule, and people will know what you are 8 going to do in the future. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Is the work from the tier one 10 and tier two incorporated; is this long-term 11 management plan updated with work from the tier two 12 EIS, or will that be part of the EIS document that 13 you have produced? 14 MR. BAILEY: I guess the tier two EIS should 15 supersede LTMS. 16 MR. DYSERT: Dan Parrot, please. 17 MR. PARROT: Dan Parrot. The tier one EIS 18 used the assumed LTMS was our baseline on how the 19 Corps was going to operate and maintain the 20 disposal areas. There is a dredge disposal 21 management plan in the EIS report that addresses 22 the changes in the LTMS. 23 Impacts would occur if the project was built. 24 Those impacts would be updated also with the tier 25 two EIS. Now we have a different quantities at 150 1 2 different places at different depths. We have the 3 LTMS as a baseline. 4 MS. JENNINGS: That's where we started. 5 MR. PARROT: That's where EPA used that 6 information, as a baseline. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Long-term is self-explanatory, 8 possibly it isn't. I think that was one of the 9 early criticisms, is that the tier one, and I 10 suppose the tier two document is also, at least 11 from the Corps' point of view, from the economic 12 point of view, from the dredge disposal point of 13 view, plans of a 50 year period LTMS, 50 year 14 period -- 15 MR. PARROT: I don't know for sure if it's 20 16 or 50. Bill is unsure. 17 MS. JENNINGS: I mean, do you hear people 18 asking for a long-term management strategy? I 19 don't know if 20 is common, or y'all ever were 20 going to get -- or if it's possible to do 50? I 21 don't know. 22 MR. PARROT: Crystal ball. 23 MR. DYSERT: I see one card up. Mitch King. 24 MR. KING: I wanted to ask a question, when we 25 talk about navigation, disposal of navigation 151 1 2 dredging material, are we talking about also the 3 disposal of harbor deepening materials as well, or 4 is that two different things? 5 MR. PARROT: Dan Parrot. The LTMS looked at 6 is the project of 42 feet plus advance maintenance, 7 how it was best planned to dispose of that O and M 8 material, operation and maintenance on a routine 9 basis, everyday out there dredging. 10 MR. KING: What about the actual dredge that 11 comes from the deepening itself, is that in your 12 package too? 13 MR. PARROT: No, not in the LTMS. The tier 14 one EIS report, and the engineering assessment, and 15 the environmental assessment of what the deepening 16 of up to six feet would have changed the deepening 17 recommendation changes to our long-term. 18 What they recommended was we would dredge as 19 discussed yesterday. The harbor will be maintained 20 as is. There will be a dredge disposal area that 21 would be built up ahead of time, and afterwards to 22 regain lost capacity. 23 After this harbor deepening expansion project 24 was completed, the Corps of Engineers would be left 25 with no net loss in dredging volumes. 152 1 2 MR. KING: Okay. I think I understand that. 3 All right. 4 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Seeing no cards up, let's 5 proceed now to Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 6 Committee. Bill. 7 MR. BAILEY: The Fisheries Committee did not 8 meet this past month. The committee has received a 9 proposal for a study that has been distributed to 10 the members of the committee and they're reviewing 11 it. Should have something before next month's 12 meeting. 13 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Seeing no cards up, no 14 hands up, thank you. Let's proceed to MTRG. Bo. 15 MR. ELLIS: The MTRG did not have a meeting 16 since the last SEG meeting. We do have a meeting 17 scheduled for the 20th of this month. We will be 18 meeting here in Savannah at the Corps of Engineers 19 starting at 8:00 a.m. And we're scheduled to 20 adjourn at 1:00. It will be the third floor of the 21 Real Estate Conference Room of the Corps. 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: What address is that? 23 MR. BAILEY: 100 West Oglethorpe. 24 MR. DYSERT: Judy Jennings. 25 MS. JENNINGS: Thank you. Bo, would it be 153 1 2 possible to give sort of thumbs up on when you 3 intend to discuss the tidal amplitude issues, so 4 that people will make arrangements -- 5 MR. ELLIS: In what manner? 6 MS. JENNINGS: Well, 8:00 to 1:00 is a big 7 time frame. I'm going to sit there and listen to 8 the whole four hours. Chris has -- 9 MR. BREWTON: Five hours. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Sorry about that, Ben. Thank 11 you. I'll sit there for five hours. 12 MR. ELLIS: We're going to be fitting it in. 13 So -- 14 MS. JENNINGS: If you know it's going to be 15 8:00 o'clock, 10:00 o'clock -- 16 MR. ELLIS: It's not on the agenda right now. 17 So if you have a preferred time, let me know. 18 MS. JENNINGS: I don't have a preferred time. 19 My request is when you are doing it, so those 20 interested in that particular issue, there was 21 considerable conversation about it today, can plan 22 on attending. 23 MR. SCHUBERTH: Within the week, what day of 24 the week is the 20th of January -- Thursday. 25 MR. BREWTON: Could you set a time and send 154 1 2 out an e-mail notice to the whole SEG. Let us know 3 what time it will be. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah, that's what I'm asking. 5 MS. LEFFEK: Sorry. Teri Leffek. I thought 6 our earlier discussion, we reached a consensus that 7 Bo Ellis would bring a presentation to the SEG. 8 MR. ROGERS: No, you're right. 9 MS. LEFFEK: It will be great to make a 10 presentation at the meeting, but I thought it was 11 going to be here for all of us, so we would all 12 have an understanding. 13 MR. ELLIS: We're going to have a discussion 14 at the MTRG. 15 MS. LEFFEK: Okay. So it can still come 16 back to the SEG, so we can be informed as well. 17 MR. DYSERT: Yes. Ben Brewton. 18 MR. BREWTON: I was just going to say, I don't 19 think it was mutually exclusive. Judy just wanted 20 to know a time certain that they would discuss it, 21 so those who wanted -- 22 MS. LEFFEK: I wanted to make sure it wasn't 23 mutually exclusive. 24 MR. BREWTON: Right, right. Then they would 25 develop a report and bring it back to us next 155 1 2 month. 3 MR. ELLIS: We'll try to fit it in as early as 4 possible. I've already sent the agenda out. 5 MR. DYSERT: Neff McIntosh. 6 MR. McINTOSH: I would concur with the e-mail 7 notice, maybe not a time specific, but a range, if 8 you could, Bo. 9 MR. ELLIS: As early possible, around 8:30. 10 MR. McINTOSH: What harm could it do for those 11 of us who are interested in showing up, perhaps 12 to trying to expand the notion of the rising water 13 level issue, and then perhaps before it comes back 14 to the SEG meeting, it might amplify those 15 questions and queries at the MTRG. 16 MR. DYSERT: I see no further hands up. Bo, 17 how about give us update on the shortnose 18 sturgeon. 19 MR. ELLIS: I did receive a status from the 20 South Carolina DNR. Basically, the field crews 21 have been going out at about the same intensity 22 that they started back in August, where they go out 23 and they're looking for fish. They capture the 24 fish. They inspect the fish, and they implant 25 transmitters. 156 1 2 Part of their time, once they have fish 3 implanted, they track with a telemetry device that 4 allows them to track individual, and identify 5 individual specific fish. 6 So that has been ongoing. They plan, 7 basically, the same amount of time through this 8 spring into the summer. They budgeted, I think, 15 9 to 20 transmitters. They have used up half of 10 them. They're tracking a good many fish and a good 11 many juveniles. They're going to hold some of 12 transmitters to the summer. They want to continue 13 the monitoring effort through the summer. 14 This August, they began focusing their 15 efforts. The study has been designed to monitor 16 behavior as close as possible to the navigation 17 channel, which was below the Houlihan Bridge. They 18 spent a month or two there. They didn't find any 19 shortnose sturgeon at the time. This was August, 20 September. 21 In October, they moved up to past I-95, 22 upstream of I-95. They did find some fish there. 23 They all seemed to be concentrated. The ones they 24 caught were up on Abercorn Creek and the Savannah 25 River. Those fish were implanted with transmitters 157 1 2 and have since been tracked down to the lower 3 harbor area, at the confluence of the middle and 4 front rivers. 5 For the month of December, all of the 6 tracking, all of the recent capture of juvenile 7 sturgeon has been in that area, in the upstream 8 portion of the navigation channel, so specifically 9 at the confluence of the middle river and front 10 river. 11 They plan to continue, like I said, tracking 12 and capture of fish through the spring at that same 13 intensity. 14 MR. DYSERT: Questions, comments? Okay. How 15 about -- Tom, how about the striped bass report, 16 anything you care to share with us? 17 MR. MERONEK: Yes. Since the last meeting, we 18 have not met, the Striped Bass Committee has not 19 met. I do have -- wanted to mention the meeting 20 summary from our meeting in December, hopefully 21 will be posted on the web site pretty soon. 22 I sent it to Larry yesterday. If anybody is 23 interested in the minutes, they should be on there 24 shortly. I'm also going to ask if Larry will post 25 the minutes, the separate minutes that Terry 158 1 2 Stratton has put together. You may recall the 3 Striped Bass Committee met jointly with the Corps 4 of Engineers 1135. So I also asked Larry to put 5 the minutes of that meeting on the web site. I 6 hope he will. I think that they go along together. 7 It was one meeting, but we have minutes that 8 are a little bit different. One thing of note from 9 the minutes of Terry's minutes, the 1135 group 10 minutes, I want to mention he has a paragraph in 11 there talking about the current project, the 12 current 1135 project, and the funding status of it, 13 and the idea that right now we are not seeking to 14 extend that project past the deadline of May, 2001, 15 which could be significant because, as I mentioned, 16 some of you may remember last time I talked about a 17 proposal that we were going to put together, and 18 the fact that the 1135 project was currently able 19 to meet its needs for physical modelling, as far as 20 financially. 21 However, there are some biological questions 22 that are going to still probably remain unanswered, 23 because with the present funding, the 1135 group 24 cannot fund that. 25 That's why we brought a proposal. I mentioned 159 1 2 last time we were going to try and get a proposal 3 together to bring to the SEG. I have a proposal. 4 I just received it last week. 5 I'm hoping we can get it posted on the web 6 site so everybody can look at it. It's kind of 7 long. I didn't want to make a bunch of copies of 8 it. I hope to get it posted on the web site so 9 everyone can look at it. 10 I wanted to mention a couple of key point from 11 that proposal today. The proposal is, as I 12 mentioned in my last discussion at the SEG meeting, 13 the proposal focuses on two things. It focuses 14 number one, on a calibration study for egg sampling 15 nets. And number two, it focuses on continuation 16 of the maturation study of adult striped bass per 17 funding the maturation study using ultrasound 18 technology. 19 And the importance of this is to the SEG, I 20 believe, well, at least most of the members of the 21 group is that historically we have focused on the 22 back river as our main site for striped bass 23 spawning. 24 And some of you may recall, I mentioned last 25 time that some of the new research from the 1135 160 1 2 group discovered in their research last year, 1999, 3 was that may not be the case. 4 The initial net calibration studies indicated 5 that due to the size, and differences in the back 6 river and front river, we may be wrong in our 7 assumption that most of the spawning originally 8 took place on the back river. And so we'd like to 9 investigate that further. 10 And in fact, they determined that some of the 11 eggs collected on the back river could have been 12 indeed spawned on the front river. So that's 13 another important issue. 14 Secondly, the maturation study, the maturation 15 part of the study, we would like to continue that, 16 because a continued sample this year would tell us, 17 could indicate to us whether or not the 18 abundance of eggs in the estuary is a result of a 19 bunch of small fish, which have the potential to 20 grow and be a bunch of large fish, or if we have a 21 small number of various size classes of fish 22 spawning out in the estuary, which would indicate 23 that the available spawning sites and rearing sites 24 may not be suitable, which of course could be 25 furthered impact by the deepened channel. 161 1 2 So we would like to continue that maturation 3 study also. That's the two parts of the study, 4 deep water calibration and maturation. Some of the 5 questions have been, well what kind of questions 6 could we answer with these studies, why are they 7 important. 8 Really, I went down briefly the matrix, Bill's 9 matrix, and it's pretty obviously what could be 10 answered in just looking at it briefly. 11 The impacts of increase salinity on spawning 12 and river habitat in the front river could be 13 answered. That's one of our items on the list to 14 be answered. The idea of cumulative impacts, there 15 was a lot of egg sampling prior to the deepening, 16 which was in 1992. 17 There's been a lot of egg sampling since then. 18 So the net calibration studies, we can go back 19 and make some sense out of that data and look 20 at cumulative impacts. 21 The idea of closing middle river, would that 22 be an option, could that be an option. That's one 23 of the items on there. If we find out that the 24 front river is our major spawning area, then the 25 idea of closing middle river may not be so 162 1 2 important anymore, because as far as striped bass 3 are concerned, from a marshland it may be 4 important, for other things it may be important, as 5 far as striped bass, it may not be as important as 6 we once thought. That's just another example. You 7 can look at that in many different ways. 8 Another one that I noticed, possibly the 9 results could answer, is the idea of the agitation 10 dredging that DNR currently enforces on the front 11 river during the striped bass spawning window. 12 If, in fact, most of the spawning is taking 13 place on the front river, then that agitation 14 dredging window could be revisited, may have to be 15 revisited. That's just a few items I've briefly 16 looked at, at the results from these studies to 17 help us answer some of those questions that are on 18 our list. The results of these studies could help 19 us answer. 20 With that, if anybody has questions, or if you 21 would like to look at the scope of the work on the 22 Internet, if you can get it on the Internet or the 23 web site, that would be great. 24 Let's see if I want to add anything else. 25 Also, we had talked about in our meeting the idea 163 1 2 that this is kind of a time sensitive thing. 3 We really would like to get funded as soon as 4 possible, get it rolling. We may not be able to 5 wait until the next SEG meeting. The group, the 6 Striped Bass Committee has kicked around the idea 7 of possibly getting this approved outside of this 8 group. Say we decided that -- GPA decided they 9 could fund this project. It would be a good thing. 10 Then perhaps we could just have an e-mail sent 11 out to everyone that this project will likely go 12 forward. If you have any objections or any 13 comments, maybe we can handle it that way. Anybody 14 have any ideas or comments on that or anything else 15 I've said? 16 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton. 17 MR. BREWTON: I think it's a great report, 18 Tom, and certainly was full of science. I'd just 19 like to say the items you mentioned about the web 20 site, I think that's exactly the kind of thing you 21 were talking about the need to have a facility for 22 posting. 23 I would just encourage you or anyone else 24 if you have those things in a text or electronic 25 form to send that to Larry, because the document 164 1 2 size and ease of handling will be much smaller than 3 if you send him printed a matter he has to scan. 4 One of the things that I have seen out of some 5 reports that you guys or someone has done was a 6 graph, showing, I believe, the juvenile striped 7 bass population in the river, and relating to 8 specific dates of project activities, tide gates, 9 and so forth. 10 If that graph exists, I think that would also 11 be very enlightening thing to also get posted on 12 the Internet. If you know the source of that, I 13 haven't been able to get a good copy of it myself. 14 MR. MERONEK: I'm not sure which one it is. 15 MR. BREWTON: I can talk with you about it 16 later. In relation to the question you posed 17 about approval of projects, I would certainly like 18 to see these studies approved and go forward in a 19 timely manner. 20 I do want to raise the same question that was 21 raised earlier in regard to the GPA embracing and 22 sort of taking that beach erosion study on, that we 23 need to be careful, and this is a question, not an 24 answer really. 25 We need to be careful, in that studies that 165 1 2 are being embraced, or endorsed, or under the 3 sanction of the purview of the SEG, that we don't 4 shortcut the process of making sure the SEG 5 committees and the SEG as a whole feels that 6 those studies are comprehensive, and well-defined 7 as to what they're going to accomplish. 8 I don't present that as an impediment as to 9 what you want to do. I'm saying it's something we 10 need to be careful of. Otherwise, we don't have an 11 SEG working. We have a lot of independent activity 12 going on. We need to try to come up with a process 13 to handle those sort of things in an expeditious 14 manner. 15 And perhaps, on a more general basis, Morgan, 16 this is something Operating Guidelines could look 17 at, but on this specific issue, I don't have any 18 suggestion of how we do that. I just wanted to 19 note those concerns. Thank you. 20 MR. DYSERT: Mitch. 21 MR. KING: I think that's the proposal. I've 22 got one question. How much are you asking for? 23 MR. MERONEK: This proposal is $122,000. 24 MR. KING: Is that a one year? 25 MR. MERONEK: Yes, one year. 166 1 2 MR. KING: Will you need a second year? 3 MR. MERONEK: Probably -- 4 MR. REES: Speak up, I can't hear you down at 5 this end. 6 MR. MERONEK: I don't believe it's for a 7 second year. I think it's for one year. 8 MR. KING: He said 122,000 for one year, and 9 probably no need for a second year, Morgan. I 10 think that maybe what's happening here with 11 these committee just trying to get things settled 12 outside of this room is an indication they have 13 watched this group work for the past six months. 14 If we are turning over a new leaf, if we 15 aren't moving, I think we should grab this 16 proposal right now because things need to 17 happen. 18 Information is laid out. It's very 19 valuable and very necessary for us as a group, and 20 certainly for Fish and Wildlife Service as an 21 agency to analyze the impacts of dredging or harbor 22 deepening on the striped bass populations. 23 I think we should take action now, and let the 24 GPA know we fully support this proposal, and ask 25 GPA to fund it, get it started right now, right 167 1 2 along with all of their ongoing studies for 3 hydrology and other issues. This one ought to be 4 one going and going fast. 5 MR. BREWTON: I concur and second Mitch's 6 recommendation. 7 MR. DYSERT: Bo Ellis' card is up. 8 MR. ELLIS: I just want to point out the 9 committee hasn't had an opportunity to comment on 10 the proposal. It's just come out. I received a 11 hard copy today. It has come into this group from 12 the researchers who want to do the study, and not 13 necessarily the committee. 14 MR. KING: Okay. 15 MR. DYSERT: Morgan Rees. 16 MR. REES: I want to make another point. I 17 mentioned at the last meeting that I had attended 18 the Striped Bass/1135 Committee meeting just as an 19 observer. Some of the discussion had to do with, 20 you know, when the studies need to be done, and who 21 funds them. 22 To the best of my recollection, I don't want 23 to characterize anybody else's position, but there 24 was, at least, some recognition that the work being 25 recommended could and should be done under the 168 1 2 Corps' section 1135 study. The Corps simply said 3 we're out of money. We're not going to do it. 4 The issue of who pays and whether it's more 5 related to the deepening or more related to 6 historic impacts has not been resolved. 7 So I don't want anybody to have the 8 misunderstanding that the funding for this business 9 is closed, because it's not. 10 MR. DYSERT: Mitch King. 11 MR. KING: First, the -- if I understand 12 correctly, this proposal has been floating around 13 in a draft format for several months. It hasn't 14 changed much. Is that close? 15 MR. MERONEK: This -- this proposal, yeah. It 16 was in a draft previously. This was the first 17 draft submitted to me. We still do need to get it 18 to committee. 19 MR. KING: Fine. Then you probably ought to 20 do that. Going back to Morgan's comment on who 21 pays, this is $122,000 study that, in our opinion, 22 is vital to the -- to comments on the harbor 23 deepening project itself. 24 And we can quibble over $122,000 study for a 25 year while everything else moves along, or we can 169 1 2 just get on with it and get it behind us. I mean, 3 you're going to have to have it done. If two years 4 from now someone decides, well, it is Ports 5 Authority. It's a year's study at least, and 6 another year for analyzation, you're sliding back. 7 I think it's important just to go ahead, move 8 on with these kinds of studies. I mean, that's 9 what -- that's my opinion. 10 MR. DYSERT: Morgan, then Judy. 11 MR. REES: I appreciate that, Mitch. I'm not 12 trying to slow that process down. We need to make 13 that process work. I need to make people 14 understand, we just got the proposal yesterday. 15 We have not heard any rationale whatsoever 16 that ties it to the deepening project, except for 17 what Tom explained today. That's the first time 18 we've heard anything on why GPA should do the 19 study. 20 Now, I don't think it's appropriate, quite 21 frankly, to ask GPA at this meeting right now to 22 take a position on it. I think that's entirely out 23 of order. 24 We'd be glad to do it as soon as we have a 25 chance to look at what's proposed, to work 170 1 2 through the committee. If it does fit, as you say, 3 I'm not saying it doesn't fit, if it fits, then 4 we've got to do it. 5 We don't know that right now. We don't have 6 any way of knowing that right now in the context of 7 this meeting. 8 MR. DYSERT: Next is Judy Jennings and then 9 Ben Brewton. 10 MS. JENNINGS: I've found sometimes when 11 I thought Morgan was reluctant to make a commitment 12 to do something, there's actually a good reason for 13 it. 14 The details of the study is one of the major 15 reasons we're at the table, the livelihood of 16 striped bass and other fish. So I would like to 17 hear every possible commitment to move forward with 18 the study, unless you find some major flaw with it. 19 I'm going to find that just a little bit hard 20 to believe. We're trusting our fisheries experts 21 to tell us this is timely, relevant, and clearly it 22 is at the table. 23 I understand you need time to look and study 24 it. Maybe today isn't a great moment to make the 25 commitment. I would expect in the very near term, 171 1 2 possibly before the next SEG meeting. 3 MR. REES: If we have a proposal, we do -- I 4 was thinking more in terms of sooner than that. 5 MS. JENNINGS: That's what I said, before the 6 next SEG. 7 MR. REES: I understand there's a time 8 sensitivity. If you go back and review all the 9 records of all the meetings, anytime there's been a 10 time sensitivity, not only GPA, everybody else in 11 the room responded, and this is no different. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Whether or not GPA needs to 13 study it, it's on the matrix. I'm finding it hard 14 to believe that it's not relevant. 15 MR. REES: We don't know what the scope of 16 the study is. We can't say whether it's relevant 17 or not. 18 MS. JENNINGS: How would you determine that? 19 MR. REES: We have the proposal now. Bo's 20 going to look at it, his experts, the Corps, see 21 whether it makes sense. 22 I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just saying we 23 just got it. I don't thing it's not proper to 24 expect us to act favorably or unfavorably in this 25 meeting at this time. It is a very simple 172 1 2 principle involved. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I would expect a 4 favorable disposition to do it as soon as possible. 5 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton. 6 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. This is one of 7 those unique times I'm listening to Mitch and 8 Morgan on completely opposite sides of the issue 9 and find I agree with both of them. I think, 10 Morgan, I understand your concern, and that's my 11 concern about the process that I brought up about 12 not having notice and proper flow on this. 13 On the other hand, I understand Tom and 14 Mitch's call for urgency. I would just say, as my 15 view on this, I think we need to make sure that our 16 committees get the process in and order and look 17 ahead. 18 If they studies they are going to recommend 19 that have to be approved by a certain deadline, 20 let's go ahead and get those in the pipeline now, 21 and inform us. 22 In April, such and such a committee is going 23 to have a proposal. If it's not approved by May, 24 the window will be lost. So we'll have that up 25 front. 173 1 2 But in this particular instance, I would say I 3 would ask GPA to weigh the need for the study 4 together with the -- perhaps somewhat suspending 5 the rules for a moment here in that if you don't 6 get the study done, are you prepared to wait till 7 next year to let the study be done, before this 8 group can make any kind of decision or 9 recommendation? 10 If not, if you don't really want to delay the 11 project a year, if it really has the urgency that 12 it sounded, then we need to find some way to 13 accommodate that. 14 With all due respect and understanding about 15 your concern of having to see it, I understand you 16 can't react to it. I'm trying to bring this where 17 we can make some kind of decision. 18 Is it the group's wish here that we authorize 19 the Striped Bass Committee to work this out as soon 20 as possible with GPA, and present that to them 21 without the necessity of having to come back to 22 this body next month first, and then inform us 23 after the fact of what was done? 24 MR. DYSERT: Tom. 25 MR. MERONEK: That's exactly what I was 174 1 2 asking. Sounds like we have enough support to take 3 it to the committee and work it out. If it is 4 something we believe should be funded by GPA, then 5 we'll go forward with it. 6 MR. BREWTON: One follow-up. I would agree 7 with that and concur, if Morgan and the GPA can 8 live with working that out with the committee, with 9 the caveat that these things really do need to come 10 in an orderly manner to the full SEG in the future. 11 MR. DYSERT: John Robinette, you have 12 something to add before Morgan answers? 13 MR. ROBINETTE: Yeah. We did some of this 14 work last year for the University of Georgia and 15 others. We did the work for the Striped Bass 16 Committee. We've had a chance to review that. 17 We got some excellent results. We answered 18 some questions. We know where some of our problems 19 are. We've been sort of designing these studies or 20 talking about what we need to do and where we need 21 to go, since we've gotten the results from those. 22 The folks on the committee are very familiar 23 with it. I think it's well-designed, got some 24 great fisheries folks working on it. I think what 25 we need to do here is maybe have the SEG say yeah, 175 1 2 we need to go ahead with this, give the GPA time 3 enough to look over the formal proposal, which they 4 just got to take a look at it. 5 If they say go, they have already got SEG's 6 blessing to fund this so we can get on down the 7 road. Is that good? 8 MR. SCHUBERTH: I don't think anybody is 9 objecting to that. 10 MR. DYSERT: Morgan Rees. 11 MR. REES: I want to say two things. Number 12 one, Ben has a way of characterizing everybody's 13 position for them. He characterized my position as 14 being in opposition to Mitch. 15 I want the record to show that's not close to 16 being true. I think we're working in the same 17 direction. It's a matter of how best we do it. 18 There's no point of opposition there at all. 19 I'd like to reiterate something I said earlier 20 that has to do with helping us, the GPA, in making 21 decisions about these recommendations. 22 We've had a number of recommendations in the 23 months we've been at this that are kind of 24 piecemeal recommendations. One committee says, we 25 want this piece of information. Somebody else says 176 1 2 we want that piece of information. 3 I would urge the committees to look at the 4 operating guidelines. We addressed this issue as 5 developed the operating guidelines. There's a 6 section in there that deals with the rationale 7 behind requesting the studies. 8 You really haven't seen very much of that. 9 We've seen studies recommended. We haven't had 10 those recommendations accompanied with the kind of 11 rationale that was discussed in the operating 12 guidelines. 13 So I'd like to urge the folks when they figure 14 out what kind of studies they need to put some 15 context around that. That's all. 16 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton. 17 MR. BREWTON: I have just taken a moment aside 18 to confer with Dave Schaller. I'd like to propose 19 something here. I'll say Morgan, I missed your 20 comments about my characterization or 21 mischaracterization. 22 MR. REES: You said I was opposed to Mitch. 23 I'm not. 24 MR. BREWTON: You don't have to repeat it. 25 I'll read it in the transcript. However, Dave says 177 1 2 there is a possibility they could evaluate this 3 and make a decision prior to the next meeting. 4 Although I do have a concern that I previously 5 voiced, and think we do need to stick to the 6 guidelines and the flow on this, since it does 7 appear to be time sensitive, I would like to 8 suggest that the group endorse Tom, and the 9 committee meet and agree on what they're 10 presenting as soon as possible, and present that 11 to the GPA and ask the GPA to look at it. 12 If everyone agrees it is in order and is time 13 sensitive, such that a decision does need to be 14 made prior to the next SEG meeting, that we 15 authorize them to go ahead and do that with our 16 blessing, and report back to us what was done at 17 the next meeting. 18 MS. LEFFEK: We just did that -- John 19 Robinette's suggestion. 20 MR. BREWTON: Okay. I was conferring. John 21 was suggesting. 22 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Any further comments? 23 Okay. How about some reports from economics? Ben 24 Brewton. 25 MR. BREWTON: Quick suggestion. I know we're 178 1 2 starting to run short on time here -- 1:06. We'll 3 certainly defer the rest of our Communications 4 issues for what Economics and Operating Guidelines 5 has. 6 We have something that's been deferred a 7 couple of times from Fish and Wildlife. I think 8 some of those may be time sensitive. I would like 9 to suggest we perhaps maybe agree to extend the 10 meeting about another 10, 15 minutes, keep those 11 two reports as short as possible, and give Fish and 12 Wildlife a little bit of time to present those 13 studies or those requests. 14 If they could go first, that might even be a 15 good suggestion, unless there's something really 16 pressing. 17 MR. DYSERT: Could you be specific about which 18 items you would like to see? 19 MR. BREWTON: This would be in the new 20 business section. 21 MR. DYSERT: Does Sam or somebody from Fish 22 and Wildlife know what they would like to talk 23 about? Can they express what they would like to 24 talk about? 25 MR. BREWTON: the IX-3, and I do say I don't 179 1 2 want to interrupt any important business from 3 Economics or Operating Guidelines. I just wanted 4 to note, we were about to get away another month 5 without letting them say that. 6 I would certainly defer to the group's wishes. 7 I'm more or less just calling it to our attention. 8 I'm willing to stay for whatever time is necessary 9 for that report and Economics and Operating 10 Guidelines. 11 MR. DYSERT: So Sam and Fish and Wildlife 12 Service would like to proceed with item 9-3, that's 13 what -- you concur with Ben. Okay. 14 Is there any objection? Five minute break, 15 then we'll proceed with the Fish and Wildlife 16 presentation. Okay. 17 (Short Break) 18 MR. DYSERT: It's 1:17 p.m. We're reconvening 19 the SEG meetings for the purpose of the previously 20 delayed Fish and Wildlife Service briefing. So I 21 would turn the floor over now to Sam Drake. Sam. 22 MR. REES: Can I take just a second? 23 MR. DYSERT: Yes. Morgan Rees has his tent 24 card up. 25 MR. REES: I want to be sure when Sam 180 1 2 finishes, we don't all take and leave because we 3 have had the economic work group report on the 4 agenda for three months, and Judy has not got to 5 give it. It's only going to take two minutes. 6 I want to make sure everybody stays after 7 Sam's presentation, so we can get the Economic 8 Committee working group's report. 9 MR. DYSERT: So ordered. I don't order 10 anything, but that sounds like a great idea. Sam. 11 MR. DRAKE: My sidekick left out of here, 12 probably smoking a cigarette. I'll kick it off. 13 John Robinette will be here in a minute. We've had 14 two or three folks come from Fish and Wildlife 15 Service saying, are your research needs being met. 16 And Mitch is gone. He's my supervisor, but 17 basically, my research budget is zero. Most of 18 the research we get done on the refuge is utilizing 19 graduate students that want to work on particular 20 projects. 21 We have several studies underway with graduate 22 students looking primarily at tropical migrant 23 birds, song birds. They're utilizing the tidal 24 fresh water marsh, the brackish marsh, salt water 25 marsh situation. 181 1 2 We've funded a one year study with Dr. Wiley 3 Kitchens to kind of go back and duplicate a study 4 he did prior to and right after the tide gate was 5 taken out of operation, and Georgia Ports 6 Authority has agreed to extend that study one more 7 year. They're in the process of cutting a check to 8 Fish and Wildlife Service so that Dr. Kitchens can 9 run that study for one more year. 10 Now, we did sit down with ATM. I think 11 Georgia Ports has gone above and beyond to make 12 sure all of our research needs are identified. Bo 13 and his folks have sit down with us to really 14 identify the research needs, what was elected to 15 date, and what the voids and gaps are. 16 We're going to give you the results of Fish 17 and Wildlife's input into that process. It was 18 done with Dr. Wiley Kitchens out of the University 19 of Florida, who worked with U.S. Geological Survey, 20 and used to work with Fish and Wildlife before they 21 had a reorganization. 22 He's primarily our ecologist and our 23 hydrologist we utilize for expertise on the 24 property. Also, Bo Ellis was there and John 25 Bosart, Pete -- what's Pete's last name -- 182 1 2 MR. ELLIS: Wallace. 3 MR. DRAKE: -- Wallace, okay, Pete Wallace 4 were in attendance. We have part of the needs 5 identified. I think ATM will have some additional 6 needs, I think that Pete and John Bosart have 7 identified. They will becoming available later on 8 the web site. 9 We'll go ahead and distribute what we have. I 10 think all we're asking is that you review it. 11 We're going to try to have the research available 12 maybe at the next meeting so you can ask any 13 questions that are specific. 14 Because, I think, number one we feel like what 15 we're proposing are germane to the issue of the 16 harbor deepening project. As researchers go, they 17 always have one more questions they want to answer. 18 There needs to be a little bit of groundproofing by 19 this group, to make sure everybody supports what 20 we're asking for, because the price tag on it is 21 getting up there. It's -- 22 MR. ROBINETTE: It's 575. 23 MR. DRAKE: -- 575,000, a pricey price. That 24 needs looking at. I've not seen ATM -- now, 25 there's time sensitive parts of the study that need 183 1 2 to be initiated. I think Bo said he could flag it 3 when he puts it on the web site. 4 But we're going to throw it out and let you 5 see what we think the needs are. Then we can 6 discuss it at a future meeting. 7 MR. BREWTON: Let the record show that Dave 8 Schaller did not fall out of his chair at the 9 mention of that figure. 10 MS. LEFFEK: Quick question, Sam. You 11 mentioned time sensitive. Will it be time 12 sensitive at the next February SEG meeting, we 13 have to deal with the striped bass and -- 14 MR. DRAKE: I don't think -- I think what's 15 happened, we just signed an agreement, contract 16 agreement with Georgia Ports. There's supposed to 17 be a check being cut for $95,000, kind of tide 18 Dr. Kitchens over until these other things. 19 We'll take care of anything in the next month 20 or two out of that fund. We're not going to press 21 you against the wall. We want you to have time to 22 look at it. Make sure what's being identified is 23 reasonable, you agreed with us, it is needed 24 information. 25 If you don't say so, because you can get into 184 1 2 some research sometimes that's not really going to 3 answer the basic questions that you have, that's 4 primarily what they're doing, groundproofing, to 5 utilize this group to make sure we're on track. 6 MR. BREWTON: Do you have something you're 7 passing out here today? 8 MR. DRAKE: Yes. 9 MR. BREWTON: Whatever you put up on the web 10 site, if you have an original format, send it to 11 Larry in that form. It will be easier for people 12 to download it. 13 MR. ROBINETTE: We worked with ATM and 14 Dr. Kitchens to try to put this together. Like Sam 15 said, we funded the initial studies, and I've got 16 copies here and -- 17 MS. JENNINGS: Are you passing them out? 18 MR. DRAKE: Yeah. We're going to pass them 19 out. 20 MR. ROBINETTE: This is the same thing except 21 it doesn't have the budget on it, because there are 22 some things ATM will add to this. If you didn't 23 get a copy of that, the other one, these are 24 available. 25 MR. STEVENS: Can you pass them around? 185 1 2 MR. BREWTON: When was the other one given 3 out? 4 MR. DRAKE: They just handed it out, started 5 at the other end of the table. 6 MR. ROBINETTE: Basically, what we're looking 7 at is a continued vegetation monitoring. We've got 8 10 transect areas. We had Wiley do this last year, 9 and the Fish and Wildlife Service paid for that. 10 The other thing is transplantation 11 experiments. That's where we translocate intact 12 spores, plants, and the substrates into, within, 13 between, and among all the tidal fresh marsh tides, 14 fresh, intermediate and brackish. 15 This gives us a handle on what's happening in 16 the marsh there. If we can transplant a fresh 17 plant species that cannot tolerate salinity into an 18 area that used to be intermediate marsh where you 19 did get salinity, or brackish marsh where the salt 20 content had eliminated those species previously, 21 and those plants grow and thrive, we can say yeah, 22 that area is recovering. 23 That is one question we've got. How far has 24 that marsh community recovered since that tide gate 25 was taken out of operation? 186 1 2 We moved that salinity wedge back down the 3 back river taking it out of that tide gate, how far 4 do we have to go, how far has that process gone, 5 has it completed, has it recovered as much as it's 6 going to, or is it going to recover over a long 7 period of time? 8 With these studies, the Fish and Wildlife 9 Service is going to go out and do some burning in 10 the marsh and in these experimental plots to 11 remove some of these brackish species to see what 12 comes back, to try to reduce the competition to 13 the brackish species, sort of level the playing 14 field, so to speak. 15 That will also give us another handle on the 16 recovery of this marsh, and where we are in 17 that, and we need to know where we are now and what 18 will happen in the next five years if nothing is 19 done under the present condition to define it, you 20 know, before we begin defining impact. 21 Continued salinity monitoring is another thing 22 you'll see on those handouts. We will install 23 salinity meters in each of the permanent 10 24 transect plots to get essentially intersticial 25 salinities or salinity within that marsh area. 187 1 2 Salinity spatial synoptic sampling short-term, 3 we've got some long-term data on those transect 4 sites that ATM put out to monitor this year on the 5 transect sites to get salinity over a long period 6 of time. 7 What we would like to do is to go out, 8 essentially what Wiley does, he goes out in an 9 airboat. He takes 100 plots that are put out on 10 the grid, which gives him a spatial sample of 11 everything that's happening over the entire marsh, 12 go out and take a one-time short-term salinity. 13 What that does is gives you a snapshot of 14 the salinity over the entire marsh area, which we 15 can add to long-term data. 16 Sea production study, this is another study 17 that Fish and Wildlife Service has already started. 18 Our biotech, Russ Webb, has done this for wild 19 rice. We're finding that we're getting anywhere 20 from one to two tons of seed per acre. Wild rice 21 seed is very valuable from a wildlife standpoint. 22 Most of our migratory bird species feed 23 heavily on that. Manatees will eat the entire 24 plant. 25 It's a very important plant to us. He did 188 1 2 this as a preliminary study to sort get of through 3 the steady design before we go into it in depth. 4 The tidal swamp study, we'd like to document 5 the relationship between the tree canopy species 6 and the sampling of seedlings and various 7 regeneration layers. 8 There's an area out there where we have lost 9 some trees during the tide gate operation days. We 10 think that was due to an increase in salinities on 11 these areas. 12 These tree hammocks are very important to 13 migratory birds, particularly song birds, some of 14 whose number are declining rapidly. We are not 15 only worried the marsh itself, but the little tree 16 hammocks out there that are associated with it. We 17 don't want those to start dropping out. 18 Cypress trees, you go up and down the river, 19 most everybody in here has been on the river tour, 20 you see the dead cypress, particularly the ones 21 that are at close association to the main channel. 22 We've gone in and planted 1,000 cypress to try to 23 replace those. 24 A lot of those are up and growing good. We 25 don't want to lose that tree community. This will 189 1 2 help us assess what's happening there. 3 Sediment characterization, a synoptic series 4 of regularly spaced grid sites will be sampled 5 seasonally, along with upstream and downstream 6 gradient. 7 It's added to some of the sediment sample 8 done within the plots, again, to give us more 9 of a spatial characteristic of what's happening 10 across the entire marsh. 11 Vegetation change analysis is going to be 12 using photography and satellite imagery, for 13 comparison between historical imagery and current 14 imagery, and will be used to confirm and quantitate 15 this trend; what was the marsh in the past and what 16 is it in the present day. 17 That will help us to also set up the model, 18 the succession model that you see here on page 19 three, which is a map of the entire marsh with the 20 salinity gradients and vegetation types laid out on 21 that mat, which will tell us where the brackish 22 plant species, the salt water plant species, as 23 opposed to the fresh plant species, where does that 24 break occur, and it helps us determine the amount 25 of acreage that we have remaining in tidal fresh 190 1 2 marsh, remaining in tidal brackish marsh. 3 We can go back and revisit this when we 4 monitor the results, if this project comes to pass, 5 and actually measure what happens. 6 The Nekton study is essentially going to 7 be looking at juvenile larval fish that are using 8 those marsh areas. The Fisheries Committee may 9 come back later with a proposal to look at the 10 tidal freaks in those areas. 11 What we'll do is to set up nets, flumer nets 12 and flumer traps within the marsh itself off the 13 creek where the marsh breaks off that creek, to see 14 what's coming in and using that. 15 Tidal fresh marsh, typically, is a nursery 16 ground for many species. Fresh and salt water 17 species come up into those area to spawn. We want 18 to find out what's going into the marshes on the 19 Savannah, and what's using those areas in the 20 brackish and the fresh marshes. 21 It will be tied into what the Fisheries folks 22 are going to do. The Fisheries folks are going to 23 be working into the creek. We want to see what 24 comes out on the marsh surface itself. 25 The migratory bird study is an extension of a 191 1 2 study that we're conducting right now. We're 3 looking at breeding birds, avian use within those 4 marsh areas and tree hammock areas. We've got a 5 student that's got the first year's worth of data 6 in May, June and July. 7 What he does, he goes out to different areas 8 along the same 10 transects that we've got, plus a 9 couple of tree hammock areas too, and he does what 10 we call point counts. 11 In other words, in the springtime when the 12 birds are breeding, this is easy to do because 13 everything is singing. We can identify that bird 14 by its song. We put that bird down on a map. We 15 know what distance he is from us, or approximate 16 distance he is from us when we hear him. We know 17 the compass direction he is. 18 We get an idea of the relative abundance of 19 those birds, the areas that they're using, and the 20 species that are using those areas. 21 We want to expand that to include migratory 22 birds in the fall and winter, and birds that are 23 wintering -- I mean fall -- spring, and the birds 24 that are wintering on our area. 25 To do that, we need those point counts in the 192 1 2 spring, mist nets, and some other call tapes, and 3 stuff like that in the fall. 4 In the winter, it increases the difficulty of 5 doing that 10 fold. We went out this fall and did 6 a one shot deal at six of these study sites. I can 7 tell you trying to set mist nets up out in the 8 marsh is very labor-intensive, and very 9 life-threatening at times. 10 We went out and did that. We got some 11 preliminary results. We're finding more species 12 in the fresh water areas than we are in brackish, 13 just like we do with the plants and other things 14 too. But with that, we've got a real good handle 15 on what that study design should be. 16 Between now and the first part of March or 17 April, we'll complete that study design, get that 18 ready to go into the first sample this spring. 19 That could be one of the time sensitive ones 20 we're talking about, but these are the studies 21 we've outlined with Bo and ATM and John Bosart to 22 try to bring this all together, and try to get some 23 measurable, quantitative data on the value of this 24 marsh over that salinity gradient. 25 So that's what we're trying to bring, you 193 1 2 know, get those studies going, so we can bring 3 those results to you. Any questions? Teri. 4 MS. LEFFEK: One question. You mentioned on 5 the continued salinity monitoring, that you're 6 looking at a long-term time frame. You would like 7 to establish some good data. 8 Obviously, this -- I don't know if the scope 9 of the study of this project is somewhat limited; 10 is this something you're going to be looking at 11 to continue past this study, is this going to be a 12 year or two within the study? 13 You said you wanted to sort establish some 14 good data on a long-term basis. When you say 15 long-term, are you talking about within the 16 confines of this project for a year, or is this 17 an effort you want to continue past this particular 18 project, and look for other funding for it? 19 MR. ROBINETTE: Yes. We're going to put a 20 salinity meter in a representative area of each of 21 those 10 study sites to continually monitor the 22 salinity. 23 If the project comes about, then there will be 24 monitoring in those areas, which we will discuss 25 later. That will come when we start talking about 194 1 2 mitigation and stuff like that. If this project 3 comes about, I think one thing the Fish and 4 Wildlife Service is going to insist on, and that is 5 we're going to monitor what does happen to us. 6 We haven't done that in the past. We haven't 7 asked for that in the past, but there never seems 8 to be any funding to monitor what happens after 9 that project. That's why we don't have a lot of 10 good, long-term data now between the time the tide 11 gate was taken out of operation and today, is 12 because we don't have the monitoring studies. 13 We can't put ourselves in that position again. 14 If we had that, we would be sitting down here today 15 discussing the results of that, not about going out 16 and getting that. 17 MS. LEFFEK: My question just came from the 18 fact on some of the handouts there was a budget of 19 575. What are you looking at for the time frame 20 for this particular study? 21 You're looking at a year's data, or I mean, 22 what's included in that budget? Is that adequate, 23 what's in there for your needs, if you are going to 24 do something long-term? 25 MR. ROBINETTE: No, no. 195 1 2 MS. LEFFEK: Okay. 3 MR. ROBINETTE: This is to assess the 4 potential impact of this project. This is not to 5 monitor that afterwards. 6 MS. LEFFEK: Okay. So this is looking at 7 maybe a year or two time frame? 8 MR. ROBINETTE: A year, most of these are two 9 years. 10 MR. DRAKE: I think, in the past, they rented 11 or leased some of the equipment. They plan on 12 purchasing the equipment and leaving it out there. 13 It's going to be available to use for data over a 14 longer period of time. 15 MR. DYSERT: Stuart. 16 MR. STEVENS: Maybe if I might follow-up on 17 that, Stuart Stevens, does that mean that there's 18 a commitment to Fish and Wildlife, the equipment 19 you purchase you would put in place and kept in 20 place after this initial study ends; or what's your 21 plan? 22 MR. DRAKE: I don't think we'll do anything 23 that I think the SEG, if the project goes forward, 24 I think the proposals I've heard in the past, there 25 will be some future follow-up analysis, post 196 1 2 project-type work, you know, at some point in time, 3 possibly come back to do a post project-type 4 analysis. 5 We'll have a technician doing some checking, 6 as long as we're doing the vegetation work, our 7 work is probably not going to stop at the end of 8 one year, but -- 9 MR. STEVENS: I asked the question because I'm 10 looking at the scope of work and listening to 11 John's description. I think it's very important 12 work to be done. I'm just not sure you'll get real 13 good answers in a year. It may take more time. 14 MR. DRAKE: Right, it will. Some parts of 15 this study, because we don't have five years 16 waiting for dominant plants to die out so we can 17 see the fresh water plants. 18 That's why we're going to the burn. That's 19 why we're going to do the cores and relocate them 20 and get some answers within that time frame. 21 We're trying to do probably a couple of 22 things here. We're trying to fill the gaps on the 23 voids in the data that's out there right now. 24 We're going to try to make determinations that will 25 be made primarily on migratory birds. 197 1 2 We'll have a good handle, good information of 3 what's inside the impounded marshes on the refuge. 4 When you look at the unimpounded marshes along the 5 river area, there's a gap. So we need to use 6 textbook information before we go out and do 7 research, and we use real life information in our 8 decision-making process. 9 The second thing is where do you draw the line 10 as far as if you do have a project in mitigation. 11 This is going to help our hydrologist, ecologist, 12 as well as ATM. 13 It should bring them closer to agreement on 14 where that line is, you know, as far as what needs 15 to be mitigated. A lot of these studies will help 16 identify that. 17 MR. STEVENS: Follow-up question. Did Wiley 18 develop this scope of work, or did you guys do this 19 that you just passed out? 20 MR. ROBINETTE: Well, we sat down together. I 21 wanted to add the migratory bird stuff, because 22 that was the primary reason for the refuge being 23 established in the first place. 24 Sam and I both wanted the transplanting 25 experiments because it gives us answers quick; in 198 1 2 other words, it's something that can accelerate or 3 mimic that recovery. If we take fresh water 4 plants, put them in what used to be a brackish 5 marsh when the tide gate was operational and they 6 die, you know, we replicate that. 7 In other words, do replicates and have 8 controls. That's a pretty good answer that that 9 area may not recover. If they live and are 10 healthy, yeah, that's probably where that system is 11 going in the future. 12 MR. STEVENS: Wiley is probably one of the 13 premier scientists that deals with fresh water 14 tidal wetlands. I'm wondering if there are other 15 scientists that we could farm this out to that are 16 experts on fresh water tidal wetlands, to get an 17 opinion from them; have you got some ideas of who 18 we could ask? 19 MR. ROBINETTE: Wiley has talked, and you 20 know, conferred with several people about this 21 project and other things that he does. He is 22 probably one of the premier scientists in estuaries 23 areas, salt and fresh. 24 He's been on the recovery efforts for the 25 Everglades team down there. If there's anyone else 199 1 2 that ATM, or the GPA, or the Georgia DNR would like 3 to review this, you know, we would welcome it. We 4 certainly would. 5 MR. STEVENS: Can we offer you a suggestion 6 now? 7 MR. ROBINETTE: You bet. 8 MR. DRAKE: This is a unique project because 9 it didn't come up through the normal process with 10 the SEG. It didn't go to committee first. We got 11 kind of an ad hoc committee that developed this 12 proposal. Somewhere, if you want to put it in a 13 box for further work, that's fine. 14 We asked to present our needs to the group. 15 That's kind of what we're doing. It's the SEG that 16 can make the decision on where we go from here. 17 I think Bo will agree that the -- on tier one 18 EIS, we kind of had our hydrologist/ecologist over 19 here. We had ATM over here. They weren't agreeing 20 on much. 21 Now, they've kind of come and they're using 22 the same transect lines, they collect similar data, 23 where this will all be more meaningful than the 24 tier two EIS. So we've come a long way in that 25 attempt with those individuals working together to 200 1 2 try and go in the same direction. 3 So I think, for one thing, they're not only 4 looking at it from this standpoint of the proposed 5 deepening this time, they're trying to develop 6 a model that would be useful in the future, so you 7 don't have to go through the same scenario the next 8 time you do an EIS, or the next time somebody tries 9 it. You've got some protocol kind of set up for 10 it. 11 MR. DYSERT: Bo. 12 MR. ELLIS: I wanted to ask a couple of 13 things. We did meet back in December, like Sam and 14 John have indicated. One of the main reasons that 15 we have been meeting with Fish and Wildlife over 16 the last several years is because of this question 17 about marsh succession. And a model was developed 18 back in the 80's by Fish and, wildlife by 19 Dr. Kitchens. 20 And that model was kind of a simplified model 21 that correlated the salinity conditions in the 22 water with the types of vegetation expected to 23 grow. 24 Since that time, there's been a good bit of 25 field work and a lot of questions that have come up 201 1 2 in identifying other factors other than just 3 salinity. 4 So we've had a couple of other meetings to try 5 to determine how these other factors could be 6 rolled up into a study that would refine that 7 model, and to have something to take back to GPA. 8 We met and discussed it. And then Wiley and 9 John were going back to develop this coordinated 10 draft task statement. And then we were going to 11 circulate it around and distribute it back to the 12 GPA. 13 I just wanted to point out, I just received 14 it. GPA hasn't had a chance to review this. So 15 there is a little bit more work, I think, you've 16 indicated needs to be done. And they do need to 17 understand how this breaks down, and how it plugs 18 into the project. 19 It does incorporate two big issues. One is 20 marsh succession and being able to predict how 21 marsh will respond to certain conditions in the 22 estuary. 23 The other are studies that are more or less 24 needed to place a value on those marsh resources. 25 So one is used to predict the impacts. The other 202 1 2 is to look at the resource value. 3 The last point I want to make is this work has 4 been ongoing. Fish and Wildlife has funded a lot 5 of this, the Corps through past projects has funded 6 a number of studies. And up till now, we haven't 7 been able to get any data from Fish and Wildlife on 8 these previous studies. 9 So that's going to be really important for us 10 to get a handle, so that we can look at the 11 historic change in these transects that have been 12 monitored over time. 13 We do have the reports from the 80's, but we 14 have not been able to get the data. That will be 15 really valuable in wrapping all this up. 16 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton. 17 MR. BREWTON: When you refer to value study, 18 are you speaking of subjective benefits, or are 19 you speaking of trying to attach monetary or a 20 numerical value; define that for us, if you could? 21 MR. ELLIS: The environmental resource 22 valuation would not be an economic valuation at 23 all. 24 MR. DYSERT: Bill Bailey. 25 MR. BAILEY: Two questions. One, my 203 1 2 understanding, this scope of work is for how you 3 see the complete answers to the questions. It's 4 not a one year, three year -- it's not a one year 5 scope over three year effort; it's a complete 6 answer, is that right, complete study? 7 MR. ROBINETTE: Yes, as best as we can do that 8 in the time we've got remaining. 9 MR. BAILEY: Second question. I think I got 10 two different versions. I have one with an 11 introduction paragraph and one without an 12 introduction paragraph. Other than the 13 introduction, are they the same? 14 MR. ROBINETTE: They're the same. One's got a 15 budget and the other does not. 16 MR. BREWTON: Actually, one is the version 17 given to the environmentalist, and the other is the 18 version given to the GPA. You happen to get both 19 of them. 20 MR. DYSERT: Bo, do you have another question? 21 MR. ELLIS: No. 22 MR. DYSERT: Stuart. 23 MR. STEVENS: I guess to move this forward, I 24 like the concept. I think we've got 400,000 acres 25 of salt water wetlands in Georgia, but far less 204 1 2 acres of tidal fresh water acres in Georgia. 3 So I think these studies need to be done. If 4 you look at Bill Farmer's matrix, that's certainly 5 an important issue for lot of different committees. 6 I'm not sure how to more this forward. Like Sam 7 said, this didn't go to a committee. 8 If it needs to go to a committee, I recommend 9 it go to Prescott and Bill's committee, the 10 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Committee. The 11 reason why is essential fish habitat is one of the 12 things that that committee is looking at. 13 I think with one exception, everything in 14 this scope of work is an EFH question. So that's a 15 good committee for it to go to, in my opinion. So 16 if we need to move it, get it into a committee to 17 do something, that's what I suggest we do. 18 MR. DYSERT: That's a recommendation? 19 MR. STEVENS: Yes, sir. 20 MR. DYSERT: Discussion on the recommendation. 21 Sam. 22 MR. DRAKE: We would like to keep the majority 23 of this acreage from becoming EFH, because 24 primarily that's brackish water and fresh water, 25 but if that's the committee you want to assign it 205 1 2 to, we're trying to deal with fresh water. 3 We do have brackish and salt water. It 4 doesn't -- that's probably as good as anything. In 5 this instance, we're not trying to increase the 6 amount of EFH by having more brackish water. We 7 are trying to add fresh water. 8 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton. 9 MR. BREWTON: I guess my question was a 10 different version of Stuart's question. What is, 11 at this point, the appropriate thing for the SEG to 12 do in order to advance this? 13 Does it need to be assigned to committee, do 14 we need to let the people already working on it 15 and the GPA take a look at it and give us some 16 feedback next month, or what is the appropriate 17 thing for us to do at this point? 18 MR. DYSERT: Teri. 19 MS. LEFFEK: I was going to suggest, it seems 20 like the relationship between Fish and Wildlife and 21 ATM and GPA is working well. If you are 22 comfortable with it, if the group is coming 23 together, rather than adding another committee 24 as long as there's some communication between Fish 25 and Wildlife and Fisheries, then we know things are 206 1 2 being taken care of, maybe we should just leave the 3 relationship as it is, and the draft or the 4 proposed scope of work will be on the web site for 5 us to review, and to come back to the SEG and say, 6 this is what we have. ATM signed off on it. GPA 7 signed off on it. We're happy with it, what do 8 you think. 9 I think that appears to be the clearest and 10 most direct direction to go without adding any more 11 bureaucracy, for lack of a better word. Is Fish 12 and Wildlife happy with that? 13 MR. ROBINETTE: That's exactly what we were 14 going to propose, is that this be put on the web 15 site, and everybody gets a chance to take a look 16 at it. Stuart, if you have got someone else to 17 help us with this, glad to have the help. 18 MR. DRAKE: Any future meetings we'll post in 19 case somebody else wants to attend. 20 MR. ROBINETTE: I think that would be a good 21 way to handle it. Like Sam said, we've got a good 22 working relationship the ATM and GPA has been 23 generous in asking what we need. 24 MS. LEFFEK: Can we make a declarative 25 statement the SEG has a consensus on that; that's 207 1 2 a fine course of action. 3 MR. DYSERT: Ben Brewton. 4 MR. BREWTON: I would concur with just one 5 addition. Since Stuart said that a lot of the 6 areas are somewhat related, if you would just ask 7 and make sure that Bill or Pres or some of the 8 folks from the Fisheries Committee are plugged in 9 to what you doing, so if there is some 10 interrelationship there. 11 MR. DYSERT: Tying in with what Teri said, 12 what Fish and Wildlife Service said, do I see a 13 consensus around here that the Fish and Wildlife 14 Service continue to work with GPA and ATM, put this 15 on the web, plug the Fisheries and Aquatic 16 Resources Committee for them to track this, follow 17 it and so forth? Is that acceptable? A 18 declarative statement is issued that there's a 19 general, broad, and happy consensus around the 20 table. 21 MR. BREWTON: Two other committee reports. 22 MR. DYSERT: Okay. At this time, I would 23 call on the Economics Working Group for their 24 report. 25 MS. JENNINGS: I don't have anything to hand 208 1 2 out, but I appreciate Morgan bringing us back 3 together. I can be very brief. We have been 4 meeting -- we met December 3rd at the request of 5 a committee, another committee member, there were 6 two primary topics. 7 One was to clarify the status of the economics 8 work group, which we agreed will continue to work 9 and report back through the SEG. The other was 10 a continued commitment to look at secondary 11 economic impacts. And Morgan and I will schedule 12 that. Would you add, delete, subtract? 13 MR. REES: That's fine. 14 MS. JENNINGS: We'll schedule another meeting. 15 I would appreciate it if other folks would show up. 16 I'm interested in this. I'm not likely to stop 17 talking about it. On December 30, Morgan and me 18 and Dave -- I'm fascinated to spend time with 19 Morgan -- if you'd continue to tell me you're 20 interested in this topic, I'd appreciate it, if 21 you would show that. Morgan and I will continue to 22 be. 23 MR. DYSERT: Patricia Reese. 24 MS. REESE: Patricia Reese, Georgia Ports. I 25 just wanted to take a moment to thank Sam and John 209 1 2 for arranging the tour of the wildlife refuge for 3 myself, as well as Morgan and Bo. We spent a 4 considerable amount of time on the river and land 5 learning a great deal about the wildlife refuge. 6 We found it very educational. I appreciated the 7 time you spent with us. 8 MR. DRAKE: We'd offer to do that with any 9 other SEG members or if y'all want to get out and 10 kind of get with us on a breakdown down with 11 Officer Moore so folks can see what we have up 12 there. 13 MR. DYSERT: Morgan, do you have something 14 reporting for the Operating Guidelines Committee. 15 MR. REES: I reported early in the meeting we 16 tried this economic -- electronic meeting that 17 didn't work. I still need to know from interested 18 folks what their availability is, so we can 19 schedule a meeting. We only have three weeks until 20 the next SEG meeting. 21 MR. FARMER: Right after this meeting. 22 MR. REES: That's not a lot of time. 23 MR. FARMER: Right after this meeting. 24 MR. REES: Respectfully suggest we need more 25 time. I'm thinking probably a couple, three hours 210 1 2 to go through the agenda. 3 MR. DYSERT: I would suggest since we extended 4 the schedule to accommodate the very fine 5 presentation by the Fish and Wildlife Service and 6 to get through the rest of committees, I would 7 suggest we look at the last item, which is the next 8 meeting date to confirm that, the 1st of February 9 at this location. And as far as I'm concerned, 10 Cathy? 11 MS. VAUGHN: The meeting is in this building 12 in a different room, in the art gallery downstairs. 13 This room is not available. 14 MR. DYSERT: Teri. 15 MS. LEFFEK: One comment. We approved a 16 recommendation by the Communication Committee that 17 we should discuss the next meeting agenda. Are 18 we going to do that today briefly, or are we going 19 to let that go and go about our business? 20 MR. DYSERT: Sounds reasonable to me. 21 MS. LEFFEK: It was approved. So if it was 22 approved, that means we acted on it. Are we going 23 to or that or let it go? 24 MR. DYSERT: As far as I'm concerned, we can 25 do that. 211 1 2 MS. LEFFEK: Will it take just like five 3 minutes? 4 MR. DYSERT: We can see how long it takes. 5 Ben Brewton. 6 MR. BREWTON: I just have one process 7 suggestion. I noticed a few times today that our 8 court reporter was unable to hear what someone 9 said. When she paused and asked. About five or 10 six of us all jumped in at one time to answer what 11 the person said. 12 In some cases, the person that said it didn't 13 hear they were supposed to repeat it. I was just 14 going to suggest that we ask our facilitator 15 perhaps to develop some code word he could 16 interject. 17 We would all know to shut up and the 18 person speaking would know to repeat what they just 19 said, and give the court reporter an opportunity -- 20 MR. DYSERT: I'll -- I'll test everyone out 21 next time. 22 MR. BREWTON: If we did have some signal so 23 everybody didn't jump in at one time. I think that 24 would helpful. Are you ready to take a recap of 25 agenda items? 212 1 2 MR. DYSERT: Yes. 3 MR. BREWTON: I guess maybe starting at the 4 end, would Fish and Wildlife, and GPA, and ATM be 5 ready to give us a report back at the next meeting? 6 MR. REES: Say again. 7 MR. DRAKE: It was indicated we could do it at 8 the next meeting, as far as the report on the 9 proposed projects. 10 MR. ELLIS: On the marsh studies -- I didn't 11 hear the question. 12 MR. BREWTON: We're setting -- discussing 13 topics for the agenda for the next meeting. I 14 asked if your group would be ready to make a report 15 or recommendation back to the SEG for action next 16 time. 17 MR. ELLIS: I need to coordinate first with 18 GPA. They haven't had a chance to look at this and 19 see how it plugs in. 20 MR. BREWTON: Would it be something -- 21 MR. DYSERT: At least a status report 22 MR. BREWTON: Status and recommendation. 23 MR. ELLIS: Sure. 24 MR. BREWTON: I'd suggest that certainly 25 should be on there. 213 1 2 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Anything else? 3 MR. BREWTON: I think we still have the 4 ballast water update that Morgan was going to 5 report on in February. 6 MS. LEFFEK: I guess whatever happens with 7 Operating Guidelines, I would assume they would 8 have a report as well for the next meeting. If 9 they reach a consensus, that needs to be on the 10 agenda. 11 MR. STEVENS: Items 9-1 and 2, we didn't get 12 to this time about other scientific studies. 13 MS. LEFFEK: That would be good. We could put 14 those on there as well. 15 MR. BREWTON: It would seem to me that those 16 would be the priority items, together with 17 committee reports, and then such items as can be 18 fit in. 19 Particularly, I think we should put in the old 20 business, the striped bass studies that Tom and the 21 committee are going to get with GPA on. 22 MR. BAILEY: I expect the Fisheries Committee 23 will have a recommendation for the next meeting. 24 MR. BREWTON: The MTRG report on presentation. 25 MR. STEVENS: On tidal amplitude. 214 1 2 MR. McINTOSH: Rising water level. 3 MR. STEVENS: Also, in the committee reports, 4 I don't know if we actually assigned the Fish and 5 Wildlife fresh water wetland study to a committee. 6 That ought to be a committee report next time to 7 hear the status of it, what happened with that 8 process. 9 MS. LEFFEK: I think that's already been 10 discussed. Didn't you bring that up there 11 MR. BREWTON: Which is that? 12 MS. LEFFEK: The stuff from Fish and Wildlife, 13 that's already been brought up. It's an important 14 agenda item. Thank you, Stuart. 15 MR. BREWTON: I think at one point we had 16 asked Patty McIntosh to bring in some thoughts 17 about the aeration and mitigation. I think we 18 targeted February for that. 19 MR. DYSERT: How much time would you like to 20 put on these; Fish and Wildlife Service, ATM, GPA 21 status report -- rough idea. 22 MR. DRAKE: 15, 20, 30 minutes. 23 MR. ELLIS: 30 minutes. 24 MR. DYSERT: Ballast water, give me number Bo? 25 MR. McINTOSH: 15. 215 1 2 MR. MOORE: 15, 20 minutes. 3 MR. DYSERT: How much time do you need on 4 ballast water in February, Morgan? 5 MR. REES: I haven't been looking. How about 6 an hour, then we'll have time to deal with a lot of 7 -- sorry, no. I'm sorry. 8 MR. DYSERT: How about Operating Guidelines? 9 MR. REES: I can't imagine anything more than 10 10, 15 minutes on ballast water. If it turns out 11 to be different when I get into it, I'll let you 12 know and see if we can make an adjustment. 13 MR. DYSERT: Operating Guidelines. 14 MR. REES: Assuming that we're going to reach 15 consensus, we'll report a consensus in five 16 minutes. 17 MR. DYSERT: Figure report a consensus. If 18 you don't, go back to the drawing board. 19 MR. REES: Yeah. 20 MR. BREWTON: I think there's a pretty 21 fundamental question being looked at. I would 22 think you would want more than five minutes. 23 MR. DYSERT: I put 15. How about Patty 24 McIntosh's report on aeration and mitigation. 25 MR. McINTOSH: 15. 216 1 2 MR. BREWTON: 10 to 15 probably. 3 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Tom and GPA on studies. 4 MR. MERONEK: 15. 5 MR. DYSERT: Fisheries Committee, Fisheries 6 and Aquatic Committee making recommendations. 7 MR. BAILEY: 15. 8 MR. DYSERT: Okay. MTRG on tidal amplitude. 9 Bo. 10 MR. ELLIS: MTRG. 11 MR. DYSERT: Tidal amplitude. 12 MR. ELLIS: Presentation? 13 MR. DYSERT: Yeah. 14 MR. ELLIS: 15 minutes. 15 MR. BREWTON: Additional committee report on 16 other items he'll have, I'll suppose. 17 MR. ELLIS: Another 15. 18 MR. DYSERT: 15 for regular MTRG. Okay. 19 Items Roman 9-1, other scientific studies that 20 might be underway. SEG might be unaware. 21 MS. LEFFEK: Maybe 15 minutes. I'm not sure 22 what exists out there. 23 MR. BREWTON: Question, if we are unaware, 24 how are we going to discuss it? 25 MS. LEFFEK: It give us a time parameter to 217 1 2 start with. If we need more time, SEG can reach 3 a consensus. 4 MR. BREWTON: Sort of joke here. If we are 5 unaware of the studies -- 6 MR. DRAKE: Part of that came out of Teri was 7 wondering what Fish and Wildlife had ongoing on 8 the refuge, maybe GPA has other studies. 9 MS. LEFFEK: Like the Corps of Engineers when 10 they gave their presentation, there were a lot of 11 things going on that we were unaware of, which was 12 very helpful. I'd like to see if anything else is 13 going on there. 14 MR. DYSERT: Agenda items, prior agenda items, 15 rough ideas for time, draft agenda -- anything else 16 you want to input, you want to provide now? 17 MR. BREWTON: How many hours over do we appear 18 to be? 19 MR. DYSERT: Back when I requested this 20 information, it would add up to not very much; one 21 hour, two and a half hours. 22 MR. BREWTON: How about Bill Farmer and the 23 matrix will be follow-up? 24 MR. FARMER: Part of the SEG Operating 25 Guidelines, just a suggestion. Would a good rule 218 1 2 of procedure be all these reports have to be in 3 writing ahead of time? During the meeting, the 4 presenter hits the highlights. 5 MR. DYSERT: I think that has been recommended 6 and suggested a number of times before that things 7 be posted, be available ahead of time, so we don't 8 have to plow through everything. 9 MR. BREWTON: We reached an agreement on 10 the ability to do that today. We can work towards 11 it. I don't know it will happen magically at one 12 meeting. That's what we ought to work toward. 13 MR. DYSERT: As everybody is unattaching 14 themselves from their power sources, so forth, I 15 think sending a signal as to the other pressing 16 items coming before this meeting -- 17 MR. DRAKE: Patricia Reese has an item on news 18 releases. 19 MR. DYSERT: Morgan, is it good news. 20 MR. REES: Actually, I told you last time. 21 You're talking about the progress report? 22 MR. DYSERT: Yeah. 23 MR. REES: That would take two months. All 24 the progress we've made today, I'm going to amend 25 that report. It will be longer than that. 219 1 2 MR. BREWTON: Which report is that? 3 MR. REES: I have a progress report that I did 4 three months ago at Mr. Dysert's requesting where 5 we were. Things need to be referenced to the 6 project schedule I've developed. That needs to be 7 updated. It will take more than two minutes, no 8 more than 10 -- say 5. 9 MR. DYSERT: Trish, can you do yours in one 10 breath? 11 MS. REESE: Very quickly. Back in October, we 12 scheduled a media briefing for the local media to 13 learn about the field data collection effort, 14 taking place over the summer and early fall, and 15 the model study taking place. 16 We went over to the Corps depot site on 17 Hutchinson Island where Bo Ellis and Steve Davey 18 (phonetic) spent a lot of time with the group to 19 explain all of this to us, and show us a lot of 20 instruments being used, how they're collecting the 21 data, how it would used to study the various 22 issues. 23 I just wanted to mention that to you. That 24 took place in October. I do have copies of two 25 newspaper articles that ran on this in the media. 220 1 2 Briefly, that's what took place, should any of you 3 like copies. That's it. Short and sweet. 4 MR. DYSERT: Okay. Anything else? Seeing no 5 request -- 6 MR. BREWTON: One quick request. 7 MR. DYSERT: I recognize Ben Brewton. 8 MR. BREWTON: Is there a copy of the actual 9 briefing document, or fax sheet, whatever you 10 gave -- 11 MS. REESE: Let me get with Bo. Bo did hand 12 out some material over there. 13 MR. BREWTON: Maybe you could give that out to 14 us, put it on the web site. 15 MR. DYSERT: Anything else? The SEG meeting 16 for January I declare to be finished. Thank you. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 221 1 2 3 4 C E R T I F I C A T E 5 G E O R G I A : 6 CHATHAM COUNTY: 7 I hereby certify that the foregoing 8 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 9 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 10 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 11 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 220 represent 12 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 13 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 14 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 15 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 16 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 17 anywise interested in the result of said case. 18 This, the 23rd day of January, 2000. 19 20 21 ________________________ 22 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court Reporter, B-2041 23 24 25