1 2 3 4 5 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6 7 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 8 9 JULY 11, 2000 10 9:00 A.M. 11 MIGHTY 8TH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 12 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 5 I N D E X 6 7 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3 8 TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS ------------------------ 10 9 AQUIFER COMMITTEE ----------------------------- 92 10 BEACH EROSION COMMITTEE ----------------------- 100 11 DREDGING AND DISPOSAL COMMITTEE --------------- 104 12 FISH AND AQUATIC COMMITTEE -------------------- 105 13 MTRG ------------------------------------------ 106 14 ECONOMICS WORKING GROUP ----------------------- 1122 15 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 133 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. It's 9:11 and I'll call 3 the meeting, your meeting of the Stakeholders 4 Evaluation Group to order. 5 Looks like we have a great turnout this 6 morning, and I would encourage everybody who is 7 sitting on the back row, either to find a place at 8 the table, or please identify yourself and speak 9 clearly and distinctly. 10 That's what goes along with sitting on a back 11 row; otherwise our court reporter will get in a 12 foul frame of mind, and you'll slow down things. 13 We want her to stay in a good, happy frame of mind, 14 madam court reporter. 15 I have passed out the draft agenda. I see 16 it's finishing going around. While that's taking 17 place, let's say hello and introduce one another. 18 Chris -- I'm Ben Dysart, the SEG facilitator. 19 Chris, why don't you start out, and indicate your 20 name, and who you represent, and we'll go around 21 the table. 22 MR. DESA: Chris Desa, Jonaro Technomar in 23 Savannah. 24 MR. KYLER: Dave Kyler with the Center for 25 Sustainable Coast Management, a slightly more 4 1 2 limited name, same organization. 3 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, the Georgia 4 Conservancy. 5 MR. McCURRY: Jamie McCurry, Georgia Ports 6 Authority. 7 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers. 8 MR. ELLIS: Bo Ellis, Applied Technology. 9 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, Lockwood Greene 10 Engineers and Georgia Ports. 11 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia Ports. 12 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, Georgia Ports. 13 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports. 14 MR. SAWYER: John Sawyer, City of Savannah. 15 MS. LEFFEK: Teri Leffek, Fife and Clydesdale 16 Plantations. 17 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia Sierra 18 Club. 19 MS. PERLING: Florence Perling, League of 20 Women Voters. 21 MS. REESE: Patricia Reese, Georgia Ports 22 Authority. 23 MR. DUMAS: Kenny Dumas, City of Savannah 24 Water. 25 MS. TYLER: Billie Tyler, City of Pooler. 5 1 2 MS. FOLKER: Julie Folker, United States Navy 3 League, Savannah Council. 4 MR. LIN: Guoming Lin, and I just come here as 5 the public. I read the newspaper -- kind of 6 curious. 7 MR. DYSART: Welcome. 8 MR. HOLMAN: Blan Holman, Southern 9 Environmental. 10 MR. LIAKAKIS: Pete Liakakis, Savannah City 11 Council. 12 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, City of Tybee 13 Island. 14 MS. McKEE: Gwen McKee with the Georgia 15 Wildlife Federation. 16 MR. MIKELL: Rob Mikell, south Carolina DHEC. 17 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens, Georgia DNR, 18 Coastal Management. 19 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, Fish and 20 Wildlife. 21 MS. SIKES: Christy Sikes, Armstrong student. 22 MR. HANZALIK: James Hanzalik, U. S. Coast 23 Guard, Safety Office, Savannah. 24 MR. BAKER: Jim Baker, Colonial Terminals. 25 MS. KRUEGER: Gail Krueger, Savannah Morning 6 1 2 News. 3 MR. CONSIDINE: Jack Considine, Savannah 4 resident. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. We have two late arrivers 6 signing in. Go ahead and introduce yourselves. 7 MR. BREWTON: Ben Brewton, Coastal 8 Environmental Organization. 9 MS. McINTOSH: Patty McIntosh, the Georgia 10 Conservancy. 11 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Oh, excuse me. Let's 12 make the turn there. 13 MR. McBETH: Ben McBeth, Citgo Asphalt. 14 MR. BROWNE: Tommy Browne, Savannah Pilots. 15 MR. PHILLIPS: John Phillips, Georgia DOT, and 16 I'd like to ask if anybody left a cellular 17 telephone in the van yesterday at the tour of the 18 disposal. I found one in there. I think it 19 belongs to South Carolina DHEC. In case I'm wrong, 20 we'll get back to you. 21 MR. STEVENS: It belongs to the federal 22 government. Just keep it. 23 MR. SUTLIVE: Charlie Sutlive, Savannah 24 Maritime Association. 25 MR. ZADACH: Steve Zadach, Georgia Stevedore 7 1 2 Association. 3 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo 4 MR. PLACHY: Douglas Plachy, Corps of 5 Engineers. 6 MR. PARROTT: Dan Parrott, Corps of Engineers. 7 COLONEL SCHMITT: Joe Schmitt, U.S. Army Corps 8 of Engineers, Savannah District. 9 MR. O'KELLEY: Bob O' Kelley, U.S. Army Corps 10 of Engineers. 11 MR. DYSART: Bob was asking me right before 12 we started, he looked at the agenda and he said, 13 you think we're going to be through before 1:00 14 o'clock? 15 I said, I'd prefer to answer that on the 16 record. Seems like when we finish up is kind a 17 bi-modal distribution -- not meaning to get too 18 technical this early in the morning -- we'll finish 19 up by probably 12:30 or so or 4:30 or 5:00. We'll 20 kind of we run out a little bit early, or we have 21 the potential to go on ad infinitum. We'll see how 22 that works out today. 23 The next item, I'm going to forego any kind of 24 facilitator's opening exercise, I will simply 25 remind you as I always do, and one of the things 8 1 2 I'm expected to do is to remind you that we have a 3 rather clearly defined mission. 4 It is to define the potential or probably or 5 possible areas of environmental impact; and 6 secondly, to define the studies that are needed to 7 determine whether these impacts will occur, and 8 whether and how they can be effectively mitigated. 9 That is what we're here about. This is 10 welcome to 19th month of the existence of the 11 Stakeholders Evaluation Group. 12 The third item, you have the draft agenda 13 before you. I would invite you to give me your 14 comments, indicate what kind of changes you would 15 like, or whether it's acceptable, or what is your 16 pleasure? Hearing no comments, is there anyone who 17 cannot live with the draft agenda as circulated? 18 It appears that we have a consensus for the 19 draft agenda -- not meaning to rush anything along 20 too fast. Okay. Item number four, what is your 21 pleasure concerning the transcript of the June SEG 22 meeting? 23 Presumably, it has been posted and 24 everybody who cares about it has had an opportunity 25 to look at it. At this rate we're going to be 9 1 2 through by 10:30. Patricia Reese. 3 MS. REESE: Ben, I just wanted to make sure 4 you received an e-mail from Rick Krause with 5 HydroVision. He had called yesterday about 6 suggesting some changes to the transcript. I had 7 asked him to send it and I have a copy okay. 8 MR. DYSART: We will let that be part of the 9 record then. That's the easiest way for me to 10 handle it. Morgan Rees. 11 MR. REES: If there are changes to be made to 12 the transcript, then we need to revisit this issue 13 next month. 14 MR. BREWTON: Question. 15 MR. DYSART: Trish, Ben Brewton. 16 MR. BREWTON: Are they just technical 17 corrections, or just phrases and words? 18 MS. REESE: Words, a few words. 19 MR. DYSART: Why don't you tell us what they 20 were and we'll deal with it right now, since papers 21 get lost. 22 MS. REESE: He goes there are a few lines, 23 page numbers and lines. Do you want me to read 24 them? 25 MR. DYSART: Suits me. 10 1 2 MS. REESE: Page 45, lines 4 and 5, he has a 3 phrase -- phrase that had appeared as in an 4 isolated core across the area, it should be an 5 isolated coarse across the area -- it's like a word 6 change there. 7 Page 45, line 10, upper should be upward. 8 Page 46, line 6 through 7, sentence should be 9 completed as you have a landfill in the middle of 10 Kansas. 11 Page 46 line 8, that should be what. Page 47, 12 line 3, planning units should be confining units. 13 Page 47 lines 18, 19, 20, oxidation should be 14 observation. Page 47 lines 18 19 should be you 15 would have observation wells and confining layers. 16 Page 47, line 25, floating place should be the 17 flow equations. Page 48, line 18, down grade 18 should be down gradient. Page 49, line 11, 19 conflux leakage at a down field site like 100 feet 20 should be confidence and leakage at the field 21 site. 22 Page 49, line 19, amount is a factor of 23 dissolutions, should be amount flowing pass the 24 river in the aquifer. Page 64, line 24, saltwater 25 miocene is at 2,400 feet should be the saltwater 11 1 2 lies 2,400 feet, and last page 65, line 18, 3 moderate should be modern day. 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. Is there any discussion 5 concerning those suggested clarifications or 6 corrections? Seeing no cards up, they are deemed 7 to be accepted by this body. Are there further 8 comments about the transcript from the June 9 meeting? 10 Seeing no further comments, we'll assume 11 this has been accepted by the body as corrected. 12 Okay. The next item we get into old business. And 13 the first item there is to complete the discussion 14 that we wound up on last time about the next 15 meeting date, or adjusting the frequency of 16 meetings. 17 I'd like to continue that for a few minutes 18 and at least decide what we're going to do for the 19 next meeting, whether we'll meet in August or what 20 not. 21 While we're looking at this, I would suggest 22 that y'all decide approximately how much time you 23 would like to estimate that you would like to put 24 in on the agenda items, so that we can have some 25 semblance of order as we go along. 12 1 2 We can always adjust, but otherwise things can 3 go on without limit -- anything. So, how long 4 would you like to think that it might take to 5 settle the idea of the meeting frequency? Think 6 that can be done in 10 minutes? 7 MR. BREWTON: If it can be done, it can be 8 done in 10 minutes. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. Patty has her card up. 10 MS. McINTOSH: Ben, I just wondering if you 11 can repeat or go over -- seems like there was a 12 recommendation at the end of the last meeting that 13 was a pretty good compromise. 14 MR. DYSART: I think, as I recall, the notion 15 was that we would meet today, and that we might 16 very well try not meeting in August, skipping 17 August, and meeting for a full day in September, 18 and then sort of revisit things then, and see 19 whether that was the working, whether you wanted to 20 go back to every month, kind of an interim 21 approach. 22 Skip August, full day in September. Is that 23 -- Morgan is nodding his head. I think that's what 24 was sort of laying out there to be discussed. Ben 25 Brewton. 13 1 2 MR. BREWTON: If we were to do that, does 3 anybody have any idea how we might structure the 4 day, as far as lunch is concerned, and what time 5 would we -- what I would like to hear, you know, 6 a full day, what time that would mean getting over, 7 and what the thoughts would be of the group on 8 lunch? 9 MR. DYSART: What are the thoughts of the 10 group on lunch in September? What are peoples' 11 lunch ideas for September, or would you rather deal 12 with lunch a little bit after we deal with the 13 other matters? 14 MR. BREWTON: Let's deal with the end time 15 first. That might have an effect. I know there's 16 people here that have a cutoff on how late they can 17 stay. I'm curious what that might be. 18 MR. DYSART: Gwen. 19 MS. McKEE: Is it possible to consider meeting 20 as a group in alternate months, and then on the 21 months that the group doesn't meet, the committees 22 meet? 23 You stay in the same time 9:00 to 1:00 time 24 frame, so that August, you have committee meetings. 25 In September, you have the group meeting. In 14 1 2 October the committees meet, so on. That may not 3 be a good idea -- just a question, more than a 4 suggestion. 5 MR. DYSART: What does the group think about 6 that? Morgan. 7 MR. REES: I would just make an observation, 8 again, not a position, or preference, or anything, 9 just an observation. 10 There are quite a few people serving on more 11 than one committee. I think we had talked 12 about this previously -- trying to group the 13 committee meetings at a time which makes it more 14 convenient for people who have to travel to get 15 here. 16 I'm very sympathetic to that. I would 17 personally, for my own travel purposes, like to 18 group the meetings as best we can. I think to say 19 from 9:00 to 1:00 are going to be the committee 20 meetings that -- 21 MS. McKEE: No, I wasn't asking that. This 22 group would meet from 9:00 to 1:00. The committees 23 would meet, I guess at the discretion of the 24 committee. That wouldn't change. It would be they 25 would meet in the off month. The group wouldn't 15 1 2 meet. I'm not suggesting structuring committee 3 meetings in any time frame. They would meet in the 4 off month. 5 MR. REES: I wanted to be sure we don't 6 exclude people from committee meetings that have 7 two committee meetings at the same time. 8 MS. McKEE: You could have 10 committee 9 meetings on 10 different day, I guess, conceivably 10 in the month that this group didn't meet. 11 MR. DYSART: Any further comments? 12 MR. BREWTON: I'd still like to hear from 13 some of the folks that have places to get back to, 14 particularly some of the agencies, and so forth, 15 what time their cutoff would be, as far as the end 16 of the day. 17 MR. DYSART: Rob and Bill. 18 MR. MIKELL: I wouldn't like to go any longer 19 than past 4:30. It takes me about two hours to get 20 back. 21 MR. DYSART: Bill. 22 MR. FARMER: It would make sense to determine 23 what this group has to accomplish, and when it has 24 to have it accomplished by, then take the 25 deadlines, whatever, and work backwards to see how 16 1 2 many meetings are required to do that. 3 One issue would be, for instance, is this 4 group going to have a final report or not? We 5 briefly discussed that in the meetings past, and 6 did not reach a conclusion. 7 But if we are going to have a final report, we 8 ought to establish a deadline, a draft date, and 9 all that sort of stuff too. 10 MR. DYSART: I think that is a very 11 interesting point. What is, you know, is there a 12 view of what is the product, what is the end point 13 from this group, or is it is there an end point in 14 peoples' minds. An interesting point, Bill; what 15 do y'all think? 16 MR. BEASON: Ben, just to stay back on the 17 meeting agenda before we go there, if no one has 18 a suggestion, I propose, if we're going to meet all 19 day, we start at 9:00, quit at 4:30, an hour lunch, 20 you're on your own. I make that as a proposal, as 21 a try. 22 MR. DYSART: Comments on that, pro and con. 23 Judy Jennings. 24 MS. JENNINGS: I do think, looking at the 25 agenda would be appropriate. Skipping a month, I'm 17 1 2 kind of lost in the need for an all day meeting. 3 Honestly, I don't know what we can talk about in a 4 day. I don't mean to flippant. 5 MR. DYSART: You doubt that the time would be 6 filled? 7 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah, I do. The committee 8 reports, you meet, give the report. We've 9 completed our agenda every month for the last 10 several, and I don't know that just because we 11 skipped a month we're going to have a whole lot of 12 business built up, or maybe if it is -- 13 MR. DYSART: Maybe if you skip a month, 14 there's a lot more work done in the committees. 15 Maybe things move along better at a full meetings. 16 MS. JENNINGS: I don't think the report would 17 be any longer. 18 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 19 MR. REES: Offer an observation, two 20 observations. Number one, when we missed last 21 September because of the hurricane, I don't recall 22 that that put anymore pressure on the October 23 meeting to meet longer, but at the same time, I 24 understand the concern by people because we're 25 missing a month, or we may miss a month, that there 18 1 2 seems intuitively there's some additional 3 discussion that's going to have to go on the 4 following month. 5 If we do set a schedule, as Fred suggested, we 6 plan to be here until 4:30, and come to find out at 7 2:30 we're done, then we can go home. 8 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 9 MR. BREWTON: I tend to agree with Judy and 10 some of the folks last month that we wanted to keep 11 the continuity of meetings every month; however, in 12 the interest of being open and willing to try 13 something new, I would go back to the proposal that 14 you laid out, we sort of ended up with last month 15 in line with what Fred is saying. 16 I don't have a problem with taking a vacation 17 in August. It's summertime. We can stand a month 18 off. Although I'd really rather have the monthly 19 half day meetings, I don't have a problem with 20 trying the full day meeting as Fred suggested in 21 September, and maybe what we need to do is not look 22 beyond that right now. 23 And then as we said last month, after we give 24 that a try, then let's discuss it again in October, 25 or either at the end of the September meeting. So 19 1 2 I guess what I would do -- I'm doing -- I'm 3 restating the proposal that you started out with, 4 that we skip August, do a full day according to 5 Fred's suggestion in September, and then 6 reevaluate what we want to do. 7 MR. DYSART: Further discussion, anything new 8 to add to that? Okay. Anyone who cannot live with 9 skipping August, and having a full day -- potential 10 for a full day meeting in September. 11 MR. BREWTON: That suggestion is clearly as 12 a one shot thing right now, with the decision about 13 whether to change, apparently, made after that 14 time. 15 MR. DYSART: Anyone who cannot live with that? 16 We have an official SEG consensus. We will not 17 meet in August. We will meet at 9:00 o'clock in 18 September. We'll figure out what that day is so 19 we won't mess with Labor Day, so forth. 20 MR. BREWTON: Why don't we go ahead and do 21 that now? 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. Skipping on to item nine. 23 MS. McINTOSH: The 12th. 24 MR. BREWTON: Jamie keeps his own notes. 25 MR. DYSART: September 5the would be the first 20 1 2 Tuesday. 3 MS. LEFFEK: Labor Day is the day prior to 4 that. 5 MR. DYSART: We normally try to stay away from 6 adjacent holidays. 7 MS. VAUGHN: I have the room booked for the 8 12th. 9 MR. DYSART: How does the 12th sound, unless 10 -- since that is the day the room is booked -- 11 unless somebody wants to have it at their place and 12 serve lunch? 13 MS. VAUGHN: When you look ahead to November, 14 Election Day is November 7th. 15 MR. DYSART: Is the second Tuesday in 16 September good enough for now? Do you want to go 17 ahead and look on into November? Certainly, we 18 don't want to meet on an election day. So we'll be 19 going for the second Tuesday in November 20 MS. VAUGHN: November 14th. 21 MR. DYSART: November 14th. Seeing no 22 objections, that appears to be acceptable. Okay. 23 Going back to old business, let's again see about 24 how much time is estimated that we'd like to spend 25 on the new business items, roughly, so we can know 21 1 2 how we're doing as we go along. Morgan, what will 3 you be doing in the way of -- are you going to be 4 having anything else on the update? Last time, we 5 got into a time crunch. 6 MR. REES: If I can get input from the group, 7 last month I handed out what I proposed to present 8 as a very generic overview of what else is going on 9 in the project besides the SEG. 10 I requested that if anybody had any questions, 11 let me know. One question had to do with the 12 schedule, and we're still working on the schedule, 13 and hope to have it, a firm, published schedule 14 pretty soon, but we don't have one. 15 Since I got no questions, I wondered if 16 everybody is comfortable with the handout. I'd 17 certainly be glad to go through it, walk through it 18 and take questions. 19 If everybody has had a chance to look at it 20 for a month, and doesn't have any questions, maybe 21 I don't need spend the time to go through it. If I 22 don't need to spend the time to go through it, then 23 I won't need any time on the agenda. If I do, I'll 24 probably need 15 or 20 minutes. 25 What's your pleasure? If you look through it, 22 1 2 again, anytime you want, you can ask questions. 3 Contact me directly, or bring them up at the SEG, 4 and I have updated copies of it. There are just 5 a few minor changes that I had mentioned. 6 MR. BREWTON: Could hand those out maybe and 7 let us glance at that before we answer the 8 question. 9 MR. REES: Like I say, I handed them out last 10 month. People had a month to read them. There are 11 some more copies. 12 MR. DYSART: Maybe many of them just barely 13 got through reading the transcript, and are getting 14 ready to read that from last month. 15 MR. REES: Anyhow, whatever your pleasure is, 16 I can do it or not. My sense is it is generic 17 enough that by reading the handouts, you're going 18 to get everything that I would tell you anyhow. So 19 whatever your pleasure is. 20 MR. DYSART: Is there a ground swell of 21 interest in -- 22 MR. REES: I don't hear one. 23 MR. DYSART: -- in Morgan's walking you 24 through the handout? Bill Farmer. 25 MR. FARMER: If anything, Morgan, I forget, 23 1 2 does the handout have a few milestones for this 3 group to accomplish certain things? 4 MR. REES: No, it doesn't. We would not 5 presume to set milestones for this group. 6 MR. FARMER: This group, it's output has to 7 feed into the GPA output also. 8 MR. REES: That's correct. That's one of the 9 reasons, not the only reason, one of the reasons we 10 do not have a firm schedule set yet. 11 There are some remaining unknowns about study 12 requests of the SEG and so forth. I don't mean to 13 lay it on the SEG. That's one of the reasons we 14 don't have the schedule wrapped up. 15 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 16 MR. BREWTON: I do have one question that I 17 would ask about this. I don't know whether we're 18 into this or just deciding. 19 MR. DYSART: Go ahead. 20 MR. BREWTON: Morgan, we've all gotten the 21 e-mail that Cathy sent out about the scoping 22 meeting on the -- what is it -- the 25th -- and 23 have seen the advertisement in the paper so forth. 24 I'm a little confused as to what the purpose 25 of that meeting is, and is it being done to -- I 24 1 2 see some of these pages here that say authorization 3 compliance, NEPA compliance, compliance of the 4 Corps of Engineers, word of compliance and legal 5 compliance, so my question is two-fold; one, is the 6 meeting being held to satisfy some legal 7 requirement; and secondly, tell us a little bit 8 about what the purpose of the meeting is beyond 9 that, and how it relates to the SEG activities? 10 MR. REES: Be glad to. We had planned to do 11 that kind of thing a later on in the meeting under 12 new business, but whatever your preference is. 13 MR. BREWTON: It seems to kind of relate to 14 some of these things here so it would be okay with 15 me if you -- 16 MR. DYSART: If that comes under the category 17 of overview presentation, that's fine. If not, you 18 can defer it. 19 MR. REES: It can be either way. There are a 20 couple of reasons for having a scoping meeting. 21 When we started talking to people several years ago 22 about the SEG, and about a Tier II EIS, so forth, 23 in a number of those meetings we made a verbal 24 commitments to have a scoping meeting very early in 25 the Tier II process. 25 1 2 So one might argue are we very early in that 3 process, but nevertheless, we have not had an open 4 public meeting in the Tier II process yet, so we 5 are essentially fulfilling a commitment we made 6 to a number of different people. 7 Number two is we are working on the schedule, 8 as I mentioned a minute ago. We don't have a 9 schedule finalized. Despite the fact we've spent 10 -- this is now the 19th SEG meeting, we've had a 11 tremendous amount of input as everybody knows, 12 there are, perhaps, members of the public who don't 13 participate in the SEG. 14 And in order for us to finalize our schedule, 15 and develop what kinds of studies and issues need 16 to be addressed, we believe we need to provide an 17 opportunity for the general public that may be 18 beyond the SEG to participate in the Tier II 19 process. 20 This is not a legally required scoping meeting 21 under the narrow terms of the National 22 Environmental Policy Act. This is not what it is. 23 It is GPA's effort to get the maximum public 24 input that we can before we finalize the schedule, 25 and set the budgets, and so forth, for pursuing the 26 1 2 Tier II EIS. 3 MR. BREWTON: Couple of follow-up questions 4 just to make sure I understand what you are saying, 5 this is not something to satisfy any specific legal 6 requirement; it is not presented or going to be 7 used for that purpose? 8 MR. REES: I don't know if I can respond to 9 that question. I mean, there are a lot of things 10 you could argue whether they're legal or not. The 11 point is the NEPA process itself requires maximum 12 public involvement. 13 In that context of complying with NEPA, yes, 14 we're doing because NEPA directs that you involve 15 the public to the maximum extent you can. There 16 are the parts of the NEPA regulations that talk 17 about scoping meetings, notice in the Federal 18 Register so forth. 19 This meeting is not that kind of narrow, legal 20 interpretation. It is certainly within the spirit 21 of the NEPA CEQ regulations, public involvement 22 in the NEPA process. 23 MR. BREWTON: If there are other specifically 24 required hearings of meetings, they would be held 25 separately in accordance with -- 27 1 2 MR. REES: If there are. 3 MR. BREWTON: -- those procedures. I guess 4 what I'm getting at here, Morgan, a lot of us 5 have been participating here for these 19 months, 6 bringing concerns and considerations here. I 7 certainly -- I guess what I'm trying to determine, 8 I should say is, do we need to show up at that 9 hearing and enter those on to some sort of official 10 record, or is that simply supplemental to what is 11 being done here? 12 MR. REES: I would leave that to your own 13 judgment. Frankly, I would say, it's supplemental. 14 Everything that has gone on in the SEG is part of 15 the public record, and is already incorporated in 16 the public record. 17 My personal view is that it would be 18 supplemental, but you know, be my guest -- 19 whichever you are more comfortable with. 20 MR. BREWTON: Maybe I should direct that to 21 Dave Schaller. I certainly don't want to create 22 any more work for us, or for you, or for Georgia 23 Ports Authority by being redundant; however, I 24 certainly would not want to get to the point in the 25 process where someone says, well yes, you raised 28 1 2 that at the SEG. We had a scoping meeting and you 3 did not formally enter it onto the record; 4 therefore, we're not going to consider that. I'm 5 not saying that's what the case is. I'm just 6 trying to get some assurance. 7 MR. REES: If I can offer a suggestion, I 8 think, that will deal with that, there will be 9 an opportunity at the scoping meeting for public 10 comments. There will be little cards to fill in 11 with any comments people have. If somebody, in 12 fact, I volunteered to do it myself for you on 13 behalf of the SEG to put in a comment card that 14 says, be sure that everything that the SEG has 15 addressed is -- is part of this scoping process, 16 I'd be glad to do that. 17 MR. BREWTON: Second question, could you just 18 tell us quickly, I saw it said the meeting is going 19 to be held where people would meet individually 20 with Georgia Ports Authority representatives. I 21 believe it also said there would be a court 22 reporter there. 23 Could you tell us just briefly who would be 24 there on behalf of the Georgia Ports Authority, if 25 I or any other individual comes in to meet with 29 1 2 someone, how will that process work? 3 MR. REES: The process that will be followed 4 at the scoping meeting is patterned after a process 5 developed by the Georgia DOT, in connection with 6 highway projects. 7 I would ask Larry to help out here, because 8 he's been much more involved in the preparations 9 than I. In principle, there will be an entrance 10 position where information will be available about 11 the project. I frankly don't know what all that 12 will be. Then there will be five or six stations. 13 MR. KEEGAN: Five. 14 MR. REES: five different stations that will 15 be personed -- I was going to say manned, maybe 16 personed is the better term -- by people from GPA 17 in the different areas of expertise, as we best 18 tried to separate them out. 19 There will be natural resources, of course, 20 and Bo will be the station manager of that. There 21 will be what we call a general Tier II station. I 22 will be the station manager of that. There will be 23 engineering station. I don't know who's doing that 24 -- Wade Siles (phonetic) from the Engineering 25 Division at the Corps of Engineers. 30 1 2 There will be cultural resources station, 3 Judy Wood from the Corps of Engineers. And what 4 other one? 5 MR. McCurry: Social Economics. 6 MR. REES: Social Economics, which Jamie 7 McCurry will be the station manager. So that will 8 give an opportunity for anybody who comes to get 9 first general information about the projects or 10 provide comments, so forth. 11 The purpose of the court reporter is so that 12 people have an option to write down a comment. If 13 they don't want to write down a comment, they can 14 go over and get it transcribed, and it will 15 officially go in the record. 16 People will have an opportunity one-on-one to 17 ask more direct questions about any of these 18 different areas. We've tried to develop some 19 display boards that have essentially talking points 20 to jog peoples' thought process, to help them think 21 through what's happening, make comments, so forth. 22 MR. BREWTON: This would go on most of the 23 day. 24 MR. REES: It's 3:00 p.m. till 8:00 p.m. 25 MR. DYSART: Patty. 31 1 2 MS. McINTOSH: Morgan, what is the opportunity 3 for people who cannot attend the meeting to make 4 written comments, to whom, how, and by when do they 5 need to submit this? 6 MR. REES: Good question. Larry, have we -- 7 typically, any comment any time whether it's 8 associated with a scoping meeting or not is welcome 9 and becomes part of the record. Did we provide for 10 subsequent comments, and if we didn't, I'll make 11 the commitment that yes. 12 MS. McINTOSH: Will there be a deadline 13 associated with that? 14 MR. REES: We can make a deadline, but it's 15 been my experience it doesn't matter. Any comment 16 that comes in at any time, even if it is past the 17 deadline still gets full consideration. So the 18 deadline -- okay. Larry tells me, and I should 19 have thought of this, no deadline. 20 We would like them by the 31st of July. Then 21 our next activity is to finalize the schedule and 22 the budget. And so we would really like to urge 23 people to get their comments and thoughts in. 24 And Cathy volunteers that you can e-mail them to 25 her. 32 1 2 MS. McINTOSH: Or mail? 3 MR. REES: Or mail them to the Georgia Ports. 4 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 5 MR. BREWTON: Morgan, thank you for that 6 information. I have one other question related to 7 the overview. You can answer this almost in the 8 form of bulleted list, not looking at a lot of the 9 details right this minute, but we talked back 10 earlier in the process, or GPA discussed and told 11 us about several parallel things that were going on 12 in regard to cultural resources, and various other 13 activities. 14 So I guess I would like to ask in terms of an 15 overview is what is going on right now, in 16 terms of engineering, in terms of legal or 17 political work, in terms of cultural resource work, 18 so forth; what is happening concurrently with this 19 SEG process? 20 MR. REES: Well, the items that will be 21 addressed are covered in the report, and one of the 22 reasons there is no schedule in there is that we 23 haven't put all of this together. So there really, 24 frankly, isn't much going on besides what has been 25 going on within the SEG. 33 1 2 You know, we don't have any other -- Larry, 3 correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not aware of any other 4 study design activity that's going on besides 5 what's going on under the auspices of the SEG at 6 this point in time. 7 MR. BREWTON: So nothing has been going on 8 with respect to cultural resources? 9 MR. REES: No. 10 MR. SCHALLER: Nothing beyond the Tier I to 11 identify issues. 12 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, that's all done. 13 MR. SCHALLER: Yes. 14 MR. REES: We haven't started any of that. 15 All the pieces, you know, if you have ever gone 16 through the Microsoft project software, good luck, 17 because the pieces fit together in such intricate 18 fashion, it's hard to tell when you can start the 19 process. I mean, everything has rim effects. We 20 haven't started anything else yet. 21 MR. BREWTON: Okay. 22 MR. DYSART: Gwen. 23 MS. McKEE: I had a question. I wanted to 24 thank whoever was in charge of the dredge and 25 disposal site tour yesterday. I did attend and 34 1 2 found it to be fascinating and a commendable effort 3 is going on in wildlife management. I was really 4 impressed with that. 5 One question I wanted ask, I see something 6 that seems a little contradictory. I wanted to 7 clarify whether the dredge and disposal material is 8 tested for toxic -- not toxic waste -- but the 9 waste that might come from the Savannah River Site, 10 or other radioactive kinds of material, and the 11 answer I think I was given at the moment, there is 12 no testing going on for that, but here in the 13 report it says that procedures are well-established 14 in Corps regulations for testing. 15 I just wanted that point clarified. It seemed 16 a little different. I did ask that question 17 yesterday. 18 I was told it was not being tested at the 19 moment. I just wonder when did that testing occur, 20 how does it happen, and what kinds of materials are 21 being tested; is that radioactive, hazardous -- is 22 there a list or something we might could get? 23 MR. REES: There is a very definite HTRW, 24 hazardous, toxic, radiologic waste testing 25 protocol. It is established under law and 35 1 2 regulations. 3 I would defer to the Corps guys, if they have 4 the right people here, for any details. Basically, 5 there's a reason to believe test. In other words, 6 if -- I'm not going to get into that discussion of 7 absence of evidence and evidence of absence that we 8 had previously, but I'm just saying that the 9 testing protocol under the hazardous toxic 10 radiological waste program is very well stated. 11 Step number one, is there some reason to think 12 that there is something there, and if there is, 13 then you go and do certain testing. All of this is 14 beyond my pay grade and level of understanding. Do 15 you guys want to -- 16 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey with the Corps. I'm 17 not sure exactly what your question is. There was 18 some sediment testing done in the Tier I of the -- 19 of the material in the channel that will be 20 dredged. That was done in Tier I. 21 The Corps has recently done an evaluation of 22 sediment within the disposal areas to see if that's 23 okay. 24 I think you've got some more testing to do in 25 Tier II of channel material of a couple of 36 1 2 locations. I'm not sure exactly what your question 3 is. 4 MS. McKEE: I think what I was focused on is 5 the radioactive waste. I don't know enough 6 scientifically to know how to phrase the question 7 properly, in terms of what's being tested, what's 8 present, what kinds of materials are there. 9 I think the answer I got back at the moment 10 was the tritium level wasn't being tested for. I 11 don't know what other radioactive material might be 12 present, as a result of us being down river from 13 SRS. 14 So I was wondering what, if any, radioactive 15 materials are tested, are being tested for, in this 16 dredge material that would be involved in this 17 project. 18 MR. BAILEY: I believe that is not something 19 we look at on a routine basis. I think -- I think 20 we have looked at it coming in at different 21 locations in the river, coming down the river from 22 SRS. 23 The regulatory agencies have decided that's 24 not something that we need to look at on a routine 25 basis in Savannah Harbor. 37 1 2 MS. McKEE: That's pretty much the answer I 3 got yesterday. That seems contradictory, in terms 4 of the evaluation of radioactive waste. It's not 5 been evaluated. Then it says whatever the Corps 6 regulations are. If you decide you don't need to 7 test, you don't test for it, basically? 8 MR. BAILEY: You have to go through that 9 process and look at it, look at the information 10 that's out there to see if you need to test. 11 MR. DYSART: Colonel Schmitt and Fred Beason. 12 COLONEL SCHMITT: We have testing protocols to 13 comply with clean water requirements for both the 14 State of South Carolina and the State of Georgia. 15 Again, we don't test specifically for radioactive 16 waste or any other type of radioactive -- 17 indication of radioactive waste in the river, 18 unless there is deemed a need to. 19 Right now there's never -- well, to date, 20 there's never been any identified need to test for 21 that. The last time we tested for all materials 22 was the last widening and deepening project in the 23 early 90's. Again, there was no reason to 24 follow-up on that. There's no threat of any type 25 of that material, other than what appears 38 1 2 naturally. 3 I guess I'm kind of confused as to the 4 question. Is it something we do routinely, no, the 5 answer is no. 6 MS. McKEE: I don't mean to be confused. I'm 7 confused and needed clarification on what's tested, 8 what kind of materials are you looking at, what 9 kind of screening is going on. It says there's 10 hazardous material evaluated. 11 When I asked that question, basically, the 12 answer was there's nothing. I wanted to be clear 13 on that. I think I've got what I need. Thank you. 14 MR. DYSART: Fred. Bo. 15 MR. BEASON: Bill, to help clarify, I think 16 her confusion may be when we were on the tour 17 yesterday looking at the disposal sites, Steve 18 Calvert (phonetic) was there. He was explaining 19 some of the background. 20 We got into a little bit of the big picture 21 with the LTMS and how all of this would work 22 together in the end, if it all falls as it's laid 23 out. 24 I think Steve interpreted the question to be, 25 what is a protocol for sediment testing for the 39 1 2 material in the confined disposal site? And 3 Steve's answer was there's really not a protocol 4 for testing for confined disposal material, but 5 based on what we have used as background test for 6 sediment in the channel for widening and deepening, 7 and pressing the results of the now completed or 8 nearly completed sediment testing in the CDS, he 9 found that the thresholds were not exceeded in the 10 CDS. 11 I think that was the question he was 12 answering, only in the CDS, not as background data 13 on natural environment above Savannah Harbor or 14 natural and/or added to material in the sediment 15 confines in the harbor itself. So he's got two 16 animals there he's playing with. 17 MR. DYSART: Bo, did you have a comment? 18 Judy Jennings. 19 MS. JENNINGS: I might make a point though, 20 that there is, and help me, there is testing for 21 radioactive material in the water. 22 If we're talking about the radionuclide with a 23 long life span, then we would find it in the water, 24 and naturally expect it to be in the sediment. 25 If we're talking about tritium, it could occur 40 1 2 in the water and not subsequently be found in the 3 disposal site because the half life is so short. 4 So I guess what I'm saying is, wouldn't it 5 depend on what you are looking for? It would have 6 to have been in the water at some point in time. 7 If it's an element with a very long life, you would 8 find it in the water, and naturally expect to find 9 it in any sediment from the river. 10 If you are talking about tritium, it might be 11 in the river for its very short half life, and 12 might be in the confined sediment for a very short 13 time, but it has a short half life. 14 I think you would have to be very specific 15 about the radionuclides you're looking for. It 16 would have to be found in the river to start with 17 -- am I right? That was my question, not a 18 statement. 19 MR. DYSART: Seeing no cards up, I will 20 presume that we're through with non-update from 21 Morgan. Thank you for the opportunity to have this 22 discussion, clarification on these items. Let me 23 ask people who have come in -- Colonel Schmitt. 24 COLONEL SCHMITT: Morgan, I just want to make 25 sure, are you going to talk later about the scoping 41 1 2 meeting, because I want to clarify just briefly 3 for the Corps' position the input that would come 4 from the scoping meeting, I think, to answer Ben's 5 question, unless we want to talk about that later? 6 MR. REES: Whenever. I guess I hadn't planned 7 to say anything. I thought we covered everything 8 now. 9 COLONEL SCHMITT: Ben brought up the public 10 input. To answer correctly, the Corps is 11 responsible for enforcing the NEPA process. This 12 scoping meeting, the information gathered from the 13 scoping meeting could be used as input to the 14 Corps' process, once we determine our position in 15 this, because we're somewhere between the Section 16 203 and 204. 17 We're trying to determine legally and 18 procedurally our position there, and we will do 19 that. But will there be a future scoping meeting, 20 that depends. 21 Under the NEPA process, under the legal 22 requirements, it depends. What I mean by that is 23 if we deem that the information we gather from both 24 the SEG and from the scoping meeting meet the 25 requirements for the NEPA process, then this will 42 1 2 not need a follow-up scoping meeting. 3 Frankly, under the NEPA process, there will be 4 the follow-up scoping meeting, formal meeting of 5 some sort to answer the question, yes. 6 The information would be considered in the 7 NEPA process, but that would go along with all the 8 rest of the information as Morgan described. 9 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. 10 COLONEL SCHMITT: I think that clarifies the 11 input. 12 MR. DYSART: Any further response or reaction? 13 Okay. I would like for people who have come in 14 since everybody introduced themselves to stand up 15 and say who you are. Neff, why don't you start? 16 MR. McINTOSH: Stand up? 17 MR. DYSART: Yes. 18 MR. McINTOSH: Neff McIntosh, Coastal 19 Environmental Organization. 20 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia Wildlife, 21 Resources Division. 22 MR. STAFFORD: John Stafford, Ogeechee Audobon 23 Society. 24 MR. RHETT: Bradford Rhett, Savannah State 25 University, Intern with the Georgia Conservancy. 43 1 2 MR. GALLOWAY: Glen Galloway with Galloway 3 & Associates. 4 MR. LOWERY: Steven Lowery with Middleton, 5 Mathis, Adams & Associates. 6 MR. MOORE: Charlie Moore, Environmental 7 Management Office, South Carolina DNR. 8 MR. DYSART: Is that it? Okay. Welcome. 9 The other item of proposed new business was any 10 further discussion that's needed about the 11 overview. 12 A couple of months ago before we got caught up 13 in the aquifer presentations, follow-up 14 discussions, so forth, Bill Bailey, as I recall, 15 presented on behalf of the all of the working 16 science committee chairs, kind of the assessment of 17 pulling together where the studies stood, how far 18 along things were, what was on the table, where the 19 holes were, kind of what was being done to address 20 that. 21 As I recall, over the last couple of months, 22 we've had a very busy full, sometimes very fast 23 moving, sometimes hectic schedule. And it was 24 suggested that we needed to make sure that 25 everybody on the SEG -- that there was closure on 44 1 2 that. 3 If there's nothing else to say, that's fine. 4 But I do want to make sure as facilitator that 5 everybody sitting around this table has an 6 opportunity to express their views and their 7 organization's views on significant matters. 8 I can't think of anything any more important 9 than the sort of thing that, I believe Bill was 10 referring to is, is the radar screen painted, have 11 the issues been identified, have the scientific 12 studies that need to be done been specified, are 13 they being specified now, and some people might be 14 interested in when will that be completed. 15 So that's the nature of this item. Is there 16 discussion? Is there anything else that needs to 17 be said by any member of the SEG, and by definition 18 anybody that walks through the door and says 19 they're an interested party are a member of the SEG 20 and have standing to speak? So is there anything 21 else that anybody wishes to say on this? Ben 22 Brewton. 23 MR. BREWTON: Just a couple of comments. I 24 think it was clear that some of the committees are 25 still going on. In fact, in the last couple of 45 1 2 months we formed a new committee to deal with 3 aquifer issues, so I think that list of studies and 4 issues to be addressed is very much a work in 5 progress. And at this time, it's not in a position 6 to be able to consider it to be complete. 7 There's an issue, I think, that was brought up 8 some months ago by Patty McIntosh and others that 9 when some of the primary committees get to the 10 point of specifying mitigation proposals, that 11 there may be secondary impacts from those 12 mitigation proposals that will have to be looked 13 at. I don't want us to forget that. 14 Secondly, something that I mentioned and sent 15 to Bill when the committee chairs met, and they 16 didn't think it was feasible to put in there, but I 17 do want to note for the record; I've had an ongoing 18 concern that I've mentioned several times that 19 these studies be very clear about the scope, the 20 boundaries, and the limitations of the study, such 21 that a study that is created, or developed, or 22 sanctioned to be used for one purpose is not later 23 misconstrued and being used for another purpose, or 24 another conclusion. 25 So whatever we can do along the way, as we 46 1 2 develop studies or clarify those underway, to 3 clearly note the boundaries, limitations, and scope 4 of work -- I just have an ongoing interest in 5 seeing that done. 6 MR. DYSART: Dave. 7 MR. KYLER: I meant to bring this up at some 8 point appropriate. I guess this is as good a place 9 as any. I noticed when the facilitator opened the 10 meeting, he described two basic areas of inquiry 11 that the SEG is meant to resolve. 12 One is the identification and evaluation of 13 impacts, and one is the identification and 14 feasibility of mitigation. 15 I think we should accept as a common kind of 16 mantra of explaining the purpose of this 17 organization also to include, continuing on with 18 Ben Brewton's comments prior to this, the 19 acceptability of only partially mitigating impacts, 20 or unmitigated impacts, or secondary impacts in 21 mitigation itself, which essentially becomes a risk 22 tolerance sort of evaluation as well. 23 MR. DYSART: Yes, sir. 24 MR. LIN: Excuse me. I'm speaking as the 25 general public, and I want to comment on this 47 1 2 paper, and just want to make sure I'm not wasting 3 your time. To say something about myself, I am a 4 geotechnical engineer, so I'm a registered 5 engineer. I have very little obligation to speak 6 to the public. 7 I know very little about what's going on, but 8 I read this paper and decided to come here to 9 speak with Dr. Rich about it. From a public 10 point of view, wow, this is alarming. A lot of 11 water is going to be seeping through the cracks 12 going to the source of water, but further 13 information, again, I'm a geotechnical engineer. 14 I work along the Savannah River sometimes, I 15 have seen at least 100 borings from Tybee Island to 16 upstream, so I know a lot about soil information. 17 I have a Master's Degree study on ground 18 water, use of subsidence, pumping ground water. I 19 have a Phd Degree, study on mining subsidence in 20 Virginia. 21 Can you allow me to go ahead, probably 5 22 minutes or 10 minutes? I got the general public 23 working impression, wow, this aquifer will be very 24 impacted by, and also was sort of disappointed 25 didn't see Corps of Engineers or GPA offer any 48 1 2 explanation why that study has not been done, but 3 when I look, I'm so interested in what Dr. Rich 4 said. I have not seen him yet -- where he is yet. 5 I would offer this suggestion. The miocene 6 along the Savannah River, this miocene at least, 7 especially in the Georgia Ports area, is at least 8 200 feet thick. 9 This material is very impervious. Right now 10 we're talking about 40 to 48 feet. That is 11 minimum compared to the overall thickness. Again, 12 the material itself is very impervious. There's 13 all kinds of activity, that if that layer can be 14 impacted already, for instance, the pile driver, a 15 lot of people go 60 feet or 70 feet, so I see that 16 dredging 8 feet will have virtually no impact. 17 To a point, there's no need to study it at 18 all. I do not see any negligence to the Corps of 19 Engineers, but again, I was sort of kind of 20 disappointed when nobody offered this explanation. 21 I saw it where Mr. Schaller say we're 22 going to study -- nobody say why going to 23 study. Again, from an engineer's standpoint, I do 24 not see a need to study. I would offer this 25 opinion to the public. 49 1 2 MR. DYSART: Last month this body established, 3 I believe, a committee dealing with the aquifer, 4 and Dr. Schuberth is the chairman of that 5 committee. And you might very well wish to plug in 6 and be involved with his committee. Colonel. 7 COLONEL SCHMITT: I would offer Dr. Lin, if 8 you would like to talk to the experts in the Corps, 9 we would certainly welcome your input. I think the 10 article in the paper this morning was rather 11 one-sided, did not present the facts. 12 There is much more to the story. And in fact, 13 Card Smith, who is a member of the Corps of 14 Engineers and the work that he has done also was 15 probably skewed by the paper, because it's 16 basically a difference of opinion in two scientific 17 analyzes. 18 The Corps -- we do recognize and did recognize 19 during last month meeting that it needs to be 20 looked at. I certainly agree with you, the 21 sensationism that was presented in the paper is 22 certainly far above and beyond what really exists 23 out there, and we can talk more about that, if you 24 would. 25 MR. LIN: That is exactly my point. Again, I 50 1 2 expressed about matters, when you look, we already 3 have enough information. If somebody gather 4 information, it should be very convincing to the 5 public, say this is not a issue. It is so minimal 6 an issue it's not worth spending too much money to 7 look at. 8 COLONEL SCHMITT: The issue is, the studies 9 are there. The information is there. It's been 10 studied for years. In fact, right now, the Corps 11 of Engineers in cooperation with South Carolina DNR 12 and USGS is looking at aquifer off the coast of 13 South Carolina, and evaluating even the impacts as 14 well from all aspects of the aquifer. 15 But again, the information is there, and as 16 you stated, it's about 40 foot. I could probably 17 pass to Bob a little bit further to give some 18 details geologically. In fact, it really is an 19 issue of evaluating the data that already exists, 20 and determine whether or not it is something that 21 will be impacted by a deepening. 22 In fact, it says eight foot. It's actually 23 six foot. That was an error in the paper. But we 24 would evaluate that from that standpoint. We would 25 welcome you to come over and talk to us about it. 51 1 2 Bob, if you want to talk further on that. 3 MR. O'KELLEY: Since you weren't here at the 4 previous meeting, we do have copies of the report 5 that was done -- I've got a copy here. I'd be more 6 than happy to give you a copy of that. 7 You asked why we hadn't responded. I think 8 the Colonel has probably responded to that. We 9 just don't think the appropriate place is in the 10 paper to respond back and forth. 11 The studies are -- there have been 12 recommendations. There will be additional work 13 done, if we're involved, and that's where we stand. 14 We do recognize the fact that there are some 15 concerns that have been expressed, and certainly 16 take those to heart, and we will consider those in 17 any additional work that we do. But you're more 18 than welcome to participate and be -- have access 19 to any of the information we do have. 20 COLONEL SCHMITT: I think what the public 21 fails to realize, there is this layer of very 22 impervious soil of what the dredgers call rubber 23 rock which pretty well seals the top of the aquifer 24 from the rest of the layers. That exists 25 underneath the harbor, as well as most everywhere 52 1 2 else in this region. 3 MR. LIN: Yes. 4 COLONEL SCHMITT: Again, Card -- there was a 5 quote in the paper that is in fact true. There 6 already is natural intrusion into the aquifer, but 7 that exists naturally throughout this region, as 8 you understand geologically, because the aquifer is 9 exactly that, it's a rock that allows the water to 10 permeate through. 11 It's not a flowing river, but it's the 12 limestone that's underneath the various layers. We 13 have the data to validate what's in the report. I 14 guess the report itself, there's a difference in 15 the opinion of the modeling that was the used. We 16 will clarify that as part of this process. Ben's 17 got his card up. 18 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 19 MR. BREWTON: Yeah. I'd like to supplement 20 those comments and discussion, just so I can be 21 clarified. You're Dr. Lin and you're with? 22 DR. LIN: I'm with the company of S & ME, but 23 we have no involvement. 24 MR. BREWTON: S & ME. I don't know, I'm 25 holding in my hand a report that was sent to 53 1 2 members of the Aquifer Committee that was going to 3 be discussed by the members of that committee on 4 the 21st of August at the next meeting. 5 I would reiterate Mr. Dysart's invitation to 6 you to come join with us at the committee. At the 7 first meeting, I see a report that's been passed 8 around in Chris Schuberth's absence, who is the 9 chairman, I think we had four Phd geologists 10 sitting on that committee. 11 And they explained quite a bit -- in quite a 12 bit of detail to those of who participated why 13 there is reason to be concerned. 14 One of the things that was just furnished to 15 us from a firm, HydroVision, Dr. Ram Arora, I think 16 formerly with Georgia State or Georgia Tech, and 17 also involved Rick Krause, former director of USGS 18 southeastern office, who did most of work in the 19 area of the aquifer is a critique of the original 20 study done by the Corps and GPA regarding the 21 aquifer. 22 To put it simply they said, we have reviewed 23 the report and concluded sufficient study has not 24 been done. 25 They speak to the issue of this very thick 54 1 2 confining layer of the river, which as you probably 3 know is much thinner at the entrance to the river 4 down by Tybee. That's where most of the concern 5 has been focused. 6 However, they explain a rationale whereby they 7 think the more severe problem could come up river, 8 despite the thickness of the confining layer 9 because of the cone of depression, and various 10 principles that they point out. They think there 11 is a more severe problem potential at that area. 12 They also criticize the study that was made as 13 being inadequate, and with insufficient data to 14 support the conclusions being made. I'm going to 15 bring you a copy of this over in a minute. You 16 might like to review this, and perhaps come to a 17 committee meeting and comment on that. 18 But the original report said the proposed 19 dredging will have no noticeable on the quality and 20 quantity of ground water of the Upper Floridan 21 Aquifer. These geologists' opinion is that 22 conclusion cannot made, based on the study data and 23 the study results. 24 At the last meeting, I think we spent several 25 hours with various professional geologists and 55 1 2 others explaining why they thought the methodology 3 of the study was not adequate to support the 4 conclusions made. 5 There's a whole list of things here. I'm not 6 a geologist. I'm just saying there's differing 7 opinions on this. One of the things this committee 8 is working to do is to try to sort out the work 9 that has already been done by the Corps, to sort 10 out some of the questions and concerns and 11 critiques that have submitted, and to recommend 12 back to the SEG what types of additional studies, 13 if any, may be needed to support a -- I guess a 14 clear conclusion about whether there is or is not a 15 potential problem. 16 This certainly gives me some concern, and it 17 is quite contrary to the report that was originally 18 published two years ago, and is somewhat 19 contradictory with the remarks that you just made. 20 And I would like to give you a copy of this, 21 and invite you to come to that August 21st meeting, 22 and share your viewpoint with those of us on the 23 committee who are trying to sort these things out. 24 MR. DYSART: We will be revisiting this topic 25 again, presumably, when the aquifer impacts 56 1 2 committee makes its report. Let's go with the 3 Aquifer Committee report. 4 MS. LEFFEK: I was going to make a comment. 5 Our court reporter probably needs a break. I know 6 I'd like a break. It's almost 10:30. Can we maybe 7 take a break, or finish the discussion we're 8 talking about which is the SEG identified issues, 9 and then we come back and maybe continue the 10 discussion with the aquifer? 11 MR. DYSART: I would suggest that we look back 12 at the issue that we were talking about here, and 13 is there any further discussion about? Stuart. 14 MR. STEVENS: Finish your sentence. 15 MR. DYSART: When Stuart is waving his card, 16 I'm supposed to recognize Stuart. 17 MR. STEVENS: I can see this coming to 18 closure. I just wanted to point out a concern 19 under this concept of further discussion, a concern 20 that I have had that's come up periodically. 21 This matrix Bill Farmer put together that has 22 30 or so different issue areas, committees across 23 the top of the matrix, I'm still concerned there's 24 an assumption that everything that's in that matrix 25 is being looked at somebody. 57 1 2 I don't believe that's necessarily true. And 3 we might need to take a look at that at some point, 4 and maybe in GPA's best interest, as well as all of 5 us really, and make sure everything in that matrix 6 is being considered by somebody. 7 It's been assigned to certain committees. I 8 don't believe personally all committees are really 9 looking at everything in that matrix. I think at 10 some point we need a reality check to make sure 11 we're getting everything in the matrix. 12 MR. DYSART: I think, Stuart, that is the 13 exact intent of this discussion item. We've had 14 some months ago the discussion about because 15 something got put on the list it can be decided, it 16 is no longer a priority issue, it does not need to 17 be studied, there needs to be some kind of 18 determination. 19 And so that is -- is the responsibility of 20 this body to decide whether it is making -- whether 21 it wants to make adequate progress on things that 22 are on the list. 23 I guess the question I hope to get some kind 24 of feedback from you on it, if you care to give it 25 as a body, does this body wish to set some kind of 58 1 2 a working date to have the studies specified, or do 3 you wish to keep it an open-ended work in progress? 4 I mean, that's not for me to determine. It's for 5 the body to determine. 6 MR. STEVENS: I might suggest that maybe since 7 we're going to take the month of August off, maybe 8 GPA could check with each committee chair and ask 9 them. 10 It's in the matrix. Every committee that is 11 looking at whatever the different issues are, ask 12 the committee chairs are they doing this or not. 13 If they are not, we need to revisit that at 14 the September meeting and find out who is going to 15 do those things so they don't slip through. 16 MR. DYSART: Presumably, if the committees are 17 not dealing with something over a period of months, 18 that says something. 19 MR. STEVENS: Yeah. 20 MR. DYSART: Okay. Morgan. 21 MR. REES: I just wanted to comment on Stuart 22 -- on that thought. The matrix was put together 23 under the guidance, if you will, of the Operating 24 Guidelines Committee. 25 And while we haven't got to that point in the 59 1 2 agenda yet, it was my intention, at the point in 3 the agenda when we got to the Operating Guidelines 4 Committee, to suggest that we have a meeting in 5 August. 6 We haven't met for a long time. There are a 7 few issues we have on the agenda. Taking Gwen up 8 on her suggestion, that when the SEG doesn't meet, 9 it's a good chance for the committees to meet. 10 Can I suggest the SEG ask the Operating 11 Guidelines Committee to review that matrix and see 12 what's in there, what isn't in there, and bring it 13 up to date? Will that work okay? 14 MR. DYSART: Looking around the table, I 15 detect a sense of the body that would be much 16 appreciated. We will look for forward to that at 17 the September meeting. The court reporter said she 18 wanted make sure about 10:30 she got her first 19 break. Is there anything that can be done in five 20 minutes? 21 MR. PARROTT: Dan Parrott, Corps of Engineers. 22 Before we move off the issue, I wanted to clarify 23 something. 24 I don't think people recognize that we did the 25 study under the request of GPA on the second 203 60 1 2 Feasibility Study. 3 At this point in time, the Corps of Engineers 4 is not funded for any additional studies, until the 5 GPA hires us or hires somebody else to look at the 6 issues. 7 The Corps of Engineers right now is status 8 quo. We can review this under our overview. We're 9 not refusing to move forward. We have no authority 10 to look into this issue further. 11 COLONEL SCHMITT: We have no congressional 12 authority to evaluate, other than our participation 13 in the overview and oversight role. 14 So the issue really will become as we either 15 transition into Section 204, the Corps' involvement 16 under the invite of GPA, whether or not we deem 17 this is something that needs to be studied further, 18 either something that would be separate and deemed 19 appropriate to study further under the 20 NEPA process. Again, that will be determined 21 through this SEG process, or through the committee. 22 MR. DYSART: Seeing no cards up, let's -- 23 MR. STEVENS: Tell us what 203 and 204 is. 24 COLONEL SCHMITT: Section 203 is basically the 25 -- under the Water Resource Development Act, that 61 1 2 was '86, yeah. Thanks. I know Morgan can talk 3 more about this as well. Section 203 is the 4 sponsor initiates the study and submits their 5 recommended report directly to the Secretary of the 6 Army, who in turn submits it for a Chief's Report, 7 and then to the Congress for approval of the 8 project. 9 Once the project is fully approved, this 10 project is not because its conditional based on the 11 completion of the Tier II EIS and the four 12 organizations that need approve it, we can talk 13 more about that -- I won't give you a lesson in 14 that -- then you can transition into 204, once 15 everything is approved. 16 That is when then the sponsor funds it and 17 it goes back to Congress for the cautionary and 18 repayment. That is "the fast track". 19 The other is through the traditional Corps of 20 Engineers study process, recon feasibility report, 21 and then going through a normal study process. 22 But that is under, again congressionally 23 authorized direction. I have no authority to do 24 any of that without the dollars from Congress 25 telling me to do so, or the customer, in this case 62 1 2 the partner that we would be with GPA in doing this 3 project under relationship with Georgia Ports 4 Authority. Is that the short answer? 5 MR. REES: Uh-huh. 6 MR. DYSART: Let's take a 10 minutes break and 7 then we will resume old business. 8 (Short Break) 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. If you'll have a seat, 10 we'll move on ahead. Okay. It's 10:42 a.m. and 11 I'll call the meeting of the Stakeholders 12 Evaluation Group back to order. The first item, 13 Patty McIntosh has a question. Patty. 14 MS. McINTOSH: Well, my question is for 15 Colonel Schmitt. 16 MR. DYSART: Colonel Schmitt is listening to 17 you. 18 MS. McINTOSH: Are you? 19 MR. DYSART: He sure is. 20 MS. McINTOSH: If I could ask Colonel Schmitt, 21 you were talking about 203 and 204. You gave some 22 explanation of that. But can you talk about how, 23 you know, when you get from one to the other, 24 who decides that; when it is decided, is that the 25 Corps, GPA, is it a higher level, do you 63 1 2 announce it, or what happens exactly? 3 MR. SMITH: Good question. In this process, 4 and I'm going to -- where did Dan go -- he left 5 here as well. I know Morgan can cover this. The 6 real issue is the transition from a 203 to 204, 7 once the project is approved. 8 This project has been approved by Congress, 9 but it's been approved conditionally, meaning that 10 the four agencies; Interior, Army, Congress and EPA 11 have to approve the project, and that encompasses 12 the final Tier II study which is to comply with the 13 NEPA process. 14 Once that is all done, then you legally 15 transfer into a Section 204. So, in this process, 16 this project is unique. There's only been one 17 other project done under a Section 203 process. 18 MS. McINTOSH: Who makes that determination of 19 when it moves, how is it done? 20 MR. SMITH: Go ahead Dan. 21 MR. PARROTT: The 203 process started with the 22 signing of the MOA back in April of '97. My 23 understanding is headquarters came up with the 24 policy that said any effort done toward the Tier I 25 EIS -- 64 1 2 MS. McKEE: I'd like you to repeat that. I 3 didn't hear. 4 MR. PARROTT: We signed the MOA with Georgia 5 Ports Authority, April, '97. That began the 6 capturing of the 203 expenditures, the 203 process. 7 COLONEL SCHMITT: That's the study process. 8 MR. PARROTT: To cover the feasibility study, 9 203 says if the project is proposed and ASAC does 10 it, civil works, aid to navigation project it has 11 to submit a report to Congress for approval. 12 That report -- Larry, when was the first draft 13 sent out -- April of 1998, August, 1998, the 14 submittal of the Tier I EIS BR 2 ASAC W. 15 MR. KEEGAN: August. 16 MR. PARROTT: From August of '98 until June of 17 '99, the GPA was working with ASA responding to 18 comments, preparing supplemental information. My 19 understanding is, the 203 process, while GPA was 20 responding to those comments is part of the 203 21 completion of feasibility study. 22 COLONEL SCHMITT: Once Congress authorized the 23 project, in essence, we're kind of in limbo because 24 the trigger is the congressional authorization, and 25 the authorization and final Chief's Report, which 65 1 2 is part of the process. 3 We do not have a final Chief's Report, meaning 4 Chief of Engineers and we will not until we 5 complete the Tier II EIS. And this is, again, a 6 unique project because the language in the 7 authorization requires the four agencies to also 8 concur -- first time that it's ever happened. 9 MS. McINTOSH: Once that occurs -- 10 COLONEL SCHMITT: Once all that occurs, we 11 would officially transition to a 204, Section 204, 12 which is the local sponsor builds it with their 13 dollars and then seeks reimbursement under cost 14 sharing agreement through Congress, or they can 15 choose not to do that and seek approval and 16 appropriations and the Corps do it. 17 MS. McINTOSH: They being GPA? 18 COLONEL SCHMITT: Yes. 19 MS. McINTOSH: Then is there a public process 20 that goes along with that? 21 COLONEL SCHMITT: The public process is 22 involved in the completion right now of the Tier II 23 EIS. That's the public process. 24 It will be determined at that time, in a 25 final environmental impact statement, which will 66 1 2 come across my desk whether or not it is signed, 3 and forwarded up through what we my division 4 commander, and up through the Chief of Engineers 5 for approval. 6 So the process, the public input, is right now 7 during the completion of the Tier II EIS, and right 8 now through the SEG. But once that's all done, if 9 it is deemed that the project should be 10 constructed -- 11 MS. McINTOSH: Deemed by the Chief of 12 Engineers -- whom? 13 COLONEL SCHMITT: The four agencies involved; 14 Army, Commerce, Interior, and EPA all agree and 15 everyone concurs that identifies all the impacts, 16 the mitigation, and weigh the risks associated with 17 benefits, that's above -- used the term above my 18 pay grade -- then the project will -- is fully 19 authorized. 20 MS. McINTOSH: By? 21 COLONEL SCHMITT: By Congress under the 22 current language. 23 MS. McINTOSH: Then it automatically jumps to 24 204? 25 COLONEL SCHMITT: That's GPA's choice. They 67 1 2 would either proceed with the project funded by GPA 3 under Section 204, or say we would now turn it back 4 over and ask for Congress to appropriate dollars to 5 construct the project. 6 Then it would be constructed under normal 7 project harbor deepening through congressional 8 appropriations. So it's authorization and 9 appropriated dollars to construct the project. The 10 trigger really is the ultimate issue are the four 11 agencies approving the project. 12 MS. McINTOSH: Does GPA have an idea how -- 13 which -- 14 MR. SCHALLER: No. 15 MS. McINTOSH: -- avenue you choose? 16 MR. SCHALLER: No. We're evaluating all of 17 them. 18 COLONEL SCHMITT: Is that complicated enough? 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. Is there any further 20 discussion about -- Neff? 21 MR. McINTOSH: Thank you. I simply wanted to 22 respond to, is it Dr. Lin -- 23 DR. LIN: Yes. 24 MR. McINTOSH: -- Dr. Lin's earlier comments. 25 I think they should be challenged to the extent he 68 1 2 used the word alarm. I don't think this is an 3 alarming article at all. This is the same article 4 you held up in The News Press. 5 I think it expresses a difference of opinion 6 about the collected data to date, and the new 7 evidence, the fissures, if in fact they are 8 transporting saltwater at any rate, if they are 9 impacted by the deepening, could transport 10 saltwater at a higher rate. 11 It's simply a function of new information 12 begging questions of the old data, and perhaps 13 recommending further studies. We read the article 14 twice since you spoke earlier, and didn't find it 15 alarming at all. 16 It raises a good question. We've talked about 17 it at length in these meeting, the HydroVision 18 report that Ben Brewton mentioned indicates there 19 were several defects in the prior studies that will 20 also give light to and cause for additional 21 studies. 22 DR. LIN: Well, I'm not good at speaking 23 publicly. Apparently I have so accent a lot of 24 people have difficulty understanding me. Again, 25 what I'm come here -- I don't know this group, 69 1 2 actually I hardly know anybody here. 3 What I tried to was offer opinion here. 4 Again, the soil you have the miocene here locally 5 and the depths changing along the river, and 6 considerable deeper on Tybee Island and 7 considerably shallower in Georgia Ports Garden City 8 terminal, and Garden City terminal area also all 9 upstream, basically all the navigation channel, the 10 marl in that area, I'm talking marl there is at 11 least 200 feet thick. We did a lot of boring. We 12 did boring. We just very recently we were boring 13 at 150. 14 It's very uniform there. But cutting 6 feet, 15 or 8 feet, or even 10 feet on the top of the layer, 16 it is insignificant in terms of potential. You 17 used the word could. Oh, it's true, at least very, 18 very unlikely, or hardly unlikely, and I do not 19 object to further study. 20 I think before any further study, you need to 21 look at what is the existing data to see what kind 22 of study is needed. 23 MR. McINTOSH: I think the HydroVision report 24 and the article here spell out what additional 25 studies might be undertaken, or at least suggest 70 1 2 they should be undertaken, given the new evidence 3 of fissures. 4 Are you aware of the fissures? Did the 5 fissure show up in the borings you've taken for 6 Citgo or the other places? 7 DR. LIN: No, no. I have no problem with 8 this. This is generic information presented in the 9 article here, and they talk about the miocene is 10 going up exposed in Statesboro and also the miocene 11 was exposed in Sapelo. 12 And again, what I'm talking about is along 13 the regular channel, the proposed, and the soil 14 formation by the dredging eight feet -- again, I'm 15 not very detailed. I can tell you like Citgo is 16 like 25 feet, and going upstream more it's like 35 17 feet, and you've got 60 feet -- Tybee Island more 18 than 60 feet of soil. And I can envision with the 19 dredging is really not much chance for increase for 20 the water going down. Again, my opinion. 21 MR. McINTOSH: That would be your opinion, 22 exactly right. 23 MR. DYSART: Let me suggest that Dr. Lin has 24 expressed his views. Neff and others have 25 expressed views countering Dr. Lin's views. 71 1 2 Dr. Lin has been invited to come to the 3 Aquifer Committee, and the discussion can continue 4 there. I would personally say that I am delighted 5 to see Dr. Lin here as a representative of the 6 public. 7 It is always nice when there is plain, old 8 representatives from the public of which there are 9 many sitting around here, who come in. 10 And being a silver-throated public speaker is 11 not necessary criteria for bringing value to this 12 body. And I speak -- I say that to everybody 13 around the table. 14 And so we always are happy to hear views. We 15 are also happy to hear spirited discussion of 16 thoughtful, different views put on the table here, 17 and presumably at the committee meetings as well. 18 I think it is unlikely there's going to be a 19 settling an opinion about who is right and whose 20 models are correct, so forth, here. Neff McIntosh. 21 MR. McINTOSH: That wasn't my point. My point 22 was to enter into the record a counter to the alarm 23 word. I wanted the record to show, at least, in my 24 opinion the newspaper article, not the science, I'm 25 not a scientist by any stretch. I put potatoes on 72 1 2 ships. 3 The discussion had a month ago, the discussion 4 today, the HydroVision report, the article in the 5 local News Press, I thought were all informational, 6 functional, useful, and not alarming. 7 His comments were on the record. I thought 8 it was appropriate someone else in the group didn't 9 think it was alarming -- thought it was a great 10 article actually. 11 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 12 MR. BREWTON: One thing I think we have to 13 keep in mind, I want to remind us collectively, 14 before I do that, I want to comment to Dr. Lin, 15 you were commenting about the thickness up river. 16 The channel is going all the way out. 17 DR. LIN: Yes, and changing. 18 MR. BREWTON: When we have differing opinions 19 about something of such import to the area as the 20 aquifer, I think it is incumbent upon this group to 21 try to filter through that, to try to decide if 22 additional studies are needed, and look at that 23 on the basis not just what is the probability of a 24 problem or an accident, but what are the 25 implications if there are one. 73 1 2 Even if the probability, in your opinion, may 3 be very small that there would be a problem, what 4 would the implications be to our community of the 5 contamination of the aquifer, opening some gap in 6 the aquifer or fissures. 7 So when we have something that could have such 8 devastating consequences, the degree of certainty 9 we must have needs to be a lot higher. I think 10 that's what you are seeing here. I also very much 11 appreciate the article and coverage. I'll just 12 note for you Dr. Rich just walked in. You'll have 13 a chance to talk with him perhaps. 14 MR. DYSART: I see Teri Leffek's card up and 15 David Schaller card up. 16 MS. LEFFEK: I was going to ask we complete 17 the discussion we originally started. This item 18 we're covering is about the SEG identifying issues. 19 MR. McINTOSH: Can't hear you, Teri. 20 MR. DYSART: Repeat it, Teri, what you just 21 said. 22 MS. LEFFEK: I was asking if we had finished 23 the item we started on the agenda, which is the SEG 24 identified issues, if we finished with that? 25 MR. DYSART: Patty asked the same question 74 1 2 when we started resuming, and I told her I was not 3 sure whether we were on that or halfway through the 4 Aquifer Committee report. So I would -- that is a 5 good question. 6 MS. LEFFEK: Just trying to be procedurally 7 orientated. 8 MR. DYSART: David. 9 MR. SCHALLER: I would just like to state for 10 the record that there will be no devastating 11 consequence on the aquifer associated with the 12 project. 13 The state DNR has veto authority, if there are 14 water quality issues to be concerned about. The 15 Georgia Ports Authority won't sponsor and won't 16 propose a project that would have a devastating 17 consequence with respect to the aquifer. 18 It's not going to happen. 19 MR. DYSART: Colonel Schmitt. 20 COLONEL SCHMITT: I follow on Mr. Schaller's 21 comment that from the federal perspective, and my 22 responsibility, naturally my successor when that 23 occurs as well, the responsibility that we have to 24 uphold the NEPA process, in partnership with the 25 other agencies, that will all be taken into 75 1 2 consideration and an evaluation made. 3 So it's exactly right. It's not -- this 4 project will not continue, and I get somewhat 5 irritated at the implications of devastating 6 impacts when, in fact, the probabilities are so 7 low. 8 And the alarming -- the words that are used in 9 this aspect, as far as to alarm the public when, in 10 fact, there's no science to prove otherwise or to 11 prove such. 12 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 13 MR. BREWTON: Well, I want to ask Dave 14 Schaller a question, but I would say in follow-up 15 to what I just heard, I have to go back to those 16 words we heard from Dr. Rich last month, that the 17 absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 18 But the question, Dave, I would ask you is 19 when you say the project will not impact the 20 aquifer, are you saying that you know the project 21 will not impact the aquifer, or are you saying if 22 the studies show that there would be impact to 23 aquifer, the project will not be built? 24 MR. SCHALLER: I said what I said and that is, 25 if there is any devastating consequence for the 76 1 2 aquifer, the project will not happen. That's what 3 I said. 4 MR. DYSART: Neff McIntosh and then Teri. 5 MR. McINTOSH: Not to belabor the point not 6 to be confrontational, but I would take issue with 7 the Corps of Engineer Commander's comments. I 8 didn't have an aunt and I didn't have a cousin who 9 lived outside the levies, who were told by the COE 10 the water would never come over the levies either. 11 That water dried out. If we somehow by 12 accident, or lack of scientific study, or simple 13 mistakes -- they have been made before -- if we 14 are that levy, then Coastal Georgia is confronted 15 with a massive problem if we somehow contaminated 16 the aquifer by mistake. 17 It's happened before, Colonel. I suppose it 18 will happen again. This group can compel and 19 should carry out studies to insure, in fact, it 20 doesn't happen again because it won't dry out. 21 COLONEL SCHMITT: And the Corps recognizes 22 that as we did during the last SEG that, in fact, 23 this issue will be studied and evaluated. That's 24 the purpose of the Aquifer Committee. 25 I have not -- I do not argue the point, and 77 1 2 clearly stated for the record last time and I'll 3 state it for the record again this time, we 4 recognize that there is a concern, and the concerns 5 will be evaluated. I don't know what else you're 6 looking for from the Corps. 7 MR. DYSART: Teri and Stuart. 8 MS. LEFFEK: I was going to comment again, we 9 have not answered what I asked mentioned a second 10 ago. I mean, I appreciate the discussion. 11 Have we dealt with this item, and can we move 12 on with the agenda? We're rehashing and not moving 13 forward. 14 MR. DYSART: Is there anything further to add 15 on the item about progress reported, and the list, 16 and so forth. Sometime ago it was stated that the 17 Operating Guidelines Committee would meet in August 18 and bring back something in September. 19 I think that's where that got to, and since 20 then we've been going back to various other topics. 21 I will declare that agenda item is through. The 22 next item on the agenda is the status of the MTRG 23 data collection report. 24 MR. BREWTON: You still have a card up. 25 MR. DYSART: Excuse me, Stuart, I'm sorry. 78 1 2 MR. STEVENS: That's okay. Go ahead. 3 MR. DYSART: Would you like to say something? 4 I apologize. MTRG data collection report. Bo 5 Ellis requested some months ago by Ben Brewton. 6 MR. ELLIS: We dealt with it last month. I'm 7 not exactly sure what the request is. 8 MR. BREWTON: Bo, you're going to have excuse 9 me for being a little frustrated with you saying we 10 dealt with it last month. At the end of the 11 meeting last month, Morgan came up to me and said, 12 I'm sorry we didn't have time to get to this, but 13 this is what we were going to say, had we gotten to 14 it. 15 When I first brought up this question several 16 months ago, I think I had to repeat about two or 17 three times what the question was, and you told me 18 you were going to get back to it later. 19 So I don't know how to tell you anymore what 20 the question is, other than go back and read the 21 transcripts of the last four or five months when 22 I've brought this up every month. 23 MR. ELLIS: Do you want to know a schedule? 24 MR. REES: Ben, excuse me. I've got my card 25 up. I think, Ben, I understand your question. We 79 1 2 did have a sidebar conversation last month. Let me 3 take a crack at providing what I think the 4 information is that you are looking for. Okay. 5 There is a data report. It's been drafted and 6 distributed to the MTRG. I think you got a copy, 7 did you not? 8 MR. BREWTON: Yes. I got a copy on Friday. 9 MR. REES: Okay. Written comments to be 10 submitted, I thought by July 15th. 11 MR. ELLIS: Correct. 12 MR. REES: That's four days from now. One 13 might ask for an extension of time, and I would 14 think it would not be inappropriate, given we have 15 only four days. 16 The written comments would be reviewed by the 17 end of August by the MTRG, and a final report 18 developed and then submitted to the SEG. That's 19 what I understand. Is that -- 20 MR. BREWTON: That's basically what we've been 21 asking, yes. 22 MR. REES: Okay. 23 MR. BREWTON: A couple of follow-ups on that. 24 I think this is probably a good time to bring up 25 this subject. And I wish Chris Schuberth were here 80 1 2 today, he's brought up this subject numerous times. 3 I think the differing opinions we've heard, 4 for instance, on the aquifer report over the last 5 couple of months from Dr. Rich, Dr. Henry, Rick 6 Krause, Dr. Lin today, and so forth, point to 7 perhaps the need for some more involved peer review 8 from unbiased, uninvolved, disinterested, qualified 9 parties. 10 That's been brought up several times, and I 11 don't think has been really addressed. The studies 12 and so forth that have been recommended by the SEG, 13 they all go to GPA as recommendations. And then 14 GPA funds them, contracts them, and so forth, and 15 basically all parties doing the studies are 16 reporting and under contract to GPA. 17 I think Professor Schuberth has brought up 18 several times, as have others, that on some of 19 these things we probably need a true peer review 20 effort by -- in a formal -- in a formal manner. 21 Certainly, it seems like that the modeling and 22 data collection efforts might be one of those 23 things, since that will be the fundamental 24 calculations and so forth that are being used to 25 predict all the environmental impact, which every 81 1 2 committee, every agency, so forth will be making 3 their evaluations. 4 I guess what I would like to introduce, and 5 I'm not asking for a response today, I would like 6 to ask GPA to think about providing funding for 7 peer review of a group of experts to be selected by 8 the SEG, or contracted by the SEG, rather than GPA 9 to do this, and perhaps at the next meeting, the 10 GPA could -- could give us their thoughts on that. 11 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 12 MR. STEVENS: Along those lines, I think to 13 some extent we do have a peer review that's ongoing 14 in the MTRG. Certainly, from our perspective, I 15 think the two best experts we deal with are 16 Dr. Blanton and Dr. Simon. 17 They are involved in the process. I got an 18 e-mail from Jack Blanton this last week, he says 19 the modelers are ready to dive into the detail 20 of assessment of model performance. 21 We need to provide moral support and give them 22 the opportunity to do a careful job, and one not 23 pressured by unrealistic deadlines. 24 I think Jack Blanton is very comfortable with 25 the modeling process. That makes me comfortable. 82 1 2 He's the guy I'm going to depend on. 3 I'm not suggesting there may not be a need for 4 an outside peer review process, but I'm real 5 pleased with what I'm hearing of the modeling 6 process thus far. 7 MR. BREWTON: So you're suggesting the 8 determination of need of that might be better 9 decided at a later point? 10 MR. STEVENS: Right. 11 MR. DYSART: Judy. 12 MR. BREWTON: If those guys feel like we're 13 not to that point, I can certainly defer my request 14 to a future time. 15 MR. STEVENS: One part of that comment I want 16 to make sure the SEG hears again is we need to be 17 careful we don't impose some unrealistic deadlines 18 on these guys. 19 Their job is critical to everything we're 20 going to do in this process. We need to let them 21 do the job and produce that best model to do the 22 job, whatever they need to do, before we start 23 using that model to make decisions. 24 MR. DYSART: Judy. 25 MS. JENNINGS: First, I appreciate all of 83 1 2 Stuart's comments. Bo, has the MTRG met since it 3 met in Savannah? 4 MR. ELLIS: Yes. 5 MS. JENNINGS: Did it meet in Atlanta? 6 MR. ELLIS: Yes, June 22nd. I have a status 7 report. 8 MS. JENNINGS: Did you have essentially the 9 same attendees you had in Savannah? 10 MR. ELLIS: Essentially. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Were there any NGO or 12 non-technical people at the meeting in Atlanta? 13 MR. KEEGAN: I was there. I consider myself 14 non-technical. 15 MS. JENNINGS: I don't remember if you were at 16 the meeting in Savannah -- 17 MR. KEEGAN: No. 18 MS. JENNINGS: To my knowledge, I was the only 19 NGO, non-technical person at the meeting in 20 Savannah. I've asked repeatedly more meetings be 21 scheduled in Savannah. I appreciate that 22 happening, but I will point out, for the record, 23 that to my knowledge, I was the only non-technical 24 person that sat through the majority of the 25 meeting. 84 1 2 With that having been said, I'll go back to 3 Stuart's comments, while I don't understand 4 everything you guys talk about, I find a 5 willingness to explain it to me. 6 I see a state-of-the-art work developing. 7 Now, as far as peer review, a suggestion that GPA 8 fund peer review, I find that totally and 9 completely unacceptable. I mean, that totally, 10 totally negates the point of peer review. 11 If you are questioning the first piece of work 12 because GPA is paying for it, how can we sanction a 13 peer review that GPA pays for? 14 So I expect complete and thorough peer review 15 by every interested person. I would rather see it 16 be part of the process now. 17 By no means do I want to GPA to pay for peer 18 review. Peers should be at the table now. That's 19 what I see happening. 20 I'd like to see other interested parties 21 at the MTRG meetings. I'll again ask that as many 22 as possible be scheduled in Savannah. Maybe more 23 than I will find the time and willingness to 24 attend. 25 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 85 1 2 MR. REES: I had mentioned earlier, with 3 regard to the matrix, the meeting in August of the 4 Operating Guidelines Committee. And I was actually 5 going to bring this up at that appropriate time in 6 the agenda. It has come up in advance of that. It 7 was my intention to recommend to the SEG that the 8 SEG ask the Operating Guidelines Committee to look 9 at the issue of peer review. 10 I've exchanged e-mail messages and a couple of 11 private conversations with Chris Schuberth on this 12 point, particularly. 13 That's where we ended up between Chris and me, 14 that it would make sense to have Operating -- I 15 don't want to characterize Chris' position -- my 16 understanding of his position, as a result of some 17 exchanges I had with him, it would make sense to 18 have the operating guidelines look at the issue of 19 peer review in general terms. 20 I understand the amount of peer review and 21 type, who does it, so forth and so on, is probably 22 going to be different for each individual study. 23 We need to look at it as a generic issue, and 24 then, you know, decide as a group what we mean by 25 peer review, in the first place, and what 86 1 2 constitutes peer review. 3 We got to that point because it seemed like 4 different people had different ideas of what peer 5 review meant. And some people were not aware of, 6 for example, all the review that's already built 7 into the process. 8 And so if we just went through some committee 9 level activity, and laid out what kind of review is 10 already designed into the process, and then see 11 what additional review, if any, might be 12 appropriate. So I'd like to suggest that we ask 13 the Operating Guidelines Committee to do that kind 14 of thing. 15 MR. DYSART: Bill Bailey. 16 MR. BAILEY: The Corps is participating in 17 most every committee. I think we see our 18 participation on those committees as a form of peer 19 review. On the MTRG, we have brought in an expert 20 from our research facility in Mississippi to sit 21 there and review the work that is proposed, to 22 review the model. 23 Fish and Wildlife Service has brought in 24 someone from USGS to be their technical expert to 25 provide -- to review the work of the MTRG, provide 87 1 2 comments, suggestions. 3 As Stuart said, Skidaway Institute has been 4 brought in to be Stuart's expert. I think peer 5 review is going on now. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Ben Brewton's card is up. 7 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. I've had a lot of 8 conversations with Chris and others about this too, 9 Morgan, and I appreciate the fact you've been 10 corresponding with him. Your acknowledgement is 11 something we do need to look and decide if and when 12 it is needed. 13 I'd like to clarify a couple of things, based 14 on conversations with Chris and some of the other 15 academic folks that have been involved. 16 When they speak of peer review, there's a very 17 formal and pretty clear process. Judy, to address 18 your remarks, it involves more than just showing up 19 at a meeting from time to time. And there are a 20 number of others of us with NGO's. 21 I know Coastal Environmental Organization and 22 Georgia Conservancy and others who have attended 23 a number of MTRG meetings, or sent representatives, 24 perhaps you yourself didn't attend, so you weren't 25 aware we were there. 88 1 2 We, like you, and others try to attend 3 meetings as much as possible. However, what 4 I've been told by the experts in the field is that 5 that is a very, very specialized subspecialty. 6 The fact someone is an engineer, scientist, or 7 even a Phd scientist does not necessarily qualify 8 them to be an expert and review on all aspects of 9 modeling. 10 Whether that's needed or not, I can certainly 11 wait for us all to make joint determination, as 12 Stuart says, as some of the people working with Bo 13 give the comments back to us, and they work with 14 that. 15 However, I think, in the scenario I proposed, 16 which I would like us to start thinking about, the 17 fact that GPA might provide the funding is quite 18 different from GPA contracting directly for the 19 work. There's a big difference in what I was 20 suggesting and what you interpreted there. 21 And that's something we can address, you know, 22 at the appropriate time. And -- but I do think you 23 somewhat misconstrued my remarks. I wanted to 24 correct or clarify those for the record. Thank 25 you. 89 1 2 MR. DYSART: Patty McIntosh. 3 MS. McINTOSH: I wanted to ask for 4 clarification whether scientific studies, or any 5 aspects of certain studies that are going on 6 outside of the modeling process -- that aren't 7 model driven? 8 In other words, does the MTRG have -- is the 9 MTRG looking over all the studies that are going 10 on? 11 It seems like some studies really don't need a 12 model, or may be done outside some assessment of 13 modeling results, may be done outside the modeling 14 process; therefore, the MTRG really doesn't look at 15 those? It's a question. 16 MR. DYSART: Is that a question that's clear 17 to you, Bo? 18 MR. ELLIS: The MTRG is not looking at all 19 studies. They are looking at the model that's 20 being developed. 21 That really is their emphasis. Model 22 development and acceptance of the tool, but they 23 are not looking at every study that the SEG is. 24 MS. McINTOSH: In terms of peer review, the 25 discussion so far sounded like the peers are on 90 1 2 the MTRG. Some of the studies are being done 3 outside that process. 4 I would assume there's, you know, a team of 5 peer reviewers looking at the other studies, other 6 than those of us in this room, is that correct? 7 MR. ELLIS: I can't comment on anything done 8 outside the MTRG. 9 MR. BAILEY: We, in our participation on the 10 Beach Erosion Committee, we have our engineers that 11 are -- that do that for a living, that do -- 12 evaluate beaches and sand movement. 13 They participate on that committee, and as a 14 peer in our perspective, as a peer reviewer, 15 participate equally in looking at those studies. 16 MS. McINTOSH: Okay. That answers it. 17 MR. DYSART: David Kyler and David Schaller. 18 MR. KYLER: Quick comment on an article I 19 would recommend, anybody interested in the 20 application of peer review in public 21 decision-making process. I believe it's the 22 current issue of Science Technology Review. 23 There's an article on that very subject. As I 24 recall, to what extent I retained it, it makes 25 a clear distinction between peer review and in the 91 1 2 scientific sense in the usual way, and an attempt 3 to translate that peer review methodology into 4 public decision-making. I think that would be 5 worth it to anyone who is interested in looking 6 into it. 7 MR. DYSART: David Schaller. 8 MR. SCHALLER: I think I'll pass for a moment. 9 Thank you. 10 MR. DYSART: Teri Leffek. 11 MS. LEFFEK: I think we have something sitting 12 on the table. Morgan suggested the SEG consider 13 whether or not the issue of peer review be looked 14 at by Operating Guidelines. 15 We got sidetracked. Is that something we will 16 deal with now, or do you want to defer that until 17 the operating Guidelines Committee report? 18 MR. DYSART: First shall be last, last shall 19 be first and -- 20 MS. LEFFEK: I don't want it to be glossed 21 over and not dealt with. 22 MR. DYSART: What would you like, Ben? 23 MR. BREWTON: I would certainly concur with 24 Morgan and Chris' discussion to look at that, 25 perhaps do some research, communicate with Bo and 92 1 2 the others to try to determine when and if that's 3 needed. I think that's a good solution. I would 4 recommend the group endorse that. 5 MR. DYSART: I think there's general support 6 for that around the table, and we can move on. 7 Thank you. Okay. Now, we've gotten to committee 8 reports. 9 Aquifer impacts, Chris could not be here this 10 month. He has -- he has provided a copy of the 11 minutes of the committee meeting that has been 12 passed around for your information. 13 I presume they have been posted. So we've had 14 a good bit of discussion already about the Aquifer 15 Committee, and related matters, and so forth. Is 16 there -- did Chris designate any particular member 17 of the committee to summarize this, or bring any 18 particular views to the body today? 19 MR. BREWTON: He did not. I would suggest, 20 Ben that -- two things. One I'd like to call 21 attention. I think the most significant thing that 22 happened at the meeting is the group did decide to 23 invite John Clark and Rick Krause, who had worked 24 for years with USGS on this issue, to come to the 25 next meeting to clarify and give us some of their 93 1 2 viewpoints about some of these issues. 3 The other thing I'd like to say, Dr. Rich gave 4 a large part of the presentation at this previous 5 meeting. I don't know if he might have any 6 comments that summarize the meeting beyond what's 7 in this, or any points he'd like to emphasize. 8 MR. DYSART: Do you have any summary 9 comments that are not covered in here, sir? 10 DR. RICH: The only thing I think that's 11 worthy of bringing to the attention of the people, 12 the members of the committee, I think, all received 13 a copy of the letter from Dr. Arora. 14 Fred Rich, Georgia Southern University. I'm 15 sorry. The Potential Ground Water Impacts - 16 Savannah Harbor Expansion Feasibility Study. Ram 17 took a look at that report and provided a rather 18 critical analysis of that report. 19 It's been made available by Harry Jue's 20 office, I believe, to the members of the committee. 21 I don't know to what extent this report has been 22 distributed. I think everyone should be aware of 23 Dr. Arora. 24 DR. RICH: This is a letter written by 25 Dr. Arora, one of the principles in HydroVision who 94 1 2 is working with Rick Krause. 3 MR. DYSART: Are these attachments to the 4 report or these are things you wish to hand out? 5 MR. RICH: I have but one copy. These were 6 sent to the committee members yesterday by e-mail. 7 This is something very new. This is a report 8 Mr. Jue said he would provide the Aquifer Committee 9 members. He made good on that. Now we have copies 10 of it. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. Bill Bailey you have a 12 comment. Bill Bailey has his card up. 13 MR. BAILEY: In reading this committee meeting 14 report, I just noticed in the middle of the page 15 there are the couple bullets. It's the first two 16 purposes, to establish what impact -- whatever the 17 next one is develop a scope of work -- I think 18 that's a difference from other committees, and 19 other committees who are determining the studies 20 needed to determine an impact. This committee 21 seems to be doing something more. 22 MR. DYSART: Going beyond specifying the scope 23 of the proposed studies? 24 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 25 MR. DYSART: So you're saying that implies the 95 1 2 committee is going to be doing that in this wording 3 here? 4 MR. BAILEY: I guess. 5 MR. DYSART: Does anybody on the committee 6 have a comment on that? 7 MS. McINTOSH: I'm not sure I understood the 8 question. 9 MR. DYSART: Would you repeat it so Patty can 10 hear? 11 MR. BAILEY: My question is, is the committee 12 going to determine the impacts, or is the committee 13 just defining the studies that are needed to reach 14 a conclusion? 15 MR. BREWTON: Talking about the aquifer? 16 MR. DYSART: Yes. 17 MR. BREWTON: I was talking to Doug on the 18 side. My understanding is the committee is going 19 to determine what types of studies and additional 20 evaluations are necessary to determine the impacts. 21 MR. BAILEY: Okay. 22 MR. BREWTON: But that's just my impression. 23 Now, I'm not speaking for Chris or the committee. 24 MR. BAILEY: You're listed as attending? 25 MR. BREWTON: Yes. 96 1 2 MR. BAILEY: What was your -- 3 MR. BREWTON: That's what I was saying. My 4 impression is just what I said, that we're going to 5 determine if additional studies are needed, and 6 what types of studies may be needed, at which point 7 the studies would determine what the impacts are. 8 I suppose the committee might provide some 9 evaluation of those studies, once they were 10 conducted. 11 I don't think it was our intent to sit there 12 and decide there is or is not an impact, based on 13 just conversation around the table. I think 14 clearly it was to define studies. 15 MR. DYSART: Again, the mission of the 16 Stakeholders Evaluation Group, it does call for 17 this body, once the studies have been conducted, 18 will look at that and determine whether they 19 concur, support, so forth. 20 MR. BREWTON: I would ask Fred, and Bill 21 Farmer, and others that were there at that aquifer 22 meeting, you know. 23 MR. FARMER: We can concur. The function of 24 the committees is to recommend studies. I'm 25 assured that Chris just didn't state that as 97 1 2 clearly as he could have. 3 MR. DYSART: There's a consensus among 4 committee members that was the intent? 5 DR. RICH: Yeah. What Bill has just said is 6 right on the money. And in fact, I think it's 7 appropriate to say among the geologists seated on 8 that committee, none of us claims to be a 9 hydrogeologist. 10 In fact, Jim Henry and I sat in front of the 11 others and said, we are not. This is a specialized 12 field of pursuit, and should be evaluated and 13 judged by people trained in that field. So we, as 14 a committee, cannot pass judgment on this. We can 15 merely provide -- 16 MR. BREWTON: I think that's why one of the 17 first orders of business was to invite these 18 hydrogeologists to come down and speak with us. 19 DR. RICH: That's right. 20 MR. BREWTON: I would say at our next meeting, 21 I think we can ask Chris to adjust that language 22 and clarify that committee purpose. 23 MR. DYSART: Anything else from the Aquifer 24 Committee? Seeing no cards up, we'll move on to 25 the Beach Erosion Committee. Bill Farmer. Excuse 98 1 2 me -- Morgan. 3 MR. REES: Wait a second. We were caucusing 4 here. As you might guess, it's not surprising 5 we've spent a lot of time wrestling with this issue 6 and trying to make sure we address it as fully and 7 comprehensively as possible with the maximum 8 expertise that we can bring to bear on the subject. 9 And we've decided to assemble a group of 10 experts with the correct credentials, 11 hydrogeologists or whatever is needed, and ask them 12 to work in conjunction with the Aquifer 13 Committee to make sure that the right studies get 14 done and the right evaluations get done. 15 We would particularly invite Georgia DNR and 16 South Carolina DNR to provide their participants 17 with the proper expertise in this, particularly 18 with respect to their dual responsibility for 19 determining compliance with the Clean Water Act, 20 and the need to issue a water quality 21 certification, which I hope everybody here 22 understands that if the agencies legally 23 responsible for water quality in the states 24 determine the water quality standards are going to 25 be adversely impacted, they do have veto authority 99 1 2 over the project. 3 We want to be sure those two agencies 4 participate fully and directly in this group of 5 experts, and with advice and consultation with the 6 Aquifer Committee. 7 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 8 MR. STEVENS: Question, Morgan. When might 9 you try to set up that meeting; is this something 10 you would do in the next couple of weeks? 11 MR. REES: Pardon me, Stuart? 12 MR. STEVENS: When might you set up a meeting, 13 in the next few weeks or so? 14 MR. KEEGAN: Stuart, I'm the action guy for 15 that. I'm trying very hard to put that group into 16 being with a charter of what to do, so that they 17 can participate in the 21st of August Aquifer 18 Committee meeting. That's my goal. 19 MR. STEVENS: Okay. Well, we certainly will 20 participate. Probably won't be me. I'm not an 21 agency expert, but we will find the appropriate 22 person. 23 As was said earlier, we will certainly have 24 a veto authority with respect to water quality 25 certification, as well as CZM consistency. If our 100 1 2 experts are not comfortable moving forward, then we 3 would say no on the project. 4 MR. DYSART: Bill, Beach Erosion Committee. 5 MR. FARMER: Just a one minute progress 6 report. The SEG recommended that two beneficial 7 use studies be accomplished and combined into one 8 giant study. 9 And Bill Bailey has been tasked with the task 10 of running a combined scope of work. He has a 11 draft out which is underway. Also, Jack Kingston's 12 office was successful, as I understand, in getting 13 $500,000 from the federal government to accomplish 14 part of this work. So I believe the work is 15 underway, and we look forward to the results. 16 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 17 MR. BREWTON: Well, these guys may know more 18 about what I'm about to say. I think a bill has 19 just passed the House not the Senate, and so that's 20 got to happen -- and so any input from anyone would 21 be helpful there. 22 I wanted to acknowledge the work that Trip 23 Tollison, here today from Jack Kingston's office, 24 did on that to work to get that done. 25 I think it's a very good study Bill's group 101 1 2 proposed. I just want it on the record thanking 3 Trip and Jack for their efforts getting that done. 4 I'll defer to Doug and the Corps any further 5 clarification. 6 MR. PLACHY: Just for clarification, what has 7 occurred is Congressman Kingston has successfully 8 inserted language in the 2001 appropriations in the 9 House version for funds. It's got to go to 10 committee, still has to be fashioned into a law 11 before the funds would be made available 12 eventually. So nothing will occur within the Corps 13 for six months -- October/November time frame. 14 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 15 MR. STEVENS: Would you remind us what that 16 money is for? 17 COLONEL SCHMITT: This is separate money, 18 separate and distinct from the harbor deepening 19 project, though the results of the study will 20 certainly be used, but it's the beneficial use of 21 dredge material is basically what the study is for 22 for O and M. 23 It's part of our normal operation maintenance, 24 whether or not suitable dredge material is to be 25 placed on Tybee Island. 102 1 2 That's what the study is for. Again, the data 3 will assess what's there. The material that's in 4 the harbor currently, if there is deepening, it 5 will certainly tell us whether or not the material 6 would be suitable for placing on Tybee Island. 7 MR. DYSART: Trip. 8 MR. TOLLISON: On our end, the outlook looks 9 good, as far as having the $500,000 signed, sealed 10 and delivered. The only bump in the road I see 11 that could happen is it might be an issue in 12 conference -- never know. 13 COLONEL SCHMITT: The real issue here is 14 there's going to be no new starts this year, at 15 least, that's from what we're hearing. 16 Those who have been following some of the 17 issues with the Corps of Engineers, and in 18 conference that may kill this 500,000. So it's 19 iffy, I think is a good word. 20 MR. TOLLISON: I think there are no new 21 construction starts. There are new starts for 22 studies. 23 COLONEL SCHMITT: Right. 24 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 25 MR. STEVENS: Follow-up question. Assuming 103 1 2 everything works okay, is that money that would 3 be available come October 1, or is this a year from 4 now? 5 MR. TOLLISON: October 1. 6 COLONEL SCHMITT: This year. 7 MR. STEVENS: How many days are left in 8 session to getting something? 9 MR. TOLLISON: Appropriations have to be 10 completed by the end of the session, especially 11 since this is an election year, members want to get 12 back and get reelected. 13 MR. BREWTON: By when -- completed by when? 14 MR. TOLLISON: By law, assuming you don't 15 get a continuing resolution, the physical year 16 begins October 1st. 17 We usually take our time. This year, since 18 your up against getting members back to get 19 reelected, there's a push to everything wrapped up, 20 all 13 appropriations bills, by October 1st. 21 MR. BREWTON: One other follow-up, if I might, 22 it is now before a Senate Committee? 23 MR. TOLLISON: Senate's already passed 24 Senate Committee. The Senate, I don't know for 25 sure if they voted in there the bill itself. It 104 1 2 has gone through the Senate Committee. 3 MR. BREWTON: It's basically too late to 4 influence language, if members wanted to contact 5 their senator. 6 MR. TOLLISON: No. It wouldn't hurt. I mean, 7 there's still senate floor, if you want to contact 8 both senators. 9 MR. DYSART: Morgan, you had your card up a 10 while. 11 MR. REES: I changed my mind. 12 MR. DYSART: Anything else on Beach Erosion? 13 Dredging and Disposal. Fred. 14 MR. BEASON: John Phillips and Georgia DOT 15 coordinated a upland disposal site visit yesterday 16 for SEG members. He had in tow Steve Calvert from 17 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expound on 18 habitat and environmental enhancement for 19 management of upland disposal sites. 20 In my opinion, it did demonstrate preference 21 on the bird habitat to choose to manage the upland 22 disposal site over the surrounding natural terrain 23 for nesting, foraging, and congregation of birds. 24 I don't think there was any opposition to that 25 statement by the folks that were on the trip with 105 1 2 me. 3 We, as a committee, are waiting on information 4 to come out of the programs by Bo as to how many 5 yards will be deposited in the upland disposal 6 sites, and we will meet when that comes through the 7 system, to expound on what impacts, if there are 8 any, on the existing upland disposal sites for the 9 continued maintenance for the harbor for the 10 present and the future. 11 MR. DYSART: Questions, comments? Thank you. 12 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Bill. 13 MR. BAILEY: Okay. I passed out a report of 14 the meeting we had June 19th of the Fisheries 15 Committee. 16 We reviewed some work that ATM had produced, a 17 product that was recommended by the SEG and by the 18 Fisheries Committee. 19 The issue was, is there enough information 20 available to determine when three species of fish 21 that spawn in the estuary and the freshwater, when 22 they move back out to the ocean -- move back 23 through the harbor out to the ocean; is there 24 enough information to know when they do that; what 25 depth they do that; so that ATM will be able to 106 1 2 determine the impacts on those species from 3 deepening the harbor. 4 Second page, the last paragraph there, the 5 bottom line, committee's -- committee's review of 6 those reports, and basically our conclusion was 7 that those reports did determine that there was 8 enough information available to determine the 9 impacts, and that no further field work would be 10 needed to develop other information. And that's 11 it. 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. Questions, comments? 13 MTRG. Bo. 14 MR. ELLIS: I passed out a status report. 15 Everybody get a copy? I've got two or three 16 extras. Before I deal with this status report, 17 some of the confusion about the handling of the 18 draft data report, and the MTRG activities 19 surrounding the draft data report, were presented 20 in our last status report, which was handed out at 21 the last SEG meeting. It wasn't presented. 22 We did meet back in May, and just to clarify 23 for everybody, the draft data report was submitted 24 to the MTRG on April 27th, and we met in May and 25 decided a schedule for review of the data report, 107 1 2 and how would we deal with comments from the group 3 and resolve those comments. That schedule has not 4 changed as of this -- this month. 5 The status report, I do not have copies of the 6 May 10th. I did pass it out at the last SEG 7 meeting, but basically the status of those 8 activities have been overcome by our last meeting. 9 That occurred on June 22nd. You do have a 10 status report that basically summerizes the work of 11 that meeting. 12 I want to point out a couple of things. We 13 did receive some comments from the SEG, and from 14 the MTRG, to change the status report somewhat. 15 We've been asked to provide more detail of the 16 deliberations in the MTRG, and also to note any 17 comments that are sent in by persons who do not 18 attend the meeting. So we tried to capture that in 19 this status report. Any other comments that you 20 might have to help us communicate this information 21 would be welcome. 22 In going over the status report for the June 23 22nd meeting, we did have a meeting. It was in 24 Atlanta. By the way, the May 10th meeting Judy 25 referred to earlier was in Savannah. 108 1 2 We have made a concerted effort to hold every 3 two or three meetings, to try to have a meeting in 4 Savannah to accommodate people who are more local 5 to Savannah. 6 The MTRG has, as a group, continued to want to 7 hold the meetings in Atlanta as much as possible. 8 You see a list of the people who attended and 9 participated in the MTRG discussions, and a note 10 that Bill Bailey provided written comments that 11 were also discussed at the meeting. 12 The general discussion, we did update the -- 13 several sections of the draft data report, and that 14 was a second CD Ben was referring to that was 15 mailed out and distributed to the MTRG at our last 16 meeting on June 22nd. 17 That provided additional information that had 18 been requested by the MTRG, and provided some 19 missing data that was not available back on April 20 27th. 21 The vast majority of the report was -- was 22 completed back on April 27th. Any questions? And 23 to reiterate the schedule, this was in our last 24 status report, but we did reiterate it in this one. 25 Comments are due to ATM from the MTRG on July 109 1 2 15th. We will compile those comments, send them 3 back to the MTRG. MTRG is going to meet August 4 29th. 5 This is a meeting scheduled in Atlanta at EPA. 6 We will meet to resolve all the comments at that 7 time, and to recommend any revisions, if any, to 8 the data report. 9 The written comment, provided by Bill Bailey, 10 dealt with some of the BOD data biochemical oxygen 11 data that was rejected during the course of our 12 quality control checks for the data, because of 13 some analytical procedures at a laboratory that 14 were not up to-- up to standard. 15 And Bill has asked for us to summerize when 16 that data was collected, where it was collected, 17 and note it in section one, that was agreed to by 18 the MTRG. 19 The next presentation that we had was about 20 the task number. I apologize. For most of you, 21 you don't follow the GPA task numbers, but this is 22 the refinement and calibration of the hydrodynamic 23 and salinity model. 24 This is an outline of the presentation that 25 was given, and then at the bottom of page two 110 1 2 starting with MTRG discussion points, we provided 3 some detail about the presentation, and about some 4 of the comments that were received during the 5 presentation. 6 It's a lot of detail for this group, but it's 7 probably better for you to have more than less. A 8 number of tests have been performed that have been 9 recommended back when we developed the task 10 statements. 11 The results of those tests were submitted and 12 presented to the MTRG. They will also be included 13 in a modeling report which is coming up in the 14 future. 15 The hydrodynamic model comparisons, if you 16 look at page three halfway down the page E, just to 17 give you an idea of what that is, in going through 18 the calibration process, the modelers have to 19 present how the model performs, compared to the 20 actual data that was collected in the field back in 21 1999, and the available data that was collected in 22 the field in 1997. 23 A lot of those comparisons, comparison 24 plots, were presented to the MTRG. The bottom 25 line, there's still some refinements to be made. 111 1 2 The hydrodynamic model is capturing the tidal 3 dynamics well. It still needs refinements in 4 representing the salinity characteristics of the 5 estuary. 6 There's a lot here, and it lists parts of the 7 presentation. Just to summarize the last 8 presentation that was made, if you look on page 9 six, the last presentation to the group was to deal 10 with the dissolved oxygen model. 11 This is our initial list of modeling inputs 12 that was requested by the MTRG. You see the table 13 that follows. These are the initial modeling 14 inputs. We did discuss it. This is just the first 15 presentation of many in going through the water 16 quality model, and starting to develop that model, 17 which is an ongoing activity with the MTRG. 18 The final point on the last page, on page 19 eight, is that the MTRG will meet again on August 20 29th. 21 Again, we reiterate that the written comments 22 on the data report are due on July 15th. Those 23 comments will be compiled, sent back out to the 24 MTRG, but the MTRG will resolve those comments at 25 our August 29th meeting. Any questions? 112 1 2 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 3 MR. BREWTON: Bo, first of all, I'd like to 4 commend you on new report format here, both 5 identifying who participated in person and 6 otherwise clarifying that, as well as the more 7 detail about discussion. 8 I think that's very helpful, will probably 9 answer a lot of questions for those of us that 10 don't attend all the meetings you may have. Some 11 specific -- I do want to acknowledge too that Larry 12 Keegan got me my initial CD of the last meeting. 13 That was the supplemental CD -- well, the 14 written memo I got on Friday, I corresponded with 15 Chris. He's going to make sure I am back on the 16 list to receive those future things, as they go 17 out. 18 I wanted to ask you a couple of things here on 19 page three. Page three item C, the statement 20 itself is pertubations after one tide cycle were 21 insignificant. 22 My question is about, when a statement is made 23 in the report that something is insignificant, is 24 that the view of the presenter, or is that the view 25 of the committee? 113 1 2 MR. ELLIS: In that case, that was the view of 3 the presenter, and the information, the data from 4 the actual test results were presented, and it was 5 agreed to by the MTRG. 6 MR. BREWTON: I guess the only thing I would 7 ask we would consider, in your meeting records to 8 note when and if -- that type of subjective 9 evaluation is the view of the presenter or of the 10 committee. 11 The other thing I wanted to ask is, go ahead 12 and ask at this meeting if we could ask for an 13 extension on getting comments in, as Morgan 14 mentioned after getting a complete package that was 15 just Friday afternoon. 16 So is there an extension that could still work 17 with your schedule, or could you modify that such 18 that we could have time to evaluate that and get 19 some comments in to you? 20 MR. ELLIS: MTRG set that schedule. Like I 21 said, early May, and they have had it since April. 22 At the May meeting, I guess, to clarify -- further 23 clarify, there was a very comprehensive 24 presentation of the data report at our May 10th 25 meeting. 114 1 2 We can take comments at any time and they can 3 be dealt with, but the MTRG has set their schedule 4 and they're expecting to see the compilation of 5 comments soon after July 15th, so that they have 6 time to look at all those, consider those before 7 our next meeting. 8 MR. BREWTON: Which will be August 29th. 9 MR. ELLIS: 29th, right. Larry suggested if 10 anybody has a recommendation, we can send it out to 11 the MTRG. 12 MR. BREWTON: What we'll do, we'll look at 13 this and get comments back as soon as possible. 14 That's six weeks between the deadline you have and 15 the meeting date. 16 MR. ELLIS: Your technical representative has 17 had the CD. He's on the mailing list. He's had 18 the CD since back in April, and he just received 19 the update and revisions. 20 MR. BREWTON: Right. Bo, I think, as you 21 realize, he is not a full-time technical 22 representative for us. He is contracted with us to 23 do specific tasks. 24 I got the complete package, I guess, as the 25 rest of the people on Friday that weren't at that 115 1 2 last meeting. 3 I'm just telling you there's no way we can 4 have our comments back to you by July 15th. So, I 5 suppose, if you are not -- don't feel you have the 6 liberty to adjust the date, we'll supply our 7 comments when we get them, and get them to you 8 in advance of the August meeting, and hopefully you 9 can get them distributed to your committee members 10 for consideration. 11 MR. ELLIS: Sooner the better. 12 MR. BREWTON: We may not have any comments. 13 At this point, I don't know. 14 MR. ELLIS: We've sent all this to the MTRG 15 members, and the MTRG members are making comments. 16 Anybody else that gets a copy of the data report 17 that wants to submit comments were more than 18 welcome to look at them. 19 MR. BREWTON: We will evaluate that and get 20 something to you as soon as we can, or let you know 21 don't have any comment. 22 MR. DYSART: Rob. 23 MR. MIKELL: I'd like to ask who Dan 24 Mendelsohn is and what the ASA is? 25 MR. ELLIS: ASA is a subcontractor to ATM, and 116 1 2 we have a longstanding relationship with them. 3 They actually developed the WQ map modeling package 4 that we've been using on the Savannah Harbor and 5 other systems in the Southeast over the last five, 6 six, seven years. 7 Danny is -- he was the actual person who put 8 together the WQ map. He is hydrodynamic modeler, a 9 water quality modeler. 10 MR. MIKELL: What does ASA stand for? 11 MR. ELLIS: Applied Science. 12 MR. MIKELL: Where are they at? 13 MR. ELLIS: Danny is in Rhode Island. They 14 are pretty well-recognized internationally. 15 MR. MIKELL: The other thing, under the 16 salinity model calibration and verification, 17 salinity salt flux, explain in laymen's terms what 18 that is, how it is important to the calibration of 19 the model? 20 MR. ELLIS: I can give you a very simple view. 21 Salinity is -- salinity in water determines the 22 density of the water to a great degree. 23 The reason it is important in the Savannah 24 Harbor is the denser saltwater can move along the 25 bottom like a salt wedge into the estuary. 117 1 2 Looking at salt flux, that is the amount, the 3 quantity of salt moving over -- salinity moving 4 over a given amount of time. So it's just a way of 5 quantifying the movement of salinity. 6 MR. MIKELL: How does the calibration go, are 7 they adjusting the volume of the saltwater, what's 8 -- what's he actually doing with his term? 9 I understand that he's checking the time 10 series, the horizontal gradings, the vertical 11 gratings; what's he doing as to the volume of 12 saltwater? 13 MR. ELLIS: We're actually modeling salinity 14 movement in the estuary, and with our boundary 15 conditions the same, the upstream boundary 16 condition up to Clyo, and the off-stream boundary 17 condition the same as our -- as the conditions 18 during our data collection, we compare the model 19 results with the actual model result with the data. 20 MR. MIKELL: The two years are '97 and '99? 21 MR. ELLIS: '97 and '99. 22 MR. MIKELL: Thank you. 23 MR. BREWTON: Bo. 24 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton has a question. 25 MR. BREWTON: BFWASP, what is that acronym 118 1 2 stand for? 3 MR. ELLIS: That is a component of the WQ 4 map package of models. There are actually a number 5 of models. 6 MR. BREWTON: What does that particular 7 acronym stand for? 8 MR. ELLIS: It is the water quality component. 9 BF is boundary fitted. It's just a code they came 10 up with. Hydro is hydrodynamic model. WASP is 11 a well-recognized EPA water quality model that is 12 packaged into this WQ map. 13 MR. DYSART: Further questions? 14 MS. LEFFEK: I don't have a question. I was 15 going to make a comment that's it's probably 16 another hour and a half, unless everyone wants to 17 go to committee meetings. 18 MR. DYSART: I was going to ask the question, 19 this could be short going on past there. How long 20 will the additional committee reports take? Carl, 21 about how long would you anticipate on Striped 22 Bass? 23 MR. HALL: Two minutes. 24 MR. DYSART: Communications? 25 MR. BREWTON: None. 119 1 2 MR. DYSART: Economics. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Minute and a half. 4 MR. DYSART: Operating Guidelines. 5 MR. REES: I think we've done it already. 6 MR. DYSART: Just for information, there 7 wasn't posted any new business. 8 MR. REES: The only thing we planned to 9 talk about was the scoping meeting, but I think 10 we've done that already. 11 MS. JENNINGS: I have at least a question to 12 sort of tack on to the MTRG. 13 MR. McINTOSH: Can't hear you. 14 MS. JENNINGS: I have a question, probably 15 very, very brief. 16 MR. DYSART: If we took a five minute break, 17 do we lose the crowd? Is there a great deal of 18 need, sitting around the table, for asking a lot of 19 additional questions? 20 In other words, five minutes worth is five 21 minutes. Is this something that could stretch into 22 who knows? Let's take a five minute break. We can 23 go for another hour. 24 (Short Break) 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. It's 12:11 p.m. We're 120 1 2 calling the Stakeholders Evaluation Group back to 3 order. If somebody can find Carl Hall -- he knew 4 he was going to be in the catapult ready to go off, 5 and he's ready to go. Next committee report we'll 6 hear is Striped Bass. Carl. 7 MR. HALL: I mentioned at the last meeting, 8 y'all know Tom Meronek on my staff, who was the 9 chairman of the Striped Bass Committee has taken a 10 job in his home State of Wisconsin, and Tom's in 11 the process of moving right now. 12 He's officially with me through the middle of 13 the month, I reckon, then he'll be gone. I'll be 14 the acting chairman for a while of the Striped Bass 15 Committee until I hire somebody, or we have some 16 other agreements amongst ourselves. 17 All I have to report is just two things. We 18 really haven't met, as a committee, in the last two 19 months. 20 The Corps of Engineers Section 1135 back river 21 restoration team has been working in the past 22 couple months. We received some preliminary 23 information, some preliminary model runs on the 24 back river from ATM. 25 We've been reviewing that preliminary data and 121 1 2 seeing how we might could use that in terms of back 3 river restoration. We're still doing that and will 4 probably be meeting this month. 5 As far as the Striped Bass Committee study, 6 the SEG study that's contracted to the University 7 of Georgia, they have successfully completed their 8 spring sampling and are still analyzing data. 9 We'll probably get a report from them in the 10 -- near the end of the year. Right now, as we 11 predicted with the larger fish group, we're seeing 12 during our stocking program, there was over a 350% 13 increase in the striped bass eggs collected from 14 the standardized samples -- standardized for 15 several years, which is a good plus, however 16 continuing with the past situation, all these eggs 17 were collected basically -- majority of them were 18 produced in the 8 to even 10 mile zone immediately 19 above the harbor. 20 And again, it is significant egg production 21 for the back river. The back river still has 22 problems with spawning and the like. 23 We were encouraged, though, on the increase to 24 striped bass eggs in the standardized sampling 25 over the last several years. We made a big jump 122 1 2 this year. We are encouraged, as far as the egg 3 transport and all their comparisons. That's all I 4 have. 5 MR. DYSART: Questions or comments from the 6 membership? Communications. Ben Brewton. Anybody 7 here a member of the Communications Committee? 8 MR. REES: I think Ben said earlier, we didn't 9 meet. He had no report. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. No meeting. No report. 11 Thank you. Economics Working Group. Judy 12 Jennings. 13 MS. LEFFEK: She might have a brief report. 14 MR. REES: We are meeting at 3:00 o'clock at 15 Lockwood Greene this afternoon. I'm doing this off 16 the top of my head. 17 MS. LEFFEK: The most recent stuff is on the 18 website. 19 MR. REES: The agenda was posted on the 20 website. At the request of the Economic Working 21 Group one or two months ago, I prepared a matrix 22 that combined the fundamental economic assumptions 23 that were in the Tier I report with the list of 24 issues that has been generated by the Economic 25 Working Group. 123 1 2 In other words, we did a number of economic 3 issues, and there's Judy. I was just trying to 4 fill in for you on the report of the Economic 5 Working Group. 6 What I said, we're meeting at 3:00 o'clock and 7 the agenda is to deal with the matrix. I was 8 starting to explain the matrix -- probably not 9 doing a very good job of it. I know there was some 10 other things on the agenda. I don't remember. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Beyond the matrix, an agenda 12 item from a previous meetings is economic versus 13 design vessel in the economic analysis. 14 What we hoped to do, I'm sure Morgan aptly 15 told you, is systematically examine the assumptions 16 of the economic analysis, and associated issues, 17 and concur or disagree with whatever opinion we 18 might have, and systematically look at the 19 assumptions, because that's the root of the 20 economic analysis. 21 So we're just beginning that process. It's 22 taken us a long time to identify issues that we 23 wanted to address. So what Morgan very completely 24 did, I think, is to look at the assumptions and put 25 that together with the issues we've spent months 124 1 2 developing. 3 So I think what we're on the verge of doing 4 is very systematically examining that list of 5 assumptions and related issues. About 3:00 o'clock 6 today at Lockwood Greene. Hope you'll come. 7 MR. DYSART: You said your committee met this 8 past month and the minutes are on -- 9 MS. JENNINGS: We have met regularly. The 10 minutes are always posted. 11 MR. DYSART: Posted on the website. 12 MS. JENNINGS: What I'll do, I'll do the 13 minutes. I'm not a great reporter. My minutes are 14 not lengthy. I send them to the Economics Working 15 Group and ask for their feedback, incorporate 16 whatever I get back. Whatever I get back is what I 17 ask to be posted -- the same thing with agenda. 18 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Comments or questions 19 about the Economics Working Group? Doug. 20 MR. PLACHY: Card's been up. I need to make 21 a comment on the MTRG. I'll wait till you finish 22 this up. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah, I want to go back. At 24 some point in time, I think we'll have to make a 25 decision about what the end product of our work is. 125 1 2 I don't know that we have not formed a 3 consensus about actually what will come out, but I 4 feel comfortable that our discussions and -- that 5 any consensus we have will be considered and 6 revised in the economic analysis. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any questions for Judy? 8 MS. JENNINGS: I would invite other comments, 9 please. I appreciate the attendance we've been 10 having. I do hear a lot of comments about the 11 economics. 12 What I would like to say to that, we're at the 13 point now where we need specifics, really specific 14 information that would either validate or negate an 15 assumption. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. Ben Brewton has question. 17 MR. BREWTON: Doug was in line before me. 18 MR. DYSART: He's waiting. Do you have a 19 question for Judy? 20 MR. BREWTON: No. I've got a question for 21 Larry Keegan. 22 MR. DYSART: Is this relating to the Economics 23 Working Group committee report? 24 MR. BREWTON: No. 25 MR. DYSART: Just general. We'll continue 126 1 2 then -- let's continue with the committee reports, 3 is that okay? Okay. Morgan do you have anything 4 else on Operating Guidelines? You've said no? 5 MR. REES: Nothing further other than I will 6 contact everybody on the committee and try to 7 schedule a more convenient date to sometime in 8 August and solicit agenda items. 9 MR. DYSART: Thank you. We've now completed 10 the committee reports. Doug. 11 MR. PLACHY: Not really. My comment is on 12 the committee report of the MTRG. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah. 14 MR. PLACHY: Page two of the report, top of 15 the page it talks about explaining and commenting 16 on BOD data. 17 Just for my own clarification, I believe what 18 the Corps has asked is that any data that was 19 planned to be collected that didn't get collected, 20 or any data that was collected but won't be used, 21 you know, we want it addressed. This doesn't 22 really say that. I just want to make sure. 23 MR. ELLIS: This was summarizing a discussion 24 that took place at the MTRG. 25 MR. PLACHY: Okay. 127 1 2 MR. ELLIS: I've got your -- I've got the 3 Corps' comments. I've got the written comments. 4 MR. PLACHY: So, but you're saying -- 5 MR. ELLIS: We talked about the BOD data 6 specifically in the MTRG. 7 MR. PLACHY: In an overall perspective, you 8 will be commenting on any data collected or data 9 collected and not used. 10 MR. ELLIS: Right. 11 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 12 MR. BREWTON: Before I ask, I'll say I'm glad 13 you asked that question, Doug. I think it's 14 important to account for all that in those reports. 15 I guess for Larry Keegan, several people have 16 asked about copies of that Hydrovision report to 17 the City of Savannah Water Department. Doug was 18 saying perhaps he thought it was posted on the 19 website. Has that been posted on the website? 20 MR. KEEGAN: No, it hasn't because the 21 committee didn't tell me to post it. 22 MR. BREWTON: Could we ask now it be posted? 23 It's now related to the committee work, and it's 24 just been distributed. If we could post that, 25 Dr. Rich was saying he thought everybody ought to 128 1 2 take a look at it. I would concur with that. 3 If you could post it and tell the group where 4 it would be posted, instead of trying to circulate 5 around a bunch of copies. 6 MR. DYSART: Judy, do you have a comment while 7 the sidebar discussion is going on? 8 MS. JENNINGS: Well, about the MTRG, John 9 Robinette, I'm sorry. I don't mean to pick on you. 10 It just occurred to me that a lot of -- well, that 11 some of the Kitchens work will be predicated on the 12 results of the hydrodynamic model. 13 MR. ROBINETTE: Right. 14 MS. JENNINGS: I was wondering if you could 15 bring us up to speed on where that work is right 16 now? 17 MR. ROBINETTE: Yes. We did the spring 18 collections in early June at each transect, the 19 plant samples, did the salinities, took soil 20 samples. 21 And the fall sample will be in October. Plant 22 sampling will be in October. In addition to that, 23 he's doing transects across the entire marsh, to 24 get salinities at selected points, to give everyone 25 a better picture of the salinity and how it's 129 1 2 distributed through the marsh. 3 The migratory bird studies will begin in -- 4 should get started in September. We've also 5 completed our second year or are just now 6 completing our second year data on the tropical 7 migrants that are necessary in the estuary from the 8 salt marsh all the way up through the tidal crest 9 marsh and woodland hammocks. That's where we are 10 with that. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. Thanks. 12 MR. DYSART: Back to Larry Keegan. 13 MR. KEEGAN: Two things to answer Ben's 14 request, what we'll do, Ben, is post the 15 HydroVision report in that section where we made 16 provision for posting things that a member of the 17 SEG submits for information. So we'll post it 18 there. 19 The discussion we were having was back to who 20 says who ought to post what. We've been so far 21 following the lead of the committee chair. The 22 committee chair is absent today. We'll go ahead 23 and post your request. That's not a problem. 24 MR. BREWTON: Would explain how to get to that 25 location, where it will be posted? 130 1 2 MR. KEEGAN: I'm trying to remember the name 3 of the button. Go to the home page of the harbor 4 deepening website, select the button labeled SEG in 5 the upper left-hand corner of that home page on the 6 page that comes up there is a button called -- 7 one's agenda items, one's general info. 8 Select the general info button. That's where 9 you'll find this thing. You'll find it there after 10 I get a chance to get back to my computer and put 11 it there. If you run out of here and in 20 minutes 12 can't find, it's because you beat me to my 13 computer. 14 MR. BREWTON: Be there within a day? 15 MR. KEEGAN: Should be there by tonight. 16 Second thing, I just wanted to add to what John 17 said. All of the studies that have been funded for 18 striped bass, UGA, Fish and Wildlife, or South 19 Carolina DNR folks, have built into them status 20 reports at periodic intervals. 21 It's our intention when they come in to post 22 those as well, so people can see what the status 23 is. Haven't gotten any yet. That's why there's 24 none to find. 25 For instance, what Carl was talking about 131 1 2 earlier, the striped bass study is due to me this 3 week. He obviously has advanced info. I'll get it 4 soon. Hope that helps. 5 MR. HALL: Verbal communications, that was 6 just verbal communication. 7 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah, I understand. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. We've wound up committee 9 reports and related items. There was no new 10 business put on the agenda at the beginning of the 11 meeting. Does the Ad Hoc Agenda Committee now wish 12 to work on the agenda for the next meeting, or do 13 you want to let me know be e-mail over the next two 14 months? Would you like to continue to sit here and 15 work on the agenda for the September meeting? 16 MR. MIKELL: Move we adjourn. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. Morgan Rees has his card 18 up. 19 MR. REES: I would just observe, I'm not aware 20 of any leftover business today, for the first time 21 I can remember. 22 MR. DYSART: What do you think the secret is? 23 MR. REES: I suggest we simply follow the 24 standard agenda. Committee reports really is where 25 we'll be next time. 132 1 2 MR. McINTOSH: I had a question. Doesn't 3 relate to the agenda. New business -- are we past 4 that? 5 MR. DYSART: There was no new business. Go 6 ahead. 7 MR. McINTOSH: I was curious if at the August 8 meeting -- September meeting, skipping August. At 9 the September meeting, if we could get a tally of 10 the expenditures of GPA, no other entities, just 11 GPA, of the studies underway, I'd be curious to 12 know how much we've spent -- how much you guys have 13 spent. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Got that noted. Okay. Is 15 there a consensus around the table, can anybody not 16 live with the notion of adjourning early? Seeing 17 no tents up, at 12:30 the meeting is adjourned. I 18 thank you all for your attendance, inputs, and good 19 natured participation. Thank you. 20 21 22 23 24 25 133 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 G E O R G I A : 5 CHATHAM COUNTY: 6 I hereby certify that the foregoing 7 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 8 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 9 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 10 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 132 represent 11 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 12 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 13 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 14 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 15 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 16 anywise interested in the result of said case. 17 This, the 26th day of July, 2000. 18 19 20 ________________________ 21 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court Reporter, B-2041 22 23 24 25