1 1 2 3 4 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP 5 6 7 8 MEETING 9 OF 10 JULY 12, 2005 11 12 13 MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 14 15 POOLER, GEORGIA 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 9 10 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 11 By Steven Davie -------------------- 7 12 13 COMMITTEE REPORTS ---------------------- 72 14 NEW BUSINESS --------------------------- 76 15 ECONOMICS WORKING GROUP ---------------- 90 16 NEW BUSINESS --------------------------- 92 17 PROJECT UPDATE ------------------------- 110 18 NEXT MEETING DATE ---------------------- 118 19 20 CERTIFICATE ---------------------------- 122 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 (THE REPORTER: I am appearing today on 3 behalf of my employer, Tom Crites & Associates. 4 My office was requested by Georgia Ports 5 Authority to provide a court reporter today at 6 9:00 a.m. at this address. 7 Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well 8 as at the instructions of my employer, I wish 9 to disclose that, other than accepting to serve 10 as your reporter, we have not entered into any 11 other contractual agreement with any party 12 involved.) 13 MR. DYSART: If everybody will take their 14 seat, we'll get the meeting started. Good 15 morning. I'm Ben Dysart, the SEG facilitator, 16 and I welcome y'all to this meeting. 17 We have a lot of familiar faces and, 18 fortunately, we have also some new and fresh 19 faces, people who are bright and bringing 20 wisdom and energy to the group. And so let's 21 start off -- Steven, why don't you start, give 22 your name, your affiliation, and we'll move 23 around the table this way, please. 24 MR. DAVIE: I'm Steven Davie with Tetra 25 Tech. I'm going to be showing you a little on 4 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 the modelling today. 3 MR. HOKE: Joe Hoke, Corps of Engineers in 4 Savannah, hydraulic engineer. 5 MS. WILLIAMS: Beth Williams, Corps of 6 Engineers, Savannah, hydraulic section. 7 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Island. 8 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, citizen. 9 MS. COLLINS-RAHN: Lucille Collins-Rahn, 10 Corps -- Georgia Sierra. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia 12 Sierra. 13 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of 14 Engineers, Savannah. 15 MS. MOORE: Kelie Moore, Department of 16 Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division. 17 MR. KYLER: David Kyler, carbon-based life 18 form -- Center for a Sustainable Coast. 19 MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of 20 Savannah and Savannah Harbor Committee. 21 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 22 Authority. 23 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant to 24 Georgia Ports. 25 MR. KEEGAN: Larry, consultant to Georgia 5 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 Ports. 3 MR. CHASE: Tom Chase, consultant to 4 Georgia Ports. 5 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 6 Authority. 7 MR. FLOCK: Allan Flock, Savannah National 8 Wildlife Refuge. 9 MR. PRUSA: Tom Prusa, Fish and Wildlife 10 Service. 11 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, Savannah 12 Coastal Refuge. 13 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, The Georgia 14 Conservancy. 15 MR. THOMAS: Matt Thomas, Georgia DNR 16 Wildlife Resources. 17 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia Wildlife 18 Federation. 19 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 20 Service. 21 MR. WRIGHT: Tom Wright, citizen. 22 MR. SUTLIFF: Charlie Sutliff, Savannah 23 Maritime Association. 24 MR. BROWNE: Tommy Browne, Savannah River 25 Pilots. 6 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. DYSART: Thank you. First item of 3 action, we've had an opportunity to review the 4 transcript of the previous meeting, held in May 5 of this year of the Stakeholders Evaluation 6 Group. 7 Are there any clarifications or 8 corrections you would like to make on the 9 record? Seeing no request to do so, I would 10 suggest that we consider the transcript of the 11 previous meeting to be accepted by this body. 12 Thank you. 13 As is our custom, wherever there is to be 14 a major scientific briefing, we schedule that 15 early so we can have plenty of time. And the 16 -- what we have scheduled this morning is a 17 presentation from the Corps of Engineers 18 concerning modelling. Is there somebody from 19 the Corps, Bill or someone, that would like to 20 give introductory comments on this? 21 MR. BAILEY: Joe. 22 MR. HOKE: Okay. I've got -- actually, I 23 was going to give a summary of the review 24 comments that we have from the -- from our 25 review panel, but I'm going to hold off on that 7 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 until a little bit later. 3 First of all, Steve Davie is going to give 4 us a slide presentation to summarize the work 5 Tetra Tech has done, up to this date, on the 6 hydrodynamic modelling on the harbor. 7 MR. DAVIE: Thanks Joe. Again, I'm Steven 8 Davie with Tetra Tech. I was asked to come and 9 give you, basically, an overview of the 10 modelling we've been working on for about a 11 year now. 12 So, there's a lot of technical work that 13 we've been doing. Really, my ultimate goal is 14 just to give you an overview of the models, get 15 you comfortable with the models, if that's 16 possible, and then give you an idea on how the 17 technical review is going. 18 And Joe's got the letters -- when Joe 19 talks about the letters, it's the letters from 20 the federal and state agencies that have been 21 reviewing model and involved in the technical 22 discussions. 23 I'm going to give you my background and 24 kind of my perspective, which I'm sure is 25 different from most of you. Y'all have been 8 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 involved with the SEG probably longer than I've 3 been involved with the project. I'm going to 4 give you my background and my perspective. 5 We've been doing the work for about a 6 year. We started doing the modelling work with 7 EPA in support of the TMDLs, and I'll touch on 8 that shortly. 9 We've been under contract with the 10 Savannah Corps for probably eight months, or 11 so, seven months, maybe a little bit longer 12 than that. 13 The funding, that we've developed the 14 model with, comes from Georgia Ports Authority 15 working in coordination with the Savannah 16 District. Like I said before, the original 17 work, when we got involved as Tetra Tech, was 18 in support of the TMDL that was developed in 19 August. I'll give summary of that as well. 20 We've had many meetings, and I'm sure you 21 guys hear about them at the SEG meetings here, 22 a lot of technical discussion, a lot of 23 comments, and this technical review group is 24 pretty sharp. 25 They understand the harbor and the system 9 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 as much if not more than we do, and have a 3 lot of good comments. So this is just a list 4 here of all the people or their organizations 5 that have given comment and technical input. 6 Joe and Beth from the Corps are using the 7 model. They have provided a lot of input such 8 bathymetry, GIS files and overlays that we've 9 been using, so it's been a coordinated effort 10 with the Corps as well. 11 ERDC is doing model review for the Corps. 12 Those are the guys at Vicksburg, on and on, the 13 Ports Authority, EPA, the states, Fish and 14 Wildlife Service, the city, Skidaway, and you 15 can read the list. 16 Overview, I'm going to give you a quick 17 history of the model. I'm going to give you an 18 overview of the technical work and what the 19 models do. 20 I'm going to give you a status and Joe may 21 provide some input on the technical review from 22 the state and federal agencies, where we're at, 23 and the issues we're currently addressing. And 24 at the end, how these models are going to be 25 used, and they're going to be used to support 10 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 multiple efforts. I'll give you a little 3 flavor on how the models can be run and how the 4 output can be used on these project. 5 Location map -- I don't really need to 6 give you guys a location map. What I did want 7 to point out here is that most of our effort 8 has been in the lower harbor, what we call the 9 estuary. 10 But our river model goes up to Clyo, which 11 is up here on the Savannah River. That's the 12 freshwater portion of the river. That's our 13 upstream boundary. And then the model goes 14 offshore about 18 miles from Tybee. 15 So we cover a pretty extensive area to 16 look at some of the main water quality issues 17 that are in the front river and back here in 18 the wildlife refuge. 19 Some characteristics, again, you may know 20 some of this, large watershed, obviously some 21 of the interesting things that we have been 22 dealing with on the TMDL side and on expansion 23 project, there are multiple point sources. 24 There's about 27 point sources in the 25 upper watershed. A lot of them are fairly 11 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 small. They're industrial. They're municipal. 3 There are a couple larger ones that are 40, 47 4 million gallons per day, so that's a large 5 discharge. There's about 10 point sources in 6 the harbor that, again, are municipal to 7 industrial. 8 As you know, major port facility. As you 9 also know, extensive marshes. This is a very 10 complex system to try and model, especially 11 doing 3D complex model, it's a very difficult 12 system. 13 Most estuaries are real wide and flat. If 14 you look at Charleston and some of the other 15 ports on the eastern coast, they're usually a 16 wider system with a navigation channel that 17 cuts through it. 18 Savannah is the navigation system. It's 19 very narrow and very long, and the tides 20 complicate it even more. Our spring tides are 21 10 to 12 feet in range which is pretty 22 significant. 23 Okay. A little bit of history. We 24 started out using the EFDC and WASP models in 25 support of the TMDL. I'll explain what those 12 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 two models mean and what they do in a second. 3 It was a dissolved oxygen TMDL that EPA put out 4 for public notice in August of last year. 5 It's still in draft form. They have gone 6 through the comment period. They have received 7 -- EPA has received substantial comments on the 8 DO and TMDL. I don't think anyone from EPA is 9 here, but EPA probably will not finalize the 10 TMDL until the models are completed, which 11 we're very close to having the modelling 12 completed, and also the DO in-point, the 13 criteria that will be used in the TMDL. 14 MR. DYSART: Steven, for some of the 15 members here, would you say what the acronym 16 mean? 17 MR. DAVIE: Sure, sorry. This is my first 18 SEG meeting. Bear with me. You guys feel free 19 to ask comments and questions. 20 MR. DYSART: Thank you. 21 MR. DAVIE: The acronyms on the models 22 I'll get to. Don't worry about that yet. TMDL 23 is total maximum daily load. You guys are 24 aware that EPA drafted the TMDL for dissolved 25 oxygen back in August. Were y'all aware of 13 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 that -- most of you? 3 When the TMDL was public noticed, this 4 technical review group, the modelling technical 5 review group, looked at the models used for the 6 TMDLs and asked the question, are the models 7 good enough to look at expansion and harbor 8 deepening impacts. 9 And there were a few comments that came up 10 on the model and the application of the model. 11 So we entered into the contract with the Corps 12 to make some of those enhancements. 13 We call that the enhanced grid -- just a 14 brief overview, we made the grid finer. We 15 improved some of the bathymetry. We also 16 improved some of the marsh exchange and how the 17 model was interacting with those marsh areas, 18 especially in the wildlife refuge. 19 Here are the models. There is a river 20 model that EPA and the states did a lot of work 21 on. We at Tetra Tech did not do too much 22 on the river model. 23 The two models that I'm going to show you 24 the outputs today are EFDC and EFDC stands for 25 Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code. There's a 14 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 slide in here that spells that out, and the 3 WASP model is the Water Quality Analysis 4 Simulation Program. Those two models work 5 together. One does the flows, tides, 6 temperature, salinity, and the other one does 7 the water quality, does the marsh loads, the 8 point source loads, the ammonia, the 9 nitrofication, does all the water quality 10 kinetics. They work together. 11 Both of these models have been peer 12 reviewed. They have been tested. EPA endorses 13 and supports them. More importantly, they're 14 public domain, so these models can be 15 distributed. The agencies can run the models 16 and anyone else, for that matter. 17 There is a link there for those of you 18 that are interested in learning more about the 19 models, you can go to that link and read for 20 yourself. 21 Pretty straightforward, EPA took the lead 22 on the TMDL. The Corps has taken the lead on 23 the harbor expansion, but with the Corps also 24 the Port Authority through their funding. And 25 the ultimate goal for both of these, the TMDL 15 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 and the harbor expansion is to have one model 3 used for the harbor. This kind of gives you an 4 idea that there are multiple efforts going on 5 in the harbor, as you know. 6 There's, of course, all kinds of other 7 studies outside of this, but with regard to 8 water quality, and specifically dissolved 9 oxygen, all of these efforts are going to 10 impact each other. 11 If you start in the upper left-hand 12 corner, there was a TMDL developed because the 13 state put Savannah Harbor, specifically the 14 front river area on the 303D list as being 15 impaired. It didn't meet the state's water 16 quality criteria. Therefore, EPA and the state 17 had to do a TMDL. 18 That TMDL called for percent reductions to 19 the point sources. If you look at the upper 20 right-hand corner, there will permits that will 21 written and rewritten based on the allocations 22 and the results of the TMDL. 23 The lower right is the harbor expansion 24 and when the harbor is deepened there will be 25 impacts from salinity, and from DO. We don't 16 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 know what those impacts are yet. That's the 3 purpose of having the models. 4 Then in the lower left, there is an 5 ecosystem restoration project that the Corps is 6 leading to look at if there are ways to improve 7 dissolved oxygen in the harbor. 8 All of these are ultimately related 9 because they are affecting dissolved oxygen in 10 the harbor. The goal, from the technical 11 reviewers, is to have one model that can be 12 used for all of those. All the different 13 scenarios, if we look at harbor deepening, it 14 could impact permits. 15 It could impact any mitigation. It could 16 also impact the TMDL, so they're all related. 17 any questions on that? 18 Status of the TMDL, I've already touched 19 on this. The impaired area that the state 20 defined was 27 miles. It was from the mouth up 21 to the freshwater portion. I believe I-95 was 22 the boundary that they used, so a pretty 23 extensive area. 24 I already mentioned the draft. They were 25 under a court order consent decree to meet that 17 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 TMDL schedule. 3 The goals of the models, develop the TMDL 4 with these models, evaluate the harbor 5 deepening impacts with the same models, also 6 evaluate the permits which I showed in that 7 diagram, and the technical review shares the 8 common goal of model defensibility. 9 This technical review group that I talked 10 about in the beginning take this very 11 seriously. They put in a lot of time and 12 effort to dig into the model, to dig into the 13 technical issues, and they have done a good job 14 making the model defensible, and presenting it 15 in a way it can be used for all these efforts. 16 We've established an ongoing procedure to 17 address comments received from that technical 18 group. Requirements, capture the key 19 hydrodynamic processes in the harbor. That is 20 the number one priority. 21 If we don't get the water movement in the 22 harbor, we have no hope of getting the water 23 quality. So If we don't get the tides right, 24 the stratification, the movement of water in 25 and out of the marshes, we have no hope for 18 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 getting the water quality right. So that's the 3 number one. 4 Use models or a model that's public 5 domain, which we've done. The ability to link 6 that hydrodynamic model to a water quality 7 model, deliver the model to federal and state 8 agencies that are going to use the model on 9 those efforts, whether it's permits, TMDLs, 10 looking at deepening impacts, whatever the 11 effort may be, the models would be delivered to 12 them for their use. 13 Then several of the reviewers wanted to 14 run the model for multiple periods, instead of 15 just a summer critical condition, they wanted 16 to be able to run the model for multiple 17 hydrological periods. 18 I'm not going to read all these, but the 19 models include all of these things; tides, 20 water level, temperature, kinetics of the water 21 quality, marsh loads, point source loads, 22 non-point source loads, obviously salinity and 23 temperature, and then I discuss the boundaries. 24 We go all the way up to Clyo and all the 25 way offshore about 18 miles. 19 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 These are the 10 or so point sources in 3 the harbor. Really, the idea is to show they 4 are fairly well spaced out with a concentrated 5 effort on the front river. That just happens 6 to be the area that's deepest. 7 It happens to be the area that stratifies 8 the most, even without point sources in the 9 system, the DO and that front river area is low 10 just from a physical standpoint. It's deep. 11 it stratifies. 12 The DO on the bottom is low. The point 13 sources do have an impact on the water quality, 14 but they're not the only impact. Data, I think 15 you guys have seen probably many presentation 16 on the data. The Port Authority, through ATM, 17 collected very extensive data sets. 18 Nowhere in the country will you find data 19 sets like we have in Savannah Harbor. As a 20 modeller I'll never say we have enough data, 21 but we have a great data set to confirm and 22 calibrate these models. 23 Two summer periods that I'm sure guys have 24 seen before, USGS long-term records, through 25 the city and coordinated effort with the 20 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 dischargers, we collect samples on their 3 effluent, what's coming out of their pipe 4 so we can characterize what that is and put 5 that into the model. Surveys, actually one of 6 the things in the TMDL model, in the back and 7 little back river areas, we felt like we didn't 8 have enough bathymetry data. 9 It was outdated, it was 30 and 40 years 10 old, so the Corps paid USGS to go out and 11 resurvey the middle, little and the upper 12 part of the front river. So that was done in 13 2004. 14 I don't know how well that shows up in the 15 back, but those are seven long-term sites. the 16 one on the bottom right corner Ft. Pulaski. 17 This is Broad Street. This is Houlihan Bridge. 18 The three back here, this is the Fish and 19 Wildlife dock, Lock Canal, Lighthouse Creek, 20 and that's I-95 up in the corner. 21 We have long-term records at all of these 22 sites and we use that in the model calibration. 23 As I mentioned before, the Port Authority 24 collected a large data set. ATM did the work. 25 We have all of these sites. 21 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 So all of the water quality constituents, 3 we have 30 to 40 sites in the harbor. 4 Okay. The work completed, we did those 5 modifications to the grid, and then the 6 navigation channel. I'll show you what that 7 looks like. 8 We recalibrated the water quality. We 9 hired, as a subcontractor to us, we hired Chuck 10 Watson, who I think comes to the SEG meetings. 11 Chuck did the uncertainty analysis of the 12 model. 13 We learned a lot with Chuck, a lot of back 14 and forth, a lot of e-mails, a lot of phone 15 calls, and Chuck did great work in improving 16 the model in the enhanced grid. 17 I'll give you a summary of what Chuck told 18 us and the recommendations he gave us. We did 19 all kinds of other testing. We also set up for 20 the Corps one of our ultimate goals was to have 21 the Corps running the model. So several of the 22 efforts that we did is we made what we call 23 project application files, where we made the 44 24 foot, 45, 46, all the way to 47 foot channel 25 files, so that the Corps could run the 22 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 scenarios. 3 We also ran a scenario where we went back 4 to an 1854 depth. We didn't try and model 5 1854 conditions, but we made the navigation 6 channel reflective of the depths that we had 7 measured back in 1854, which was very 8 enlightening. 9 The model enhancements, these are the 10 three major areas, and the figure here shows 11 the grid. To put it in perspective, here's the 12 tide gate, here's the front river, Downtown 13 Savannah. 14 And what we did is we wanted to make sure 15 that the model grid matched the navigation 16 channel as best we possibly could. 17 You can't see it too well, but there's red 18 lines here on top of the grid. That's the 19 navigation channel. If you look here, the 20 front river, the navigation channel is the 21 river. It takes up the entire river. 22 What we were trying to do is approximate 23 that in the model, as best we possibly could. 24 We improved the marshes and we also updated the 25 bathymetry, as I mentioned before. 23 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 Here's what the grid looks like. The 3 colors on the grid represent depth, so offshore 4 it's deeper. As you move in towards the 5 estuary or the harbor, it gets shallower, but 6 the channel stays deep. 7 You can see the navigation channel. It's 8 the dark blue. You can't see it in the upper 9 part, but we represent the channel as it moves 10 from offshore into the estuary. That's in 11 meters. That's about 15 or 16 meters which is 12 47 or 48 feet. That's the actual bathymetry. 13 So that includes the over-dredging, the 14 maintenance dredging in the navigation channel. 15 we have 931 cells. If you look down at the 16 plan view at the model grid, 930 cells that 17 represent the system, just a spatial plan view 18 plot. 19 We have 16 marsh areas. There's obviously 20 a lot of marsh in the wildlife refuge and in 21 the system as a whole. We approximated each of 22 those marsh areas into 16 different areas. 23 The model has six vertical layers, so the 24 depths, they're broken up into six increments 25 or six boxes. 24 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 We used the latest bathymetry. The 2004 3 bathymetry that USGS collected started at the 4 tide gate and went up the back river. It 5 started at the middle, went up the middle, and 6 started at Houlihan Bridge and went up. All 7 this area here has been updated with 2004 8 bathymetry. 9 That was important because in the channel 10 the Corps does annual surveys, so we had a very 11 good representation of the depths in the 12 channel, but we wanted to make sure we had 13 equally up-to-date and reflective depths in the 14 back and little back rivers. 15 This is flow at Clyo. The numbers here 16 are not important. What I'm showing you here 17 is the different periods that we modelled. 18 This is seven years on the bottom scale. This 19 starts in 1997 and goes through the end of 20 2003. 21 The numbers here do range from zero to 22 55,000 CFS, and this is measured at Clyo in the 23 river end part, freshwater flow coming into the 24 harbor. 25 You can see early '98 we had really high 25 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 flows, and then from mid '98 on we entered the 3 drought. We had five years of drought, and we 4 didn't really come out of the drought until 5 spring of 2003 over here. 6 What I want to just put in perspective are 7 the different time periods that we modelled. 8 Our calibration period was the summer of 1999, 9 which is this small section here highlighted in 10 yellow. 11 One of Chuck Watson's recommendation to 12 us, in the uncertain analysis, is don't 13 over-calibrate your model. Don't 14 over-calibrate to this period of low flow 15 critical conditions. You do really well in 16 that period, but you don't do well overall. 17 So what we did is we had three different 18 what we call validation periods. We wanted to 19 run the model in different periods to see how 20 well the model responded. 21 And if you remember the Port Authority and 22 ATM collected a summer of 1997 data set, which 23 was not as low of a flow, but pretty close, 24 still a summer low flow period. 25 Then what we did is we broke up the seven 26 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 years, this '97 to 2003 into two three year 3 periods. So we had one validation that we ran 4 for '97, '98, and '99. Then we had an 5 additional validation period over on the upper 6 right that was 2001, 2002, and 2003. We ran 7 the model, basically, for this seven year 8 period to see how well the model responded. 9 Chuck Watson did the uncertainty analysis. 10 He did the uncertainty analysis with the TMDL 11 grid, which was a coarser grid used last year. 12 He did it with this new enhanced grid. 13 He made several recommendations to us. 14 Don't over calibrate for the summer. Do not 15 smooth for the bathymetry. Us modellers like 16 to make things smooth so they're stable. We 17 went back and just used the actual numbers 18 and other things here. 19 Chuck had a lot of comments. And I think 20 we addressed all of Chuck's comments. Chuck 21 basically said, in the end, that the enhanced 22 grid was a significant improvement. That's 23 what we were looking for. We were wanting that 24 uncertainty, in the model, to decrease. 25 That was a very positive note from Chuck's 27 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 work. Chuck also wanted to do a lot of other 3 things. He wanted to run the model for 4 multiple periods. He didn't have time to do 5 it, and it wasn't part of his scope. 6 And so Chuck has a full report that's 7 included in our report that you guys are 8 welcome to read. 9 Again here, the technical review group set 10 very stringent criteria or expectations on how 11 well these models performed. Just to point out 12 one group of numbers, water surface elevation, 13 this is plus or minus two centimeters. So 14 we're talking, you know, the model needs to be 15 as good two centimeters. That's a very tight 16 restriction or expectation. 17 We met a lot of these. The ones that we 18 didn't meet, we explained in the report why we 19 think we didn't meet it. Overall, and Joe will 20 touch on the technical reviewers are happy with 21 the work. 22 They feel like the model is appropriate 23 for the system. They have said, in the 24 letters, that the model can be used to look at 25 harbor deepening and the other projects that I 28 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 mentioned, permits and TMDLs. 3 If you want to, you can read the other -- 4 dissolved oxygen, which is one of the other 5 main parameters, we wanted the dissolved oxygen 6 plus or minus point two. Again, that's a very 7 small expectation or limitation on the model. 8 I'm going to show about three or four 9 plots, and I just want to give you a 10 perspective on what the model's doing. 11 This is a station that's just upstream of 12 the Talmadge Bridge. This is the area that I 13 talked about where stratifies and destratifies. 14 What that means is if you look from top to 15 bottom, there's times where, top to bottom, the 16 system is well-mixed. 17 You'll read a salinity at the top that 18 may be a 20. You'll read a salinity at the 19 bottom that's about a 20. The system is 20 well-mixed from top to bottom in the water. 21 Then there's times, because of the spring 22 neap cycle that is completely stratifies. You 23 may get a five at the top measure and you may 24 measure a 30 at the bottom. 25 That's very important on how the system 29 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 reacts in the front river. It stratifies and 3 destratifies, or it mixes and unmixes, so 4 that's a continual cycle based on the tidal 5 cycle. 6 The orange and green are the data. the 7 blue and red are the model. So that was one 8 important feature that we wanted to make sure 9 the model could handle, that mixing and 10 unmixing of the system. 11 This was an important plot because we ran 12 the model for seven years, and this is on the 13 little back river where salinity is an 14 important issue. We're looking at how salinity 15 impacts the marsh areas in the wildlife refuge. 16 This is seven years of record with the 17 green being the data and the blue being the 18 model. Each year is broken out. 19 You can see even though we calibrated to a 20 summer period, when we looked at those other 21 flow periods, the model is still doing very 22 well at capturing the salinity signal. 23 The concept here that I want you to 24 understand, during those high flows of '98 it 25 pretty much flushes the system out. Freshwater 30 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 flows come down, and it pretty well flushes all 3 the salinity out of the system. Through the 4 drought, we see the salinity slowly build year 5 after year, because you're not having these 6 high winter flows and big storms to flush it 7 out. 8 So you see that in the data and you also 9 see that in the model. So that tells us the 10 model is responding well over these longer time 11 periods. 12 MR. KYLER: Before we move on, could you 13 go back to the last graph? 14 MR. DAVIE: Sure. 15 MR. KYLER: If I'm reading -- if I 16 understand what you said correctly, those white 17 areas, beneath the upper curve above the lower 18 curve, is the misfit in those periods, is that 19 right, in the model and the actual data? 20 MR. DAVIE: For example, if you look at 21 the green colors here, they're points but it's 22 probably a blur by the time it gets projected, 23 these green areas, these are measured data in 24 the system. 25 MR. KYLER: Yeah, yeah. 31 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 MR. DAVIE: They're measured at the 3 surface, and the red is the surface of our 4 model. So if you look at the green data and 5 the red, that's the surface. 6 MR. KYLER: Okay. 7 MR. DAVIE: And likewise, the orange is 8 measured at the bottom and the blue is 9 simulated, so -- 10 MR. KYLER: Okay. 11 MR. DAVIE: -- the perspective here they 12 were trying to show is the data is unmixed, 13 what we called stratified, so you're measuring 14 20s at the bottom and you're measuring fives at 15 the surface. If you move a week or two later, 16 you're measuring 15s at the surface and 15 at 17 the bottom. It mixes and unmixes. 18 The importance there is that's what the 19 water's doing. That's where the particles are 20 moving, so if you don't get it right on 21 salinity, you're going to have a hard time 22 getting it right on DO. 23 What happens in the harbor, these times 24 where it's completely stratified, there's no 25 interaction between the surface and the bottom 32 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 during those periods. It's a week, maybe 3 sometimes two weeks, so the DO at the bottom 4 gets very low. There's no exchange. There's 5 no mixing. So these are the worst periods for 6 dissolved oxygen in the system, here and here, 7 because there's no mixing. 8 MR. KYLER: Okay. Thanks. 9 MR. DAVIE: I touched on that. Dissolved 10 oxygen, a much harder parameter. This gives 11 you a perspective of how the DO changes. The 12 green is the data. The blue is the model. 13 This is just upstream of the Houlihan 14 Bridge. We can see that the DO data goes from 15 twos and threes up to sixes. You can see 16 events in the model and the data that are 17 responding very well with each other. 18 So the review and status of the models, 19 this is where we're at currently. We met on 20 June 15th and 16th in Atlanta. We sent out the 21 modelling reports on May 20th to the technical 22 reviewers. So they had three or four weeks 23 there to get the modelling report, play with 24 the models, review it. 25 And basically, what we asked or what the 33 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 Corps asked, from the federal and state 3 agencies is, is the model good enough to move 4 forward to start looking at these other 5 efforts; harbor deepening, the final TMDL, the 6 other efforts the model will be used for. 7 The reviewers were happy but they had 8 comments, and I think the reviewers will always 9 have some comments on models. That's just the 10 nature of the developing models. 11 They developed a list of 12 items overall 12 that they wanted to see explained better in the 13 report, or a better graphic, or some 14 sensitivity. 15 And if you look at the list of 12, they're 16 all relatively easy to address. So we've been 17 in the process of doing the last few weeks is 18 putting that down on paper, explaining to the 19 federal and state agencies how we're addressing 20 each one of those comments. 21 Dr. Kim is the reviewer for the Corps. We 22 got his comments back. He had four comments, 23 and we're in the process of sending that out 24 for them to review. 25 This is how the comments were prioritized; 34 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 A, B, C and D. A was explain it better in your 3 report. We know you did a good job. We know 4 it's good. We've seen you. We've questioned 5 you. It just needs to present better in the 6 report. 7 B is keep in mind when interpreting the 8 model results, so that may be something they 9 have marked as an issue, or some clarification. 10 We need to keep that in mind when we're looking 11 at a harbor deepening scenario. 12 C is do some additional model runs, and D 13 is if we find something substantial, 14 recalibrate the model. I can tell you at this 15 point there's nothing we found that will make 16 it necessary to recalibrate the model. 17 We think we're done. We think we've done 18 as good of a job as we possibly can. We're 19 putting in writing the responses to each of the 20 12 comments, and I'll let Joe and Bill speak. 21 Most of the letters say the models are 22 good. The models are defensible. The models 23 meet the expectations that we laid out. We 24 have these comments we want you to address, and 25 it's okay to move forward. And if that's not a 35 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 good summary, you guys can add to that. 3 I'll end with this and we can move on to 4 questions. These are just different ways the 5 model can be used. TMDL evaluations I've 6 touched on. Some of the things we've been 7 working -- the Corps has been working with 8 several folks, probably a lot of you in here, 9 on the habitat evaluations looking at salinity 10 and velocity and DO. 11 The deepening impacts, we deepen the 12 harbor, how's it going to change salinity, 13 how's it going to change DO, different 14 mitigation measures, and then historical 15 conditions. 16 One example of a historical condition is 17 that 1854 run. Again, multiple projects, we 18 already touched on that. Types of model 19 outputs, let me just show you some examples, 20 and these are all different ways the technical 21 reviewers wanted to see the model. 22 They wanted to look at longitudinal 23 distributions, so if you're at the mouth of 24 the harbor, you're at the high salinity. As 25 you move in the system, obviously, the salinity 36 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 drops. 3 We looked data versus model in a 4 percentile format. Stratification, I talked 5 about and that was what we were talking about 6 a minute ago, how well the model and the data 7 are matching, when you go from a neap tide 8 which is less energy more stratification into a 9 spring tide. 10 Dissolved oxygen, one of the things I 11 wanted to point out on dissolved oxygen was the 12 points are data, and the way this is laid out 13 is this is the 10 percentile of the data, the 14 50th and the 90th. 15 But overall I just want you to look at the 16 trends. What happens, at the mouth, are the 17 DOs at the offshore are around three or four. 18 As you move into the harbor, there's a sag or a 19 low point. As you move up the river it goes 20 up, and continually goes up as you go upstream. 21 The critical area for DO is between Ft. 22 Jackson and about Houlihan Bridge, maybe just 23 downstream of Houlihan Bridge. It's that area 24 on the map I pointed out before. It's the 25 front river River Street area that's the 37 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 deepest that stratifies the most, and that's 3 where we see the lowest DOs. 4 An example of the 1854 model run is -- 5 what we did is we took the grid and we made the 6 channel of the grid very shallow. What we 7 found is the salinity in 1854 really didn't get 8 upstream past Ft. Jackson. Upstream of 9 Ft. Jackson it was a freshwater system. 10 It obviously didn't look like the front 11 river. It was a braided, meandering stream. 12 there was a deep channel, what we call a 13 thalwag, a deepest part of the river that moves 14 through there. 15 The habitat evaluations, there are several 16 criteria that probably you guys have been 17 involved with that. If the velocities are over 18 a certain value, then it could impact juvenile 19 fish. 20 If the salinity is over a certain value, 21 it could impact the larvae stage. I'm not a 22 fish person or biologist. There are certain 23 criteria you guys have established with the 24 Corps. 25 So we can run the model and we can say 38 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 okay, where is the suitable habitat. It can be 3 yes or a no. You can look at the entire system 4 and say if you do a change to the system, 5 whether it's point source discharges or harbor 6 deepening, whatever the scenario may be, you 7 can decide from the model whether it's a 8 suitable habitat or not, or if that suitable 9 habitat has been affected in any way. 10 I think I'll skip the animation and just 11 go right to questions. I covered a lot of 12 material. 13 We have a pretty thick modelling report 14 that will, I'm sure, be part of the public 15 record very soon. And at this time, I'll 16 entertain any questions. 17 MR. KYLER: The historic stuff you showed 18 for salinity that would also be -- mimic DO? 19 MR. DAVIE: Correct. What we did there -- 20 are you talking about the 1854 run? 21 MR. KYLER: Yeah. 22 MR. DAVIE: Correct. What we did is we 23 ran the hydrodynamics and we ran the water 24 quality to see what the DO looked like under -- 25 it's hard to call it an 1854 condition, because 39 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 it's just a 1854 channel, which is basically 3 a shallower channel or and undeepened channel. 4 Yeah, we did run the DO and the DO is 5 higher, which is what we would expect. If the 6 salinity is lower then the DO would be higher. 7 MR. KYLER: Do you have anything depicting 8 or a recall of a simulation comparing the 9 current depth with the project depth in the 10 same dimensions -- salinity and DO? 11 MR. DAVIE: Say it again. 12 MR. KYLER: Do you have depictions of or 13 recall of comparisons of current conditions 14 with project deepening, in terms of DO and 15 salinity that you have done these simulations? 16 MR. DAVIE: Yeah. It varies, I mean, it 17 varies on where you're at. If you're talking 18 about -- 19 MR. KYLER: Do you have it summarizing 20 concisely or not? 21 MR. BAILEY: We haven't started the impact 22 analysis yet, if that's what you are asking. 23 MR. DAVIE: Right. 24 MR. KYLER: Is that the same thing? 25 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure what you are 40 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 asking. 3 MR. KYLER: I'm just trying to get a 4 general idea of -- 5 MR. DAVIE: In general -- in general the 6 salinity, if you are looking at the front 7 river, the more salinity in the system and the 8 deeper the system is, then in general that can 9 cause DO to be lower just from a mixing 10 standpoint. 11 To give you magnitudes or how much, we 12 don't have those numbers yet. Does that answer 13 it? 14 MR. KYLER: Yes. Thank you. 15 MR. DYSART: Judy. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Steven, that was a great 17 presentation. If you don't mind, I have a 18 couple of questions. I hated to stop you, it 19 was so good. 20 MR. DAVIE: Sure, moving on, thank you. 21 MS. JENNINGS: To finish on this 1854 22 thing, did that tell you anything you didn't 23 already know? 24 MR. DAVIE: No. We knew conceptually what 25 the model was going to tell us. We knew that 41 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 if you looked at 1854 bathymetry or depths, you 3 know it was six to eight feet. Right now we 4 have 50 feet in the channel. So we knew that 5 the salinity would not intrude or the salinity 6 would not come in to the system as much. So it 7 -- we could put values on it, but it's hard to 8 really model 1854, because Rifle Cut wasn't 9 there. 10 The other manmade connections weren't 11 there. It was a meandering kind of slower 12 moving system. So it's hard to call it an 1854 13 condition. It was just a representative, 14 undeepened channel, I guess is probably the 15 best way to put it. 16 MS. JENNINGS: It was just out of 17 curiosity? 18 MR. BAILEY: We'll be looking at that as 19 part of the cumulative impact assessment. That 20 was what -- we wanted the model to be able to 21 do that. 22 MR. DAVIE: Also, so once we get through 23 the calibration process, as we're going through 24 the calibration process, we start looking at 25 sensitivity. 42 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 So we vary channel depth. We vary marsh 3 size. We raise and lower the boundary. we 4 change frictions. We do all these things as 5 part of sensitivity. That was during that 6 stage when we were looking at raising and 7 lowering the channel bathymetry. 8 MS. JENNINGS: Early on in the 9 presentation, Steven, you mentioned non-point 10 source loads. I'm wondering how you handled 11 that, how did you quantify it? 12 MR. DAVIE: Actually, MacTech, and I'm not 13 sure -- were they working for the city? 14 MR. SCANLON: Yes, they were. Can I 15 respond? 16 MR. DAVIE: Sure. 17 MR. SCANLON: The non-point source loads 18 were all included, because they were included 19 actually in the data collection. So the load 20 was actually -- was in the harbor. 21 We did go back and try to calibrate it so 22 we could remove it, but we actually took 23 measurements that were actually taken during 24 the calibration period of the non-point source 25 sampling that was done all around the county. 43 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 And we built models to represent the flow 3 into harbor, during storm events, during the 4 calibration period. And so we tried to create, 5 so we could back that out and try to actually 6 quantify. As far as the non-point source 7 loads, the TMDL model they have not been pulled 8 out. 9 They are in the model. They're in the 10 model runs, and they have not been segregated 11 in any way, which is going to create an issue 12 when it comes to permitting non-point source 13 -- it's a question -- that's a TMDL question 14 that is still unresolved is how that is going 15 to be handled, because they're in -- right now 16 they're in background, but they're going to 17 have to be permitted, so how do we resolve 18 that. 19 That's what we were attempting to do with 20 the modelling we've done. Again, that is 21 really a TMDL question more than this. 22 MR. DAVIE: The other thing just to add on 23 that, was TMDL -- the primary time period was 24 August of '99, and there was very little 25 rainfall or runoff during that period. So that 44 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 calibration period and how the allocations were 3 done, the TMDL, the non-point was small to very 4 little of the total loading. But, we know in 5 the big scheme of things, there is a non-point 6 source load. 7 That will need to broken out, so there 8 will ultimately need to be a pie chart that 9 says, here's how much marsh load, here's how 10 much point source load, here's an offshore 11 load, here's a non-point load. I think what 12 Bob is saying is that hasn't been done where 13 that has actually been broken out. 14 MS. JENNINGS: I guess what I'm getting 15 at, I'm just not sure how you do it, do you 16 say, we know what's in there. We know what the 17 point source discharges were; therefore, we 18 assume that any difference is non-point. Is 19 that how you do it? 20 MR. DAVIE: Typically, in the model, we 21 measure and stick it in as load a. So 22 Pipemaker's Canal would come in into the model 23 at a specific point, even though it's non-point 24 we -- we measure flow in that drainage area. 25 We measure all the constituents that go 45 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 along with it. we stick it in at a certain 3 point. So, in essence, it becomes a point 4 source. It is representing a watershed, so we 5 do -- 6 MR. SCANLON: There was an attempt to get 7 at exactly what you are driving at was the 8 reason for this exercise. Yes, it was during a 9 drought period. There was one storm event in 10 there -- it was actually a hurricane that came 11 through. 12 We did have a major storm during that 13 period that was part of what was modelled. So 14 we have actual data. 15 We're able, again, it's a mathematical 16 exercise in the modelling, but we wanted to see 17 if we could simulate data and pull it out as if 18 it had been measured, how the model would 19 react. 20 It appeared that we do get some 21 correlation. It's not as good as if we had the 22 actual, measured, continuous data like we did 23 with the other. 24 During that calibration period from the 25 TMDL question, if you don't mind, the -- during 46 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 the three month period where all the sampling 3 was being done in the river, what was it, 21 4 points at several depths, 21, 27 -- during that 5 entire period, all of the point source 6 discharges did continuous monitoring. 7 We have actual, continuous discharge data 8 from all point sources. That was used as part 9 of the calibration. 10 So it really has made -- I think EPA has 11 commented this is probably the best calibrated 12 TMDL model, for this harbor, that they have 13 anywhere. 14 MR. DAVIE: We've worked -- like I said 15 before, we've worked all over the country. 16 This is the best data set we've ever had to 17 work with, and the Port Authority I think paid 18 for a lot of that. 19 MR. BAILEY: Also, we had measurements 20 during that same time. There were measurements 21 in the marshes of what was coming off the 22 marshes. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. And I'm sorry, when 24 you were talking about Chuck Watson's work, I 25 got a little lost. I understood his 47 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 recommendations. 3 MR. DAVIE: We got lost sometimes too with 4 Chuck. 5 MS. JENNINGS: Then you said Chuck wanted 6 to do -- I kind of got lost. 7 MR. DAVIE: Chuck -- the -- Chuck has 8 his work documented in the report. He wanted 9 to run the model for many years, and there were 10 time periods, in the data, where we didn't have 11 enough data to do it. So Chuck wanted to 12 expand. 13 We said, well, seven years is the data 14 that we have. He wanted to run beyond that, so 15 Chuck mentioned things in his report that he 16 would like, based on his preference, that he 17 would like the model to be run under longer 18 periods. 19 He didn't want to run it for a summer. He 20 wanted to run it for a year. He didn't want a 21 year, he wanted three years, so -- and his 22 comments are in the report. 23 MR. DYSART: Will then David Kyler. 24 MR. BERSON: This sort of feeds into, and 25 the discussion with Bob feeds into, something 48 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 we were discussing at the interim SEG, which is 3 there ought to be a repository for a lot of the 4 information that's starting come out on this 5 project. 6 There ought to be a home for the model, 7 for example the results from this, and all the 8 associated data ought to be stored with it. I 9 think that's something that is really -- it's 10 not GPA's responsibility. It's not the Corps' 11 responsibilities. 12 I think, in a sense, it's the SEG's 13 responsibility, since we suggested all these 14 things that need to be studied, it follows we 15 ought to find a place to put it, so that it can 16 be used. It sounds as if the model has many 17 different applications, theoretical as well as 18 sort of confirming field results. 19 MR. DAVIE: Sure. 20 MR. BERSON: We discussed it briefly, and 21 I thought it was on the agenda, I don't see it 22 today, but it is something I hope the SEG 23 members will think about, one idea that I think 24 really comes to mind as an obvious fit would be 25 the Skidaway Institute. 49 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 They, obviously, worked with you, and I 3 think it's something we ought to explore. I'd 4 like to put it down as a discussion item, if 5 not for today then our next meeting. I'd like 6 for people to think about what might be 7 appropriate, what kind of funding sources we 8 might look to to do that sort of thing. 9 I don't know if a coastal incentive grant 10 might be something to look at, but with all 11 this work going on, it ought to be stored and 12 available, for future research, it seems to me. 13 MR. DAVIE: One note on the data, and ATM 14 did the work originally for the Port Authority, 15 they put their two summer studies in a 16 database. 17 The database is called the water resources 18 database. Again, it's publicly available. 19 It's free. We took what ATM had given the Port 20 Authority. We added on top of that additional 21 data, USGS data. All the data that we used for 22 calibration validation, it's in one place. 23 it's in one database. 24 I'm sure that will eventually be part of 25 the record. The technical reviewers have that 50 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 database. It's something we give out, when we 3 give them the model. They also have a WRDB 4 database that has all the database. 5 These technical reviewers have been 6 digging in and running the model, pulling up 7 our model. They're pulling the data on the 8 database and they're making their own 9 evaluations, but I would agree with your point. 10 MR. HOKE: You might mention how unwieldy 11 some of the files are, as far as storage size. 12 MR. DAVIE: Sure. It's a huge model -- 13 huge. 14 MR. HOKE: It's not a simple process to 15 find a place to store. 16 MR. DAVIE: You guys can speak to that. 17 MR. HOKE: Beth was running the EFDC model 18 and then the file. Over a one year simulation, 19 the file that generated a transfer of the data 20 to the WASP model was a 17 gigabyte file. 21 Trying to find somewhere to store that amount 22 of data is not a simple process. 23 MR. DYSART: David. 24 MR. KYLER: Yeah. I don't think this 25 question was asked. Back to the non-point 51 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 source issue, to what extent has any of this 3 modelling included the projection of additional 4 non-point source pollution that would occur in 5 the future? 6 MR. DAVIE: Such as land development? 7 MR. KYLER: Yes. 8 MR. DAVIE: It's got the capability to do 9 it, but we haven't worked on it. 10 MR. KYLER: Is there any basis for doing 11 that now, any existing projection model or 12 technique? 13 MR. DAVIE: The TMDL is supposed to 14 account for that. Sometimes they do. 15 Sometimes they don't. Sometimes it's just 16 brought in into the mix, so to speak, but -- 17 MR. KYLER: It's a premature question 18 actually. As the TMDL that's on the street 19 right now, Steve said it required a percent 20 reduction, that percent reduction of point 21 source discharge that is required -- this isn't 22 the exact number, this a quick mental 23 calculation -- is 120%. 24 If you can figure what that means, that 25 means if you take all the point source 52 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 discharges out, there's no room for point 3 source discharges in the existing TMDL. 4 There's a lot of work that still needs to be 5 done on this whole issue. 6 I'd also like to point out just against a 7 TMDL advertisement is that prior to 1994, when 8 the harbor was deepened from 38 to 42 feet, the 9 river was in compliance with the existing 10 Georgia standard. So it's -- there's a lot of 11 work to be done. 12 Your question is one -- it's a major 13 question. It is a question that is going to be 14 very thoroughly addressed between the states of 15 Georgia and South Carolina. It has moved -- 16 that specific question has moved to the very 17 top of the list of issues to be discussed in 18 allocating the splitting of the Savannah River 19 between the two states. 20 It's the number one agenda item on the 21 South Carolina side of the river, and Georgia 22 hasn't put their agenda together yet. But the 23 South Carolina side has said they want that to 24 be the first point of discussion, so it's going 25 to get embedded. 53 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 MR. KYLER: As I understand it, the 3 significance, one of the major significances of 4 that issue is whatever the effects of deepening 5 could be compounded by non-point pollution. 6 That needs to be accounted for in the impact 7 analysis. 8 MR. DAVIE: Well, compounded by 9 everything. 10 MR. KYLER: Pardon me. 11 MR. DAVIE: That's kind of the whole 12 purpose of showing the multiple efforts. the 13 dissolved oxygen measured in the river, in the 14 harbor, it's marsh loads, ocean water, point 15 source loads, it's deep channel. It's all 16 related. 17 Bob mentioned the TMDL 120% reduction. 18 Basically, EPA said to meet the state's water 19 quality criteria for DO right now, you have to 20 pull out all the point sources out. They did 21 that, basically, to show that the existing 22 state water quality DO is not applicable. 23 So most of the work that EPA has been 24 doing, since August, has been on the criteria 25 side. So it's a criteria five or is it a 54 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 three, is it a four. 3 Whatever the number is, that's going to 4 have implications for everything. It's going 5 to have implications for all these efforts. 6 Any other questions. 7 MS. JENNINGS: This is really basic, you 8 know I never have gotten it. I realize your 9 model, you've gone to great lengths to have 10 realistic input on bathymetry. 11 But at different depths won't the 12 bathymetry change? How can you model for 13 incremental depths, without knowing what 14 changes there might be in the bathymetry? I 15 never have gotten that point. 16 MR. DAVIE: We spent a lot of time, Joe 17 and I, Wilbur and Beth, everybody else, 18 discussing that point, that we've got the 19 existing bathymetry in the model now. 20 It represents the existing conditions in 21 the system. And when you deepen two feet, 22 three feet, four feet, then what will be put 23 into that bathymetry. 24 So we looked at the over-dredge, 25 disturbance depth dredging -- there's probably 55 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 a lot of people that know this more than I do. 3 We looked at all of those. There's not just a 4 42 foot channel. There's maintenance dredging 5 and everything that goes with that. 6 We basically came to the conclusion if you 7 are looking at a 42 foot existing channel, you 8 want to evaluate a 46 feet deepening, you just 9 add four feet. It's really a simple answer. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Four feet to everything? 11 MR. DAVIE: We add four feet to 12 everything. Now, we're not going in and adding 13 four feet to 42, because what's in there is the 14 existing depth So 42 is the design, and Hope, 15 you can correct me if I'm wrong, or some folks 16 at the Port Authority, 42 is the design depth, 17 but there's those allowances in over-dredging. 18 so the actual depth is actually deeper than 19 that. 20 So we assume that all of those over-dredge 21 disturbance depth dredging, we assume that 22 that's going to be consistent year in year out. 23 They're always going to go to Kings Island 24 Turning Basin and dig that deeper. That's an 25 area that shoals or sediment settles out in 56 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 that area more than other areas. 3 So that's going to be consistent, whether 4 it's a four foot deepening, a two foot, or a 5 six foot. 6 MR. HOKE: The other thing to keep in mind 7 is we're trying to capture an approximation of 8 the bathymetry, because it's constantly 9 changing. Shoaling is going on, there's a 10 dredge out there working, you know. 11 Within -- we're trying to approximate 12 that. We can recognize that it's, you know, 13 it's going to be shallower than that, deeper 14 than that on occasion throughout the year, but 15 overall we're trying to get a representation 16 with the bathymetry in the model. 17 MR. DAVIE: We did a lot of work comparing 18 the annual surveys from the Corps. So for 19 example, we compared a 2002 annual survey 20 versus a 1999 annual survey, there wasn't a 21 deepening in between, and basically came to the 22 conclusion that they're representative of each 23 other. 24 So like Joe said, there may be maintenance 25 dredging going on upstream or downstream, which 57 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 may affect it a foot or two, but overall it's 3 consistent. 4 MR. DYSART: Any other questions? 5 MS. JENNINGS: If I can have one more. 6 MR. DYSART: Sure. Have all you want. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Back to the point source, 8 I'm just wondering, maybe this is impact 9 analysis, I'm not sure. But at some point in 10 time do you ever say, okay, so the river's 11 deepened to 46 feet. That will have landside 12 impacts. I mean -- 13 MR. DAVIE: Landside, you're talking about 14 the slope of the channel? 15 MS. JENNINGS: No. I mean in terms of 16 development, if we are not going to do more why 17 bother? Clearly, this is to move more traffic 18 in and out of the river. That's likely to 19 require landside infrastructure. 20 MR. DAVIE: Are you talking about more 21 cargo, more streets -- 22 MS. JENNINGS: Right. And so I just 23 wondered, do you make effort to forecast 24 impact analysis? Do you make any effort to 25 forecast what the landside impacts would be, 58 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 and what the point source discharges from those 3 would be at various depths? That will impact 4 water quality. 5 MR. BAILEY: What you are talking about is 6 water quality from the port -- port facilities, 7 terminal facilities? 8 MS. JENNINGS: From any development, from 9 port-related activities. I've been taught that 10 term so well, let me use it now. 11 MR. DAVIE: You're saying you're making a 12 link if there's more cargo, the paper mill is 13 going to get more traffic -- 14 MS. JENNINGS: Not so much the paper mill, 15 more pavement, more diesel engines, more use. 16 We have a new container berth now. 17 I don't know what all. All I know is that 18 if you want to do more business, that's more 19 likely to mean more landside infrastructure, 20 and that's more likely to mean non-point source 21 pollution. I'm wondering how do you -- 22 MR. BAILEY: Part of it goes to without 23 project condition. I think the economics not 24 being done yet, but I think the assumption 25 going in was that the same amount of cargo was 59 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 going to move through the harbor with or 3 without deepening. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Glad you mentioned, yeah. 5 That sticks in my craw everytime I hear that, I 6 have to tell you. 7 MR. BAILEY: See what the detailed 8 analysis shows -- that was Tier I. That's what 9 we thought was going to happen. 10 So if that's correct, then the same 11 landside facilities, with or without a deeper 12 channel, it will be different than they are 13 now, because cargo will grow in the future, 14 but, that's independent of a deeper channel. 15 MS. JENNINGS: I'm sorry. My mind just 16 breaks down at that logic. I can't buy it. 17 MR. BAILEY: Okay. 18 MS. JENNINGS: But thanks for the 19 explanation. 20 MR. SCANLON: I'd like to respond to 21 Judy's question, really. Actually, I think 22 that is a very specific TMDL question, because 23 any landside activity, even if it's not a point 24 source, will require a non-point source. 25 If there's going to be any runoff into the 60 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 river, it's going to require a stormwater 3 permit, which is an MPDES permit. That is 4 going to have to go through the TMDL process. 5 Right now, there is no room for any new 6 discharge, in the Savannah River, from Thurman 7 Dam to the ocean. So as the TMDL stands -- 8 MR. DAVIE: Right now. 9 MR. SCANLON: -- July 12th, 2005, there is 10 no development in the entire Savannah River 11 basin downstream of Thurman Dam period. I 12 think that is unachievable, unacceptable, but 13 that is how it stands right now. 14 So that all needs to get resolved, and it 15 needs to get resolved quickly. Like I said, 16 it is a major, major point of discussion 17 between the states of Georgia and South 18 Carolina as we speak. 19 MR. DAVIE: The Big caveat is the DO 20 criteria that EPA and the states are using to 21 make that to come up with that answer in the 22 TMDL, if you talk to EPA and the states, they 23 do realize that target or that criteria is not 24 achievable. 25 MR. SCANLON: Exactly. 61 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 MR. DAVIE: We're talking about the same 3 point. 4 MR. SCANLON: Exactly. It cannot -- 5 natural conditions, what are described as 6 natural conditions, if you take zero runoff, 7 zero point source, zero non-point source, this 8 harbor still -- can't take zero MPDES monitored 9 discharges, take it out all whether it is point 10 source or the non-point source. 11 Under natural conditions, the harbor is 12 not in compliance today with the DO standard 13 that exists today, which means the DO standard 14 needs to be changed. We need to establish a 15 new criteria or we need to do something else. 16 MR. DAVIE: EPA -- we've done a lot of 17 work on the TMDL side. EPA has been doing a 18 lot of work on the criteria side. In 1989, 19 Georgia proposed a standard, and they said a 20 3.0 milligrams per liter is our coastal DO 21 criteria. 22 EPA rejected their standard and said, for 23 Savannah Harbor you can't meet a 3.0 in the 24 bottom, just due to physical makeup and the 25 tides and the mixing. So EPA rejected that 62 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 standard. 3 Well, since 1989, EPA didn't come back and 4 promulgate or come up with their own standard. 5 So what's on the books right now if a five, a 6 five milligrams per liter standard. 7 Everyone knows a five is not applicable, 8 because as Bob said, if you run a natural 9 conditions run, which if you take point source 10 out and even take modifications out, you cannot 11 meet a five. 12 I don't have the exact numbers, but I 13 would bet that even in the 1854 run that we 14 did, as a simulation of undeepened, there's 15 times where it doesn't meet a five. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Can you determine that? I 17 mean, could you do that; did your run tell you 18 that? 19 MR. DAVIE: Well, again, it's an 1854 20 condition, but we don't have the full makeup. 21 So really, the whole purpose of that on our end 22 has been a sensitivity to show how much of the 23 channel has had an impact on water quality. 24 Instead of a 42 foot channel, we made it 25 an eight foot channel, which is not realty. 63 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 It's not a realistic scenario, but it does give 3 an idea on the physical part of the depth of 4 the channel and how much it impacts water 5 quality. 6 So the criteria is important. EPA is 7 doing a lot, and the final TMDL that comes out, 8 I think it's still a year, at least, out, 9 wouldn't you say Bob -- you've talked to them? 10 MR. SCANLON: I would say yeah, 11 optimistically a year. 12 MR. DYSART: Other questions? Let me just 13 ask for clarification. In a previous life I 14 used to be a water quality modeller; when you 15 are talking about TMDL, the non-point source, 16 does that include residential, chemical, 17 silviculture, highway, residential and other 18 construction, agricultural? 19 MR. SCANLON: Yes, all the above. 20 MR. DAVIE: Stormwater. 21 MR. DYSART: Nothing has been set aside, 22 grandfathered, ignored? 23 MR. SCANLON: The attempt is to try to 24 catch everything that is running into the 25 stream and to try to quantify it. That's the 64 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 attempt of the TMDL. As science evolves, it 3 gets even tougher, which is what's happening 4 right now. 5 MR. DAVIE: And the issue really is from 6 Clyo downstream, so it's kind of the local 7 watershed to the harbor. We measured at Clyo. 8 so We're measuring what's coming down from 9 Augusta. 10 It's already mixed together. It's point 11 and non-point mixed together, and that's being 12 measured coming into the model. It is the 13 runoff, and the agricultural, and all of those 14 fields, and everything downstream of Clyo, and 15 the city, and everything included downstream at 16 that point. 17 MR. DYSART: Bill, do you or Joe have 18 anything kind of to add, put this in 19 perspective, wind up this? 20 MR. HOKE: Before that, you might tell 21 them what this is. 22 MR. DAVIE: This is an animation. I won't 23 spend a lot of time -- hopefully here in my 24 talk will put this in perspective. 25 This is the front river. This is the back 65 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 river. Here's the tide gate, and this is 3 salinity. So what we're looking at is a scale 4 from zero to about 35, with red being 5 freshwater. That's zero salt, and the dark 6 blue to purple being saltwater. 7 What you can see, as you have pumping, as 8 tides move in and out, the salinity moves up 9 and down. When you get up into the wildlife 10 refuge, it's even more complicated, because you 11 have connections here. This is the Steamboat 12 River. This is Rifle Cut. So what you are 13 looking at here is the back river, which turns 14 into little back, the middle, and the front 15 river. 16 What the animation shows is the pumping of 17 salinity as it moves in and out. And this is 18 -- this is the main way we calibrate the models 19 to show we're getting the water moving around 20 correctly. 21 It's not just looking at how far salinity 22 goes up. From our standpoint, it's making sure 23 we're getting the water moving in and out of 24 the system correctly. Any questions on that? 25 MS. JENNINGS: Well, again, this is our 66 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 of pure ignorance on my part. 3 MR. DAVIE: Y'all can cut me off. 4 MS. JENNINGS: I think I'm the one that 5 might want to be cut off, but is there ever any 6 explanation for stratification, other than just 7 the energy in the water? 8 MR. DAVIE: It's energy. 9 MS. JENNINGS: That's all it ever is. 10 MR. DAVIE: It's energy. In a neap tide, 11 neap tide means you have a five foot high tide 12 to low tide. You have less energy. When you 13 have less energy, that denser water is going to 14 fall out to the bottom. The fresher water is 15 going to fall out or move up to the surface. 16 During a spring tide, when you have 12 17 foot ranges going up and down, you have more 18 energy. It's able to overcome and mix. You're 19 exactly right, it's energy. 20 MS. JENNINGS: And that's all it is, 21 that's the only thing attributed to -- 22 MR. DAVIE: It's that energy with -- 23 obviously, it would be different if it was a 24 very wide estuary, and only 10 feet deep, 25 versus a very narrow estuary with 40 or 45 67 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 foot deep. So it's the energy and how that 3 energy gets manifested in the water body. 4 MS. JENNINGS: I just didn't know. 5 MR. DAVIE: Well, you do. You do know. 6 thank you for listening. Joe. 7 MR. HOKE: Go back to slide two where you 8 had the model review group. 9 MR. DAVIE: Sure. 10 MR. HOKE: Okay. I was going to review 11 where we stood with the comments on the report 12 that Tetra Tech put out. And Steve has already 13 covered most of what I had here. 14 The only group missing here, from the 15 technical model review, is the Corps of 16 Engineers' internal reviewer, and that's 17 Dr. Sun Chong Kim -- oh, he is there. He's 18 with the Corps research and development 19 facility in Vicksburg, Mississippi. 20 As Steve said, we had a meeting back on 21 June 16th and 17th. We got together with as 22 many panel members as could make it. We 23 reached a consensus that, in general, the model 24 was a big improvement over the draft version 25 that they had seen, and they were okay with us 68 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 using it for the comparative analysis. 3 Steve said we got a list of comments, and 4 they would like to see those addressed in a 5 final revised report, before we go on to using 6 the model for the final analysis of the 7 recommended plan, or for further use on the 8 TMDLs. 9 But they're fine with us using it right 10 now for comparative analysis of the impacts. 11 So what we've got to do now is address those 12 comments that have come in, and put out a 13 modification for the report, and that will be 14 the final report that will go out for 15 distribution. We're still working on that. 16 We've gotten official letters in from 17 South Carolina DHEC and Georgia DNR, U.S. Fish 18 and Wildlife, which is Ed Eudaly's over there. 19 And through Fish and Wildlife, we've also 20 gotten comments from the U.S. Geological 21 Survey, the City of Savannah representative, 22 MacTech, has provided comments, Dr. Kim at 23 ERDC. 24 The ones we have not received yet are EPA 25 Region Four. We've heard from them verbally, 69 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 but we've not gotten the official position 3 letter. They were generally in agreement with 4 what the rest of group had said. 5 We also have not heard from the National 6 Marine Fisheries Service. Ed, do you know, 7 were they planning to rely on your letter? 8 MR. EUDALY: I haven't heard anything from 9 them. I don't know. 10 MR. HOKE: Okay. All right. They have 11 actually not been actively involved in the 12 review. They have gotten copies of things. 13 MR. DAVIE: Through Paul, right, they rely 14 on Paul -- no? 15 MR. BAILEY: They rely on -- in the past 16 they have relied on what the Fish and Wildlife 17 Service has said. 18 MR. DAVIE: Okay. 19 MR. HOKE: Basically, we've gotten most of 20 the responses back. As Steve said, they're 21 pretty pleased with the improvements we have 22 made. 23 They want to see some revisions to the 24 report, but overall they gave us the go ahead. 25 Ed, would you agree that more or less 70 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 summarizes? 3 MR. EUDALY: Yeah. I'll go ahead and 4 clarify a little bit. I don't know if you have 5 posted those letters on the SEG website, but I 6 would suggest you go ahead and do that, the 7 ones you received, so people could read those. 8 MR. HOKE: Okay. 9 MR. EUDALY: To summarize, we did agree 10 the model was adequate for initial evaluations. 11 We want these other -- these concerns that have 12 been raised to be addressed. 13 If they do potential for some further 14 improvements, we of course recommend those, if 15 they're reasonable, before the final impact 16 evaluations or the mitigation runs. 17 But I want to point out that with any 18 model there's going to be some uncertainty. We 19 know any model is going to be -- they're going 20 to be differences from realty. 21 It's not going to predict perfectly. 22 There's going to be some uncertainty involved, 23 but probably -- probably approaching, in my 24 opinion, the point where we've got a good 25 product to use, probably the best we can 71 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 expect. But there will still be some doubt 3 about the output from that. 4 We have to think about how to address 5 that. One area of concern is the -- some of 6 the mitigation alternatives look at maybe 7 rerouting flows through the middle of the back 8 river, those sorts of issues. 9 There will be some uncertainty how well we 10 can rely on the model output for that, so we 11 may want to consider ways to address that 12 uncertainty, as we go through the project 13 planning. But that's pretty much our position. 14 If you would put the letter up -- our 15 letter up on the SEG website, that would be 16 appreciated too. 17 MR. BAILEY: We were going to put them 18 when we got them all in. Some of them we had 19 faxes and not the hardcopies yet. 20 MS. MOORER: One other thing, we're going 21 to ask Steve for a copy of his presentation too 22 to put up on the website as well. 23 MR. DYSART: Yes. Thank you. 24 MR. DAVIE: Who do I send that too? 25 72 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 MS. MOORER: Larry Keegan. 3 MR. DYSART: Bill, did you have anything 4 in further summary or clarification. Okay. 5 Let me suggest that we have a five minute 6 break. 7 (Short Break) 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. We'll call the meeting 9 back to order. Let's see, I would like to 10 invite anyone who has come in, since we 11 introduced ourselves around the table -- I know 12 that David Schaller, of Georgia Ports 13 Authority, came in just a couple of minutes 14 after we introduced ourselves; anyone else? 15 MR. THOMAS: Paul Thomas, EMD Chemicals. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Anyone 17 else? Okay. I appreciate the nice 18 presentation of the Corps and Tetra Tech, and 19 the extensive discussion all around the table 20 of that. 21 That was very helpful, and was generally a 22 real highlight of these meetings. It seemed we 23 did not have any particular old business being 24 carried over. Let's proceed now to committee 25 reports. 73 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 Chris is not here. Is there anybody that 3 has anything to say about any activity in the 4 aquifer area. Seeing none, we'll move on. 5 Beach Erosion Committee. 6 MR. OFF: We're still waiting for the ATM 7 report, which we understand is going to be 8 re-reviewed. I'd like to mention kind of a 9 related portion to beach erosion. 10 Tybee is preparing for its authorized but 11 unfunded, as of this date, renourishment 2007. 12 The Corps, at this time, is working on our LRR, 13 which is a limited reevaluation report which 14 justifies this, plus cost estimating, and 15 engineering, things of that sort. 16 At the same time, we have studies underway 17 to put the North Beach area, which is from the 18 North Federal Groin back at Lazaretto Creek 19 into the shore protection project, and also a 20 channel impact study which, obviously, 21 dovetails somewhat into the work going on under 22 the SEG. 23 One of the changes recently has been with 24 the loss of the coastal engineering division 25 at the Savannah District, that's all falling 74 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 under the Wilmington District engineering. I 3 believe we're kind of sharing the common 4 engineering study of some of the information 5 there. 6 So there is a related project going on, 7 which may be of a little bit of interest to the 8 group. 9 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Fisheries and 10 Aquatic Resources. Will, anything happening 11 there? 12 MR. BERSON: I don't have anything to 13 report -- 14 MR. DYSART: Any issues you would like to 15 comment on? 16 MR. BERSON: -- except I wanted to 17 announce that I'm going to be e-mailing the 18 committee to see how it is we can best move 19 forward, with all the results that will coming 20 out, and what they would like to see happen 21 with the committee. 22 Some of these folks are in the position of 23 being within resource agencies that are going 24 to be making comments, as an agency, and I want 25 to see what their comfort level is, how they're 75 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 going to proceed as individuals on a committee 3 versus staff members in the resource agency. 4 That's going to be maybe commence once we have 5 their responses. We'll move forward. 6 MR. DYSART: Striped Bass Committee. 7 MR. THOMAS: No activity. 8 MR. DYSART: Matt Thomas for Joel Fleming. 9 Okay. Judy's outside. Teri, from the Interim 10 Agenda Ad Hoc Committee, is not here. What I 11 would like to do is invite someone from the 12 interim committee. 13 Is there any general sense of the meeting, 14 issues, feedback that would be useful to bring 15 back to this body, other than comments on 16 things that needed to be on the agenda? 17 Anybody who was there care to comment on that? 18 MR. BERSON: We spent -- I'll step up to 19 that. We spent a good deal of time, at the 20 last meeting, discussing what kind of 21 information we will be seeing and what the best 22 way to present would be. 23 And that's not exactly the most 24 straightforward discussion. I'm going to look 25 to the folks to help me out with fleshing that 76 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 out. The more we talked about it, the more 3 unclear it became -- how best to do this, let 4 me put it that way. 5 MR. DYSART: Hope. 6 MS. MOORER: This is under new business 7 too. Essentially, it really falls under kind 8 of our discussion at that meeting. It was the 9 challenge of how do we integrate the SEG into 10 the Corps' process. 11 And as these model runs come out, they 12 will each have a little report associated with 13 them. There's just not enough staff resources 14 to come up with a little report on each model 15 run, with the interpretation of the results 16 from each of these model runs. 17 So we were thinking what might be helpful 18 is to get the model runs out there to see, post 19 the model runs. Kind of after our interim 20 meeting, we went back and talked to the Mobile 21 District folks, and brainstormed around the 22 table, how can then we communicate what all 23 this means, because then you're looking at a 24 picture with a habitat suitability index and 25 you're not a biologist, and how do you 77 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 interpret these runs. 3 So what we kind of came up with, and I'm 4 just going to present it, I guess, for our team 5 and kick it out there for the SEG to discuss, 6 at one point, we -- they have done it in Mobile 7 before, they have held workshops with projects 8 and project participants. 9 So once we reach where is the step this 10 would work for our team, and it's coming at the 11 end of the modelling runs, where we have got 12 impact predictions or impact analysis has been 13 complete. 14 And at that point, we have sort of the 15 impact from the various channel deepening 16 scenarios that have been run on the model. We 17 hold a workshop, at that point, on the 18 schedule. When we go over that, we'll have a 19 place on the schedule where that is identified. 20 It's not there because we wanted to 21 discuss it with you first. After impact 22 analysis, the Corps then comes for a workshop 23 we have for the SEG. 24 We could have it instead of an SEG 25 meeting. We could have in place of an SEG 78 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 meeting. We have a workshop where the Corps 3 comes and presents the impacts, as they see 4 them, from the modelling results. And then the 5 SEG is informed, at that point, of the impact 6 and can give feedback to the Corps, kind of, at 7 that point. 8 Also, we look then at the mitigation lists 9 that we had. If there are any other ideas, 10 from those mitigation options to present to the 11 Corps, you have a time period before they come 12 up with the final mitigation plan to get some 13 input back to the Corps. 14 Then there's another line on the schedule 15 that says mitigation plan complete, and the 16 Corps comes -- at that time, we have another 17 workshop where the Corps comes and presents 18 what they have come up with as mitigation plan. 19 And the components of it explain to you 20 why they're looking at this, why they have 21 chosen this. And at this point, you have, the 22 SEG has an opportunity to ask the Corps well, 23 why are you looking at this as part of 24 mitigation, what does this option do, what will 25 it do in terms of impacts? 79 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 That's sort of looking at the mitigation 3 plan. There would be a time to kind of discuss 4 all the various components at a workshop 5 session too. If this were to happen on the 6 schedule, I'll show the Corps has something 7 in their process called Alternative Formulation 8 Briefing, an AFB. 9 That's kind of a big check-off point 10 before the final plan is written. This would 11 happen before the AFB and before the draft plan 12 goes out. You would see the mitigation plan 13 before all this, and have an opportunity to 14 provide feedback for the Corps, before they put 15 out the final plan, before they take the final 16 plan to the AFB, the Alternative Formation 17 Briefing. 18 Then how we envision it, the draft plan, 19 the draft of EIS, the GRR would come out in 20 terms of timeline. And after the plan comes 21 out, the Corps would come back and explain 22 what's in that draft plan, the EIS and the GRR, 23 to discuss this is why we went with this 24 mitigation, and how we're trying to avoid 25 impacts, or if we can't avoid them, what we're 80 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 looking at in terms of compensation -- those 3 sort of things at that time. 4 So there would be three times; once the 5 impacts are identified, the Corps comes and 6 goes over the impacts with us at the SEG. The 7 SEG has an opportunity, at that time, to give 8 any feedback to the Corps, once the mitigation 9 plan is complete. 10 The mitigation plan is presented to the 11 SEG, and the SEG has an opportunity, at that 12 point, to provide feedback too. All that 13 occurs before the draft EIS and THE AFB 14 happens. 15 That would be kind of an opportunity -- 16 because it's difficult with the normal Corps' 17 process -- this isn't normally built in. We 18 were trying to figure out some point that there 19 would be -- there won't be any written 20 documents, but there will be impacts known at 21 one -- at that point. 22 So it's nothing formal yet. There is no 23 formal plan put out there. There would be a 24 mitigation plan then discussed. You're not 25 getting a section of EIS that's written out 81 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 already. It's before that EIS is complete. 3 So that was kind of what we were 4 envisioning, and it might be something we think 5 about and come and back discuss it at the next 6 meeting, have the interim SEG look at it, or we 7 can also, once we pass out the schedule, show 8 you, on the schedule, where we're thinking that 9 feedback might best fit in. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Anybody else with 11 comments on that or anything else from the 12 interim committee meeting? 13 MS. MOORER: But it was generated -- all 14 the discussion was generated from the interim 15 SEG meeting, when we were talking about taking 16 the model runs and posting them up on the 17 website. 18 And as non-biologist, we don't necessarily 19 know what those model runs mean to a species. 20 There's not going to be generated, with each 21 model run, a complete report of what this model 22 run means. There might be 150 model runs or 23 200 model runs. You can't do a complete report 24 with each one. 25 As a biologist, you'll know what that 82 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 means to a species in your specialty, so that 3 was something that we said, well, how can we 4 then communicate what these model runs mean as 5 an impact? 6 And impact analysis, that's kind of the 7 first point at which kind of a big picture can 8 be discussed. 9 MR. DYSART: Would you like to suggest 10 that be on the agenda for the next time for 11 further discussion reaction? 12 MS. MOORER: It can be. Then we can show 13 too on the schedule why that -- where that fits 14 in. Also, at the interim SEG meeting we can 15 further discuss that plan. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. Will Berson. 17 MR. BERSON: Just -- I mean, that's not in 18 place of releasing all this information? 19 MS. MOORER: Oh no, no. 20 MR. BERSON: I think as you get 21 information you should post it. Granted some 22 of it will make sense to people, and a lot of 23 won't. I think, just as a matter of public 24 record you should release everything. 25 MS. MOORER: Right. 83 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MR. BERSON: It will help us see what it 3 means. 4 MS. MOORER: We envision like there would 5 be a section of model runs where they're 6 grouped by depth of the model runs, or 7 resource, how ever they were determined for the 8 runs, whether it was by resource or depth, 9 whatever, but some way that makes sense. And 10 then people can access it and look at the 11 picture that we show of a model run, 12 essentially. 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. Comments concerning 14 the -- Larry, please. 15 MR. KEEGAN: I just want to amplify a 16 little bit on what Hope and Will were just 17 saying. Some of the details we'll have to work 18 out. Joe mentioned that the output file for 19 one of these prediction runs is running about 20 17 gigabytes. 21 MR. HOKE: Right. 22 MR. KEEGAN: And we just have to work out 23 how do we effectively make something that size 24 available to people who may want it. Just 25 think about how long it would take you to 84 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 download that file, whatever connection you 3 have. 4 I don't care what it is, it is going to 5 take you a while, not to mention space to store 6 it on a website and all of that stuff. 7 There's some details to work out about how 8 we make all the pieces available to the public. 9 we just don't know the answers yet -- not to 10 say we make it available, we just don't 11 know how. 12 MR. BERSON: I think it's also in today's 13 graphic representations, some folks might think 14 that there will be a graph, I mean a website 15 where you can say well, okay, a little less 16 depth and a little more oxygen, and poof, and 17 it's going to change for you. 18 It's important to realize that's not 19 what's going to be available. Each one of 20 these large files will represent a whole series 21 of pre-set conditions. 22 And a lot of this is sort of just 23 understanding what the abilities of the 24 representation are, not necessarily what can be 25 investigated. So -- 85 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MR. KEEGAN: I think Steven you said 961 3 cells, six layers, right. 4 MR. DAVIE: Right 930. 5 MR. KEEGAN: So it would be 961 cells by 6 six layers by whatever time increment is 7 picked. For every time increment you will have 8 961 times six outputs. 9 MR. DAVIE: Let me add some comments here. 10 One thing we're doing for Corps right now, 11 it's actually why they left room, we were going 12 to go talk about it, is we're developing -- 13 we're calling it a post-processor. 14 Basically, what that does, if you only 15 want to look at the DO at the bottom at the 16 most critical segment, then you don't need to 17 flip through and animations and plots and all 18 the other outputs. 19 You just want a number; is it a three or 20 is it a 3.2? You want to be able to take that 21 number and go to the 44 foot TMDL or whatever 22 all these other scenarios are, and compare is 23 it a 3.2 here, well, it's a 3.2 there. so 24 really, those two scenario make no difference 25 at all. 86 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 So the files are not as large as the 17 3 gig file, but the whole premise Larry was 4 talking about is right. The output is a lot. 5 It's a lot more than any of you want to go 6 through. 7 The output file that has every segment, 8 every spatial and temporal output with every 9 parameter, they're usually about half a gig to 10 a gig -- so about 500 megs to about a gig, but 11 you don't need to download those files. 12 What we're going to have, when we finish 13 this product with the Corps in the next couple 14 of weeks, is you want to be able to go in and 15 read that model run and produce a certain 16 output. 17 Those outputs are like what I showed you. 18 It may be a longitudinal plot. It may be a 19 summary table. It may be a DO. It may be 20 salinity. It may be velocity. It may be all 21 three. 22 What we're working one with Joe and Beth 23 here is a program. You'll be able to read. 24 Maybe, I don't know how it's going to look, 25 maybe you'll be able to download the program 87 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 from the website that Hope and Larry are 3 talking about. 4 You can look at a particular model run and 5 say, I just want the 90th percentile of 6 salinity up here on the little back river. So 7 you run this little program and it will spit 8 out a little summary table. 9 So what we're trying to avoid, and it's 10 something we talked about, is having so much 11 output, from the models, that you can't make 12 heads or tails out of it. It doesn't do any 13 good to make decisions. 14 All the groups represented here, you're 15 going to be looking at various aspects; fish 16 versus DO versus whatever. Hopefully, when 17 we're done, you'll be able to take any model 18 run. 19 You could download those as Larry was 20 describing, I want the August 1999 run with the 21 46 foot channel, and you can download it, run 22 the program, and get the kind of output you 23 want. You can go as detailed with output or 24 very simple. 25 We've got a draft -- that's what we were 88 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 about to meet and go discuss -- we've got a 3 draft of what that program looks like and how 4 it's going to work. That's what we're going to 5 go work through. 6 Does that help shed any light? I don't 7 envision, unless you guys have different 8 opinions, you're not going to be downloading 9 these huge model files, huge reports. But 10 hopefully we'll have the ability -- it may be 11 through the web -- where you can select a run, 12 run the program, and give you the kind of 13 output you want. 14 You may want full a blown animation of 15 salinity and looking at salinity in the upper 16 part of the refuge. You may just want a 17 number. 18 MR. HOKE: So they won't have the ability 19 to run the model, change input conditions, but 20 within the runs that have already been made, 21 they will be able to pick and choose among 22 various outputs. 23 MR. DAVIE: Right. That's why I think 24 we're building our scenarios list, we will run 25 all the different scenarios, for the impact 89 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 analysis, that you will want to see. 3 I don't think there will be other runs 4 that people will want -- I mean, maybe there 5 will, but maybe Bob will want to play with it. 6 You'll have all the runs that are already run 7 and there, and you will just want to be able 8 compare between them, does salinity change, 9 does DO change, velocity, things like that. 10 Bill, you want to add do that? 11 MR. BAILEY: No. That's fine. 12 MR. DYSART: Will. 13 MR. BERSON: You give me way too much 14 credit for assuming I know what the right 15 question is to ask out of all that. 16 I think that speaks to the idea of the 17 workshop. At first blush, I think it makes an 18 awful lot of sense, in a global sense. Maybe 19 that will trigger more targeted questions in my 20 overworked brain at this point. 21 MR. DAVIE: Y'all aren't going to invite 22 me back? 23 MR. BERSON: I think the workshop idea 24 makes a lot of sense. I think it will engender 25 other questions as a result. I certainly don't 90 1 ECONOMICS WORKING GROUP 2 think that I'm going to be bright enough to be 3 able to manipulate things and understand what's 4 going on with any certainty. 5 MR. DYSART: Hope. 6 MS. MOORER: We will take that idea back 7 to the next interim SEG meeting. Hopefully, 8 the interim SEG meeting will come back with a 9 recommendation, yes, there is a good idea, or 10 if there is something, some alternative to 11 discuss. 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. Good. Judy, how about 13 a comment from the Economics Working Group. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Oh, I'm woefully 15 inadequate. Excuses abound, none y'all would 16 want to hear. So Bill, we left it waiting on 17 a couple of pieces of things, before we came 18 back, but we circulated quite a bit. There 19 were just two pieces of work that were 20 outstanding, before my June started. 21 MR. BAILEY: I think they're still -- 22 reviews are still going on those things. 23 MS. JENNINGS: But a lot of material is on 24 the website, and a lot has been posted. The 25 existing world fleet, the prospective world 91 1 ECONOMICS WORKING GROUP 2 fleet, the commodity forecast -- I think what 3 we were waiting on was commodity forecast with 4 and without project conditions. 5 MR. KEEGAN: Savannah fleet with and 6 without project, and world forecast -- three 7 pieces. 8 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. They're still 9 outstanding, so -- 10 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 11 MS. JENNINGS: -- Bill, I'll count on you 12 or Alan to tell me what they are worked out. 13 We'll post them, and really, guys, what needs 14 to happen is that when these things are made 15 available to us, we need to read them and 16 provide the Corps with some written feedback. 17 Getting together doesn't make much sense 18 if the Corps doesn't know what we want to talk 19 about. If we haven't done our homework, we 20 can't talk about it anyway. 21 So I will continue to post these things 22 and notify the Economic Working Group, as I 23 have, when they're posted. I think what the 24 Corps asked for, in a very reasonable way, is 25 that people interested in the issue ask them 92 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 specific questions so they can provide specific 3 answers. I think that's the most -- I mean, 4 that's those of us interested in that material 5 really need to do our homework and ask the 6 questions. 7 I never got anything from the last 8 circulation that I did. Did anybody contact 9 you with anything? 10 MR. BAILEY: No. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 12 MR. DYSART: I think we've completed 13 committee reports. New business, the first 14 item is meeting reports concerning the Corps 15 and GPA. We have a project review meeting from 16 June, comment on that. 17 MR. BAILEY: I can tell you something 18 about that. 19 MR. DYSART: Bill, thank you. 20 MR. BAILEY: We've had some contacts. We 21 had some new players on our project team with 22 people from Mobile coming in and people from 23 the Wilmington District coming in. 24 So we had a -- with every -- every new 25 person has a different way of looking at 93 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 something, so we thought we would take that and 3 try to use that for our advantage. 4 We basically said all right, called 5 everybody together and said all right. We got 6 some new players. Let's get together and go 7 over the schedule again, and see if there's new 8 points of view, if you can figure out ways to 9 change the schedule. 10 Is there anything we can do differently? 11 Our Colonel has told the staff he would like to 12 have the final report out before he leaves his 13 tour here. 14 That would require a shortening of the 15 schedule, so that -- and the continual growth 16 and cost of the study as things go on. 17 So we got the group together to look at 18 the schedule and see about the way we had 19 structured things. 20 We met the 14th and 15th of June. We had 21 people from the Corps, from Savannah, Mobile, 22 Wilmington, Charleston, Atlanta, and GPA and 23 their consultant were there. 24 They did identify some ways to shorten the 25 schedule. One of the -- I guess two different 94 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 kind of approaches, two different reasons for 3 changes in the schedule, one of them was just 4 starting some tasks, some technical tasks 5 sooner, not waiting for the things before them 6 to be fully complete. 7 The other one had to do with changes in 8 the way -- changes in the type of material the 9 Corps would send up to Washington. Hope talked 10 about that Alternative Formulation Briefing. 11 That is a big deal in the Corps process. 12 That's where we get approval from our 13 headquarters office that we've identified the 14 right plan, and we can send it out and ask for 15 public comment. So this -- some of these new 16 people on the team had a new of way of looking 17 at things. 18 They said, you know, you're not required 19 to send Washington a full draft report, even 20 though that's what we had before in the 21 schedule. 22 They said all you're required to do is 23 send them enough information for them to make 24 that decision. So if we change the schedule to 25 do that, then we can shorten the schedule up. 95 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 So that was the big change. 3 MS. MOORER: What we did was we split into 4 two groups. It was kind of the project 5 management group, the plan formulators, the 6 project management folks, and the policy folks 7 in one room. 8 In the other room, it was the technical 9 people, the biologists, scientists, groups 10 doing the technical work. It was funny because 11 the technical work I think actually extended a 12 month, but the policy folks looked at where 13 reviews were starting or ending, or the AFB 14 where it was positioned in the Corps' process, 15 the checkpoints off at the end of the project 16 study period, and that's where the time was 17 saved, was on that end, not on necessarily the 18 technical end. 19 I think that actually extended out maybe a 20 month, 30 days, somewhere in there, but -- and 21 it hasn't changed from the last time we shared 22 a schedule. Really, we were bringing them back 23 to that point, because of some new planning 24 guidance about reviews, and other things we 25 built into the schedule. 96 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 But we built in with our concept of what 3 the guidance said, not with what maybe the 4 mobile folks or headquarters folks meant for 5 this guidance meeting. 6 The policy people took a look at that, and 7 that's where the time savings were realized in 8 the project, more so than the technical work 9 actually extended a little bit, but the time 10 savings was in the policy project management 11 part of it. 12 MR. BAILEY: So we didn't delete or revise 13 any of the technical work that would be 14 performed in the study. And now, we're trying 15 to document these changes in the schedule, 16 basically write them up and send them up the 17 Corps' chain to get our headquarters approval, 18 yeah, these things are acceptable to them. 19 We're still in that process. We came out 20 of there also recognizing that that was not 21 an end-state. We would still want to try to 22 save a couple more months if we could, because 23 with the budget process the way it is, this was 24 right at the brink if you could do it a couple 25 months sooner, it would make a difference of 97 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 which -- it could save a year to when you could 3 move forward in the next step. 4 So we're going to see what else we can do 5 to save a couple more months. So that was a 6 Tuesday and Wednesday of -- in June, middle of 7 June. The next day, we went over -- go ahead. 8 MS. JENNINGS: I'm not sure I got clear on 9 the part about you don't have to have the final 10 report, just send them enough to make a 11 decision. What final report are you talking 12 about? 13 MR. BAILEY: There's a draft report that 14 was for this Alternative Formulation Briefing 15 where we get our headquarters approval to, 16 basically, send something out to the public. 17 Our regulations don't require we have the 18 full report that we would send out to the 19 public, but that's what we had built in to the 20 schedule. 21 MS. MOORER: It doesn't have to be. 22 MR. BAILEY: The new approach is just to 23 send enough materials to describe what our 24 recommendation is, the plans we looked at, all 25 -- still have all the -- summarize the impacts, 98 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 have the mitigations, costs all that. 3 And then what would be the recommendation. 4 But it wouldn't be a full draft EIS ready to go 5 on the street. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. I just wasn't sure 7 the EIS -- I wasn't sure that was the report. 8 Okay. But what goes on the street for people 9 to look at? 10 MR. BAILEY: After that meeting, hopefully 11 they would say okay. You have looked at the 12 alternatives correctly. You've identified what 13 you think is the best alternative. 14 Now, finish up the report. Finish up your 15 draft report, and see what the public has to 16 say. At that point, we would be finishing up 17 the report, the draft, and sending it out for 18 comment. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Surprised you didn't always 20 do it that. 21 MR. BAILEY: Well, we had gotten away from 22 that because people at headquarters kept asking 23 so many comments, we just gave them a full 24 report. It got to be easier, but we'll go 25 back, shifting back to giving them just enough. 99 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 We'll have to be coordinating with them to make 3 sure we give them the right pieces. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Basically, what you're 5 telling me is you go ahead and finish it. 6 MR. BAILEY: They're saying it's enough 7 for them to have just the pieces and not the 8 whole draft report. 9 MS. JENNINGS: okay. 10 MR. SCHALLER: Bill, wouldn't an 11 appropriate analogy be it's a grand jury 12 hearing. I mean, you don't do the full 13 prosecution in a grand jury setting. 14 You deliver enough information so they can 15 make a reasoned, informed decision about moving 16 forward or backing up; in other words, we want 17 more information before we, you know, bring the 18 indictment. 19 MS. MOORER: It will -- the other part of 20 that reasoning from Mobile was that they do it 21 with -- instead of the setting up the full 22 report, the folks from the Mobile District said 23 they send out all the pieces. 24 This is how -- what we're putting in the 25 report, what we're going to do, how we're going 100 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 to structure the report. This is how we made 3 our decision and what information we used, to 4 get a check-off it is enough -- what the 5 headquarters needs and what headquarters thinks 6 should go in the report, so they don't have to 7 redo sections of it. 8 At that point, you're supposed to be 9 pretty near the end at that point, but you 10 still have time to go back and fix what 11 headquarters doesn't like at that point, is 12 that fair to say too? 13 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Then the next day. 15 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Then the next day, we 16 took that and we met with the leading 17 cooperating agencies, the other federal 18 agencies, Fish and Wildlife Service, National 19 Marine Fisheries Service, EPA, we met with them 20 to tell them about what we just told you about, 21 what had just happened with the schedule. 22 That was that, and also to go over a 23 presentation for a meeting the next week. We 24 discussed the schedule changes, and one comment 25 that the service made was they didn't mind 101 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 shortening the schedule, as long as the 3 technical stuff still stayed the same. 4 That was a legitimate comment and that was 5 what we were doing. The technical work would 6 not change. 7 So we also asked them to look at the 8 schedule and see if there was anything in 9 there, any way that they saw we could shorten 10 it even more. 11 We then talked about the meeting we were 12 going to have the following week up in 13 Washington with the Washington level 14 representatives of each of those agencies, EPA, 15 Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National 16 Marine Fisheries Service and the Corps. 17 Basically, we went over what the Corps 18 planned to say at that meeting, so that they 19 would know, at the local level, what we were 20 going to say up in Washington. 21 And basically, the story that -- the main 22 points we were going to say was that the Corps 23 thought that the project was doing good 24 science, in several areas we're doing state of 25 the art work. We thought that the agencies 102 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 were working together well at the local level 3 and the regional level. 4 I think that's -- that's about my summary 5 of that meeting. That was a half day to go 6 through that. 7 Then, a week later, it was a little 8 different. A week later, we went up to 9 Washington, had these Corps agencies, and we 10 had asked to hold this meeting. We've been 11 asking for a year at least -- 12 MS. MOORER: Six months, yeah. 13 MR. BAILEY: -- trying to get the people 14 in Washington to meet with us. I wrote down we 15 basically had three goals. We wanted to tell 16 them about the project, wanted to tell them 17 about their role in the project, and we wanted 18 to give them dates of when we expected 19 decisions from them. 20 The -- there were people there from the 21 Corps, from Savannah, Mobile, Atlanta, and 22 Washington. Fish and Wildlife Service had 23 people there from Charleston, Atlanta, 24 Washington. The EPA folks were just from 25 Washington. National Marine Fisheries Service, 103 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 I think, were just from Washington. Then the 3 Port Authority had David there with some folks. 4 So we gave them -- we started off with an 5 overview of the project, and the Savannah River 6 basin, and different issues down here, so that 7 they knew where Savannah was. 8 Starting from ground zero, Mr. Schaller 9 gave them a talk on the port, what moves 10 through the growth that's happened the last few 11 years, and what their plans are for the future. 12 Then we talked about the project history, 13 about the authorization back in whenever got 14 authorized in Tier I and explained all that to 15 them. 16 We told them what we thought the issues 17 were, environmental issues. We talked about 18 the agency coordination, the public 19 coordination, and then where we were as far as 20 a schedule in the status, and when we would 21 expect them to make some decisions. 22 Part of the reason was you remember the 23 authorization that required the heads of the 24 four federal agencies to all agree, at the end, 25 that the project should move forward. 104 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 So we wanted to, basically, put the 3 project on the radar screen of those people in 4 Washington. Let's see, I think I wrote down 5 here that the main issues that I wrote down 6 was that they raised, they questioned why we 7 were having the meeting if we didn't want a 8 decision from them right then. 9 They were used to -- well, for those types 10 of meetings, they were used to making 11 decisions. So we told them we didn't need a 12 decision that day, and it was kind of like why 13 do you want us here. They also raised 14 cumulative impact assessment. 15 They said that's a subject we should be 16 giving attention to. It's an area that we knew 17 is important and we have done work on it. 18 That's something they highlighted. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, excuse me. Exactly 20 who brought that up? 21 MR. BAILEY: I think it was Fish and 22 Wildlife Service. The National Marine 23 Fisheries Service representative talked about 24 endangered species, said maybe we should 25 consider entering formal consultation now. 105 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 So we told them what we were already 3 doing, and so they expressed that concern. And 4 since the meeting, we have been in contact with 5 a local person, local St. Petersburg, Florida, 6 but that's the office that handles endangered 7 species, and they agreed no, we weren't ready 8 yet. We weren't at that point to make a 9 decision of formal consultation or keeping it 10 an informal. 11 It's part of the regulations. If you get 12 to a certain point, it's a whole separate 13 process whether it's called formal 14 consultations. 15 MS. JENNINGS: You're talking about the 16 Section 7? 17 MR. BAILEY: Yes. They also -- the last 18 point was those people said that the Washington 19 offices, typically, look down to the regional 20 level for those people to make decisions on 21 specific projects. 22 So that was a little different from a 23 Corps' perspective. We tend to -- from my 24 perspective, our headquarters is the one who 25 makes the final decision. 106 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 The indication we got here was -- from 3 these other agencies -- they would be looking 4 down from a regional level to make the 5 decisions, Although it would still be the 6 Washington level that would make the final 7 signatures. 8 Then we agreed to periodic meetings to 9 keep them informed of our progress. It was a 10 room full of people. That's about it for that 11 meeting. Okay. 12 MS. JENNINGS: No, wait. 13 MR. BAILEY: Okay. 14 MS. JENNINGS: This is honestly the first 15 time I've ever watched such a big project. 16 I've certainly never watched this one this 17 long. 18 So I'm not all that knowledgeable about 19 Section 7 consultation, about how it flows into 20 a process. So you say you heard comments, when 21 are we going to start or -- 22 MR. BAILEY: No. 23 MS. JENNINGS: I'm not exactly sure. 24 MR. BAILEY: The comment was they thought 25 we should be entering formal consultation, and 107 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 that formal consultation means something. It's 3 a little separate process that the agencies 4 then follow. 5 That has time lines for them when they 6 have respond, and what document they have to 7 produce. So, we have been coordinating with 8 the agencies about impacts to endangered 9 species -- been doing that all along, what we 10 consider informal coordination. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Right. I've watched 12 Section 7 happen, but not in the context of 13 such a big process. 14 MR. BAILEY: You can get -- on most 15 projects you can go all the way to the end and 16 you may never enter formal consultation. It 17 just depends on the project, and the type of 18 impact that you think you may have on that 19 species. 20 MS. JENNINGS: But you don't doubt but 21 what this would require formal Section 7 22 consultation, do you? 23 MR. BAILEY: At this point, I don't know. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Really? 25 MR. BAILEY: I think -- I think the 108 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 criteria is that you will impact, you will 3 adversely impact the species, and it may be the 4 species. I'm not sure if it's the population, 5 local population, or if its the species which 6 is much broader. 7 MR. EUDALY: It's you're likely to 8 adversely impact the species, and I think it's 9 formal consultation. And I think the point the 10 national Marine Fisheries was making, in terms 11 of short-nose sturgeon, it was likely to 12 require formal consultation, and that 13 sufficient time needed to be built into that 14 process to allow for that process to be 15 completed, if you are going to meet your 16 schedule. 17 Probably, the species that the Fish and 18 Wildlife Service is responsible for, we'll 19 probably be able to handle on an informal 20 consultation. Short-nose sturgeon being an 21 aquatic species, it has a high potential for 22 impacts plus salinity impacts. 23 So my guess would probably be that, 24 although I can't speak for the National Marine 25 Fisheries Service, their point probably needs 109 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 formal consultation. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Short-nose sturgeon was 4 where I was headed to with the question and 5 maybe even the right whale. 6 MR. BAILEY: Sturgeon and whales and 7 turtles, I think, are the three species that I 8 would see as having the highest potential. 9 MS. JENNINGS: That's all National Marine 10 Fisheries. 11 MR. DYSART: Hope. 12 MS. MOORER: Bill, I think you reported 13 that once you spoke to the person, in the 14 regional office of National Marine Fisheries, 15 that they weren't going to make a decision on 16 that until the impact analysis was done. 17 MS. JENNINGS: So I'm sorry, I'm not 18 processing it. It's up to the agency to 19 request a formal consultation, or is it your 20 call? 21 MR. BAILEY: It's the Corps, the action 22 agency. That would be for our proposed 23 project. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 25 MR. DYSART: Did that get through the 110 1 SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT UPDATE 2 Principle meetings? 3 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 4 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Any other -- very 5 helpful. Any other questions? Okay. How 6 about the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project 7 update incorporating project review meeting 8 information and duration changes. 9 MR. BAILEY: Okay. I guess that's me 10 again. This Garrett guy goes off on vacation. 11 Can we make it a rule you can't take any more 12 vacations on SEG meetings -- no. Okay. 13 MR. DYSART: As long as you have Will 14 Berson's mind working overtime to compensate. 15 That's okay for somebody to take a vacation. 16 I don't know whether that's an optimistic 17 scenario or the -- excuse me. Go ahead. 18 MR. BAILEY: Larry has got some -- 19 MR. KEEGAN: I think we probably covered 20 what happened during that review meeting, how 21 the schedule was changed, and the thinking that 22 went on that resulted in changes. 23 We passed out a copy that was posted on 24 the SEG website. And basically, if you compare 25 that to an earlier version, we see several 111 1 SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT UPDATE 2 months saved, about six months in round 3 numbers. 4 I would say it all essentially came out of 5 the -- not out of the technical work, as Hope 6 said, but out of the formulation, and the 7 processing, and the review, and the 8 decision-making process. 9 A large part of it was the length of time 10 it would take to get the final department and 11 agency level review and decision. We shortened 12 that up to a pretty challenging duration, a 13 fairly short one, but one we thought was still 14 achievable and realistic. 15 So I think the end result here is we think 16 we have an aggressive schedule, one that 17 represents at the same time it's an aggressive 18 schedule, it's an achievable schedule, and one 19 that preserves the time that's necessary to do 20 the work that has to be done in a sound and 21 reasonable and logical way. 22 It doesn't shorten anything, it doesn't 23 cut off anything, it doesn't fast-track 24 anything. It just tries to arrange it as best 25 we can do it, and in the most effective way, 112 1 SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT UPDATE 2 the most efficient mode. 3 MR. BAILEY: I think in -- although a 4 planning process is iterative, and you have to 5 come back and go over things again, the basic 6 structure of this schedule is that it's kind of 7 in phases. 8 We'll look at once we have tools to look 9 at impacts, which is where we have been for the 10 last number of years is getting tools. We'll 11 use those tools, and do the model runs to see 12 what the impacts would be from different 13 alternatives. 14 And then we'll see what we've got. Then 15 the next phase is going in saying, all right. 16 Now, with these kind of impacts there, how can 17 I make those impacts go away, how can I 18 mitigate for impacts, is there something I can 19 do to change it to reduce that impact, make it 20 go away. 21 So first phase purely is looking at 22 impacts. The second phase is looking at a 23 mitigation plan. Parallel, you've got an 24 economic analysis going on simultaneously, so 25 other things, cultural resource work going on, 113 1 SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT UPDATE 2 then putting the pieces together to see -- to 3 prepare the alternatives, and to pick one, and 4 to write it all down in the report to see what 5 people think. 6 That's the basic approach. I think right 7 now the impact analysis, that first phase, 8 you've got here on your schedule, it's in green 9 line nine -- shown as line 91, impact 10 evaluation complete in January. 11 Then the next phase would be that line 94, 12 mitigation plan development goes through May. 13 So in May of '06, you have that second piece. 14 Then you have got, down toward the bottom, line 15 278 is where it shows the public review, and 16 that starts October of '06. 17 So October of next year is when we would 18 have a report out for public comment. And then 19 we would have a review of a final report, in 20 the next to the last line in April, basically 21 April of '07. So that's a quick -- quick 22 summary of the schedule. 23 MR. SCANLON: The question I have -- 24 MR. DYSART: Bob, then Larry. 25 MR. SCANLON: -- what kind of public 114 1 SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT UPDATE 2 input? Just take an example here, the chloride 3 impact evaluation. 4 We have the final date, the end of 5 September, a few months from now. What exactly 6 are we talking about? Just having -- okay. 7 Whether there's an impact or not, at that 8 point, or degree of impact, and then the real 9 question is what kind of public participation 10 will be involved in making the assessment as to 11 whether or not there's an impact? 12 MR. BAILEY: Okay. First question. I 13 think that line, chloride impact evaluation, is 14 just to do with the model runs to see what the 15 effect would be. 16 MR. SCANLON: But at what point will we 17 have an opportunity to look at those results? 18 MR. BAILEY: That's what Hope talked 19 about, and the interim group talked about, 20 trying to figure out a way to do that. 21 The normal Corps' process is the Corps 22 does its evaluations, and then you comment on 23 the draft report. We're trying to figure out 24 a way to keep the project moving, and yet allow 25 more public input. So we got, you know, Hope 115 1 SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT UPDATE 2 made a proposal and this group has got to 3 figure out how it -- 4 MR. KEEGAN: One of those workshops would 5 slot in after line 91, for instance. 6 MS. MOORER: Right. 7 MR. KEEGAN: That workshop conceptually 8 would deal with all impact evaluations, what 9 the results are, and add that to the feedback 10 in the report. 11 Then the next one that we talked about 12 would slot in after line 94, mitigation plan 13 development. It would deal with the entirety 14 of what the plan is looking like, and all of 15 the pieces of it. 16 So conceptually, that's where we saw that 17 the workshops would slide in, in line with 18 public interaction, at those two points. 19 MR. SCANLON: I think what my concern is I 20 think let's change the word public to 21 stakeholder interaction. I think here we might 22 have an opportunity to shorten it, if we were 23 to move to -- once we have a determination -- 24 what the impact is, that it's shared with the 25 stakeholders with a specific interest in that 116 1 SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT UPDATE 2 specific issue, even without the workshop, 3 possibly it's just being a way to possibly 4 shorten the process. 5 If we wait on that one, if we do wait till 6 January, we basically have lost three months of 7 time to be reviewing that particular issue. 8 MR. BAILEY: As Will recommended, what we 9 planned to do when the model result -- when we 10 get a model result, we will post it. 11 You'll be able to see the result of the 12 run, as they become available, so you won't 13 have to wait for whatever format we come up 14 with. You can have it right then and look at 15 it. 16 MR. SCANLON: We'll get notification as 17 well that it's being posted? 18 MS. MOORER: I don't know how we're going 19 to do that, essentially, because like I said, 20 there will be so many of these. 21 As they become available, we've got to 22 work through, first of all, what format they 23 will be, and second of all, how they will be 24 transferred to post. All that has to be worked 25 out. 117 1 SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT UPDATE 2 Larry always puts it at the top of the SEG 3 site, the new things that are available. Once 4 we get model runs, that will be a time period 5 where you should be frequently checking the 6 site for any runs. 7 I'm sure there's a few that you are 8 specifically interested in, with the chloride 9 model, that we would be able to say okay, 10 chloride model runs are going on. They will be 11 posted in a week or so. So I'm sure we can 12 coordinate with you to let you know when that's 13 happening. 14 MR. DYSART: Further comments? I hope 15 we've taken care of the next item. You did -- 16 this is the dissemination of the model runs. 17 That's taken care of. Any other topics 18 that are not on the agenda? Did I hear Judy 19 taking a breath? 20 MS. JENNINGS: Just to confirm the next 21 interim meeting is August 2nd. 22 MS. MOORER: First Tuesday, right. 23 MS. JENNINGS: It's at 1:00 o'clock. 24 Okay. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. What about the next 118 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 meeting date. Who has a suggestion? Who has 3 a sense of when there would be material ripe to 4 discuss before this body? Hope. 5 MS. MOORER: May I make a suggestion we go 6 ahead and schedule it for September? If we 7 need to move it back to October, after we meet 8 in the interim SEG meeting, we will send out an 9 e-mail to everyone and let everyone know. 10 MR. DYSART: That would be Tuesday the 11 13th, so it wouldn't be tied up with Labor Day. 12 MS. MOORER: Labor Day -- okay. 13 MR. DYSART: And 9:00 o'clock still works 14 for folks -- seeing no objection, we'll do 15 that. Anything else to bring before -- David. 16 MR. SCHALLER: Is it possible that it 17 might be that we can convert that meeting of 18 the SEG to a workshop? 19 MS. MOORER: I don't know if we're at that 20 point now -- 21 MR. SCHALLER: That's okay. 22 MS. MOORER: That won't happen until after 23 January, in fact. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay,so 9:00 o' clock on 25 September 13th, pending a recommendation from 119 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 the interim agenda committee. 3 Okay. Anything else? Seeing no requests 4 for comments or what not, we will declare the 5 meeting adjourned. Thank you very much. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 1 2 3 4 5 C E R T I F I C A T E 6 G E O R G I A 7 CHATHAM COUNTY 8 9 I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript 10 was taken down, as stated in the caption, and the 11 questions and answers thereto were reduced to 12 typewriting under my directions; that the forgoing 13 Pages 1 through 119 represent a true and correct 14 transcript of the evidence given upon said hearing, 15 and I further certify that I am not of kin or 16 counsel to the parties in the case; am not in the 17 regular employ of counsel for any of said parties 18 nor am I in anywise interested in the result of 19 said case. 20 21 This, the 2nd day of August, 2005. 22 23 _______________________________ 24 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 25 Reporter, B-2041 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25