1 2 3 4 5 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6 7 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 8 9 SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 10 9:00 A.M. 11 MIGHTY 8TH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 12 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 5 I N D E X 6 7 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3 8 FACILITATOR'S OPENING EXERCISE ---------------- 7 9 10 BEACH EROSION --------------------------------- 24 11 DREDGING AND DISPOSAL ------------------------- 25 12 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES --------------- 25 13 MTRG ------------------------------------------ 25 14 STRIPED BASS ---------------------------------- 55 15 ECONOMICS ------------------------------------- 72 16 AQUIFER COMMITTEE ----------------------------- 78 17 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 219 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 MR. DYSART: It's approximately 9:12, and so 3 we've had a nice grace period, had an opportunity 4 to visit, get our coffee, let's call the SEG 5 meeting to order for September. 6 It looks like we have a great turnout of 7 people who are here in a timely manner. The first 8 thing I'd like to do is go around the table, and 9 tell us who you are and who you are here 10 representing. 11 I'm Ben Dysart, Facilitator for the 12 Stakeholders Evaluation Group. We will move to 13 the right. Will. 14 MR. BERSON: I'm Will Berson. I'm with the 15 Georgia Conservancy. 16 MR. WISE: I'm Lloyd Wise. I'm with the 17 Environmental Protection Agency. 18 MR. BOOHER: Sam Boohrer. I'm with the 19 Georgia Sierra Club. 20 MR. SAWYER: John Sawyer. City of Savannah. 21 MR. HARRIS: Duane Harris. Coastal Resources 22 Division, DNR. 23 MR. COUSINS: I'm Luke Cousins. I'm just 24 retired. 25 MR. JOHN PHILLIPS: John Phillips, Georgia 4 1 2 DOT. 3 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers. 4 MR. GRABILL: Bill Grabill, Fish and Wildlife, 5 Atlanta. 6 MR. DRAKE: Sam Drake, Fish and Wildlife 7 Service. 8 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly. U.S. Fish and 9 Wildlife Service. 10 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo. 11 MR. ZADACH: Steve Zadach. Georgia Stevedore 12 Association. 13 MR. SUTLIVE: Charlie Sutlive, Savannah 14 Maritime. 15 MR. JACK PHILLIPS: Jack Phillips, Savannah 16 District, Corps of Engineers. 17 MR. BROWNELL: I'm Press Brownell with U.S. 18 Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries 19 Service. 20 MR. MOORE: Charlie Moore, South Carolina DNR. 21 MR. MIKELL: Rob Mikell, South Carolina DHEC 22 Coastal Program. 23 MR. STAFFORD: John Stafford, Ogeechee 24 Audubon Society. 25 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, City of Tybee 5 1 2 Island. 3 MS. LEFFEK: Teri Leffek. Fife and Clydesdale 4 Plantation. 5 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer. GPA. 6 MS. WITHERINGTON: Mimi Witherington. 7 Senator Cleland's Office. 8 MR. GREENWOOD: Darrell Greenwood. South 9 Carolina Sierra Club. 10 MR. URBINE: Wayne Urbine. Corps of 11 Engineers. 12 COLONEL SCHMITT: Joe Schmitt. Savannah 13 District Corps of Engineers. 14 MR. PLACHY: Doug Plachy. Corps of Engineers. 15 DR. HENRY: Jim Henry, Georgia Southern 16 University. 17 MR. KYLER: Dave Kyler. Center for a 18 Sustainable Coast. 19 MR. McINTOSH: Neff McIntosh. Coastal 20 Environmental Organization. 21 MR. SMITH: Card Smith. Corps of Engineers. 22 MR. O'KELLEY: Bob O'Kelley. U.S. Army Corps 23 of Engineers. 24 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn. Georgia Ports. 25 MR. REES: Morgan Rees. Consultant for 6 1 2 Georgia Ports. 3 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller. Georgia Ports 4 Authority. 5 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan. Consultant with 6 Georgia Ports. 7 MR. ELLIS: Bo Ellis. Consultant with Georgia 8 Ports. 9 MR. McDONALD: Jim McDonald. U.S. Coast 10 Guard. 11 MR. JUE: Harry Jue. City of Savannah 12 MR. ERNST: Don Ernst, E-R-N-S-T. Citizen. 13 MR. CALHOUN: Andy Calhoun. Colonial Group. 14 MS. QUIGLEY: Erin Quigley, Q-U-I-G-L-E-Y. 15 Citizen. 16 MS. KRUEGER: Gail Krueger. Savannah Morning 17 News. 18 MR. FOYLE: Tony Foyle, F-O-Y-L-E. Georgia 19 Southern University. 20 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette. Fish and 21 Wildlife Service. 22 MR. FLOCK: Alan Flock, F-L-O-C-K. Fish and 23 Wildlife. 24 MR. BREWTON: Ben Brewton. Coastal 25 Environment Organization. 7 1 2 MR. BROWNE: Tommy Browne. Savannah Pilots. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings. Georgia Sierra. 4 MS. McINTOSH: Patty McIntosh. Georgia 5 Conservancy. 6 MR. DYSART: Anybody else slipped in late? 7 Okay. We're scheduled to start about 9:00 this 8 morning. We're scheduled to adjourn by 4:30 this 9 afternoon. Several people have asked, does that 10 mean we have to be here till 4:30. A lot of people 11 have said, if we can get through earlier, fine. 12 Depends on how much science there is to report, how 13 active the committees have been, and what business 14 is ready to be brought before the SEG. 15 The first thing I would like to do is a 16 Facilitator's Opening Exercise. Let me pass these 17 things here out. This is a 30 second deal. 18 Everybody that's got a pencil, they can do it, and 19 we can move on. 20 My principle role as Facilitator is to try to 21 keep people focused on the mission of this body, 22 which is clearly stated, and has been since we 23 started. 24 It is to define and specify the scientific 25 studies that are needed. The work, according to 8 1 2 your operating guidelines, is to be identified. 3 The topics within this body refer to 4 working committees. Recommendations are brought 5 back to this body. Decisions made. Studies done. 6 And this body reviews the results and so forth. 7 So what I have here is two little questions. 8 All you need is to circle a number, or mark a spot, 9 or fill in a blank. 10 In your personal opinion, progress toward 11 accomplishing the body's mission. The first part 12 of that of specifying the scientific studies, where 13 are we on the journey as of today -- your opinion. 14 So circle a number. If you want something in 15 between, put a mark anywhere you want. 16 And the second thing is, in your individual 17 opinion, where is the end point? Where -- when 18 will things get to the point where the science that 19 is needed to be done will be specified? Fill in a 20 date. Sir. 21 MR. KYLER: Not done, just specified. 22 MR. DYSART: Specified. That is the first 23 thing this body is supposed to do. So if you -- 24 somebody was saying this morning, gosh, we don't 25 know where things are going to end up. It will 9 1 2 probably be a couple of years before we know 3 everything. 4 Well, it is never too early to try to figure 5 out where it is you're trying to go. So anyway, 6 fill those in. 7 The third item, I tried to put a list there, 8 simply circle or check the category that seems to 9 represent the role in which you are sitting at this 10 table. 11 This will be reported back. There's nothing 12 sinister about this, but I think everybody needs to 13 decide, you know, how do you think you're doing? 14 Was it New York Mayor Ed Koch used to ask 15 people, how we doing, how we doing how are we 16 making progress? 17 So if you think you're 95% of the way toward 18 having specified the scientific studies needed, 19 great. If you think it's 50%, fine. Pass them in 20 this direction and we'll move on. The early 21 returns are already in. 22 The next thing -- thank you very much. The 23 next item is to look at the agenda that has been 24 prepared for you. We're to the point now where 25 without all the other stuff we use to have, we can 10 1 2 kind of fit things on one page. That's kind of 3 nice. We did have to make the type kind of small 4 to get it on there, but anyway, take a look that 5 and let me know if there are any changes, 6 modifications you would like to see. Are there any 7 additions. 8 Basically, somebody said two or three months 9 ago, the agenda ought to be the committee reports, 10 since that is where the work is, and that's the 11 action brought before this body at this point in 12 its history of the organization. 13 There is very little, other than committee 14 reports, here. Are there suggestions for 15 additions, changes, deletions, relocations, or what 16 not? Teri. 17 MS. LEFFEK: Yeah. I was looking at the 18 agenda, and there's the business item, the final 19 work product from Bill Farmer. I wondered if we 20 could move that as maybe the first item we deal 21 with, just because that is -- that is what we're 22 here to decide, you know, what are we trying to 23 accomplish? I think that's a timely question to 24 ask, especially since we've been doing this almost 25 two years. 11 1 2 That might be a good thing to start with. It 3 might help put the rest of the agenda kind of in 4 line. I don't know what anyone else thinks. That 5 might be a good thing to start with, kind of help 6 focus -- help us to focus. 7 MR. DYSART: Any thoughts, reactions. Ben 8 Brewton. 9 MR. BREWTON: One. Is that something that 10 came up between the last meeting and this meeting, 11 this agenda item? 12 MR. DYSART: The final work product? 13 MR. BREWTON: Yes. 14 MR. DYSART: Yes. That came in an e-mail from 15 Bill Farmer, before you were there. He is right 16 there. 17 MR. BREWTON: I want to, maybe before we 18 decide to put that in the front of the agenda, have 19 Bill give a one minute summary of what he had in 20 mind there. 21 MR. FARMER: I think Teri said it pretty much, 22 that we should know where we're going, and we 23 should know when we're finished, if we are going to 24 be finished. You should always have a plan on 25 where you're heading, so you know how to get there. 12 1 2 MR. DYSART: Nothing too reactionary about 3 that idea, I hope. This, I gather, is something 4 that would not be, in conversation with Bill, this 5 is not something that would be totally settled. 6 As I got it from your e-mail message, you 7 simply thought that it was time, at this juncture, 8 to have some brief discussion on that, is that 9 right? 10 MR. BREWTON: It just seems like to me most of 11 that is pretty well spelled out either in the 12 operating guidelines, or in the congressional -- 13 all the stuff you handed out to us two or three 14 times. 15 I'm certainly willing to talk about it. I 16 don't know if that ought to preempt the committee 17 reports, or other items on the agenda. I don't 18 feel real strongly one way or the other -- whatever 19 the consensus of the group is. 20 MR. DYSART: I would certainly agree with Ben. 21 The mission stated in the congressional history is 22 what we're supposed to be doing. I presume Bill 23 wanted to have some kind of brief discussion on 24 that how. Long would it take to do that, Bill? 25 MR. FARMER: I'd say a couple of minutes. It 13 1 2 was brought up quite a few meetings back. 3 MR. DYSART: I didn't say do it. Now, you 4 answered my question. Short, concise answers are 5 acceptable within this body. 6 MR. FARMER: Yes. 7 MR. DYSART: We don't want to start a 8 precedent. 9 MR. BREWTON: Well, if Teri wants to do it 10 first, and Bill says it can be done in two minutes, 11 I would certainly be willing to allocate two 12 minutes. If it is going to take a lot longer than 13 that, I think we ought to do committee reports. 14 MR. DYSART: Judy's card is up. 15 MS. JENNINGS: I would agree with Teri. I 16 also wanted to bring up a topic that seems related, 17 and that's fiscal responsibility. 18 MR. DYSART: What kind of -- 19 MS. JENNINGS: Fiscal responsibilities, as 20 it relates to GPA and this body, so in terms of 21 producing a product, we might consider what we've 22 spent and what we intend to spend. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. Okay. Ben Brewton. 24 MR. BREWTON: It sounds like the discussion is 25 already getting more complicated. I would suggest 14 1 2 we go ahead with the agenda as you have it laid 3 out, and handle new business. 4 MR. DYSART: We will try to save two minutes 5 for the product of this body, hopefully after we 6 zip through committee reports. 7 MR. FARMER: Ben. 8 MR. DYSART: Yes. 9 MR. FARMER: You just had two opinions. One 10 do it early. One do it late. You picked one 11 without asking for a consensus. 12 MR. DYSART: I apologize. Is there a 13 consensus on moving the agenda item on brief 14 discussion of final work product to the front? Is 15 there an interest in doing that? Indicate by 16 raising your hand, if you would be interested in 17 that. 18 MR. DYSART: I see 12, 15 hands. All opposed 19 one, two, three, four, five, six, seven eight, 20 nine. There is not a consensus. So we will -- 21 nothing will change without consensus. That's -- 22 okay. Let's see. Are there other suggested 23 changes in the agenda? Ben Brewton. 24 MR. BREWTON: I have one slight one. I'm not 25 sure that we can -- I guess we can decide when we 15 1 2 get there, we may need more like 45 minutes than 30 3 minutes for lunch. I don't know it is possible for 4 all of us to -- 5 MR. DYSART: I think the spirit is, go get 6 something and bring it back. People get in cars, 7 go off somewhere, sit and wait for a waiter or 8 waitress to take their order and so forth, I guess 9 the feeling I've gotten is that most of these busy 10 people did not come here to take a break in the 11 middle of the day, to have a long lunch break. 12 MR. BREWTON: So we're going to come back and 13 bring our lunch back and work through lunch, is 14 that the plan? 15 MR. DYSART: That would be okay. I think the 16 principle concern is, Ben, we don't want to lose 17 the crowd, and an hour and a half later people 18 start straggling back in. People say, why did I 19 come here for a whole day meeting when we took the 20 middle of the day out. 21 MR. BREWTON: Only reason I mention this, 22 based on eating downstairs a couple of times, I 23 would question whether they could handle this size 24 group in a 30 minute period. 25 If we drive over to get something, I don't 16 1 2 know how all of us can get out, eat, get back in 30 3 minutes. That didn't seem realistic. 4 MR. DYSART: Cathy has tried to get the people 5 downstairs ready. 6 MS. VAUGHN: I have alerted the people 7 downstairs we would eating. They have cold 8 sandwiches. If you want something hot, they have 9 to cook it, but they do have cold sandwiches. 10 MR. DYSART: Is there a broad desire to take 11 more than 30 minutes to go get lunch and bring it 12 back, or go eat, or devote more than a half an hour 13 to lunch out of your full day meeting? 14 MR. DYSART: Who wants more than a half an 15 hour for lunch? Yes, sir. 16 MR. NADELMAN: Fred Nadelman. I'm with 17 Citizens for Clean Air and Water. Could we not 18 just take orders individually, and then give the 19 orders to those who ordered them when the time 20 comes to eat? 21 MR. DYSART: Anybody here like to take orders 22 and go get lunch for everybody else? 23 MR. BEASON: Downstairs, they could prepare 24 them. 25 MR. DYSART: That's not a bad idea. 17 1 2 MR. BREWTON: I didn't mean for this to get 3 this complicated. 4 MR. McINTOSH: You did. 30 minutes. 5 MR. DYSART: 30 minutes. I'll tell what, why 6 don't we see about getting orders, find out what it 7 would be, and come back. 8 Bring us a recommendation right after the 9 10:30 break on how we can have a productive day, 10 and devote no more than 30 minutes. Thank you. 11 Okay. Are there other substantive suggestions 12 about the agenda? Judy Jennings. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Only for the record, I'd like 14 to say I'm absolutely horrified we spend more time 15 talking about lunch than we do the final work 16 product of the SEG -- just for the record. 17 MR. BREWTON: I think, for the record, we 18 haven't gotten to the final work product yet. 19 That's later on on the agenda, Judy. 20 MR. DYSART: Are there other substantive 21 changes desired in the agenda? Seeing none, we 22 will assume that there's a consensus that the 23 agenda is pretty much going to stay like it was 24 when it started. 25 Okay. Item number four, you have had -- the 18 1 2 transcript of the July meeting has been posted on 3 the web site for a lengthy period of time. Is 4 there comments, anything anybody wants to say about 5 the transcript from the July meeting? 6 I accept that as being a consensus that the 7 July, 2000 summary transcript is approved. There's 8 also a request for where things stood for the other 9 summaries. Do we have any action on that, Ben? 10 MR. BREWTON: Not this month. 11 MS. LEFFEK: Ben, I have a comment on the 12 prior meeting summaries. Can I ask the 13 Communications Committee why that hasn't been done, 14 when they were charged with that? 15 Are there any Communication Committee members 16 who want to answer that? I mean, we've got old 17 minutes sitting out there that haven't been taken 18 care of. Yet, this body continually pushes that 19 record keeping is one of its most important 20 functions. 21 I see people called on the carpet month after 22 month, because of their record keeping practices. 23 Yet, we as a body have let the meeting summaries 24 sit out there, and sit out there, and sit out 25 there. It's just not good procedurally. If we are 19 1 2 going to do record keeping, let's do it all the 3 way. 4 MR. DYSART: Is that a comment and a question? 5 MS. LEFFEK: It's a comment and a question. 6 Any Communication committee members can answer. 7 I'm just curious. 8 MR. DYSART: Silence would indicate there is 9 no desire to answer that. We will move on. Old 10 business. 11 MS. LEFFEK: No. Wait a minute. I'm not 12 finished. Do we need then, as the SEG, to take 13 that charge back to the Communications Committee, 14 and just approve them and let them go as they are? 15 I mean, I can't remember exactly what I said a 16 year ago. I can't say anyone can go back and look 17 at those and accurately decide what's there. 18 MR. DYSART: Does anybody else have any views 19 on this? 20 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I think Teri's point is 21 well made. We deal with it or decide never to deal 22 with it. I don't want to see it again. 23 MS. LEFFEK: It keeps popping up on the 24 agenda. 25 MR. DYSART: We can keep it off the agenda, if 20 1 2 you want to keep it off the agenda. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Good. 4 MS. LEFFEK: Are we going to decide that we're 5 just never going to approve them? We're going to 6 let them sit out there? Is that what we, as a 7 body, are saying to me right now? 8 MR. DYSART: Is that posed to the body to 9 decide? 10 MS. LEFFEK: Can I make that recommendation? 11 Can I make that recommendation that we approve as 12 they're sitting out there? Is there a consensus 13 for that? 14 MR. DYSART: You can make that recommendation. 15 MS. LEFFEK: Okay. I make that 16 recommendation. 17 MR. DYSART: Is there discussion on that 18 recommendation? 19 MS. LEFFEK: We can just get that item over 20 with. 21 MR. BREWTON: That is in the Communications 22 Committee, and when the Communications Committee is 23 completed, has a recommendation, we will bring it 24 back to this body. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. 21 1 2 MS. LEFFEK: So when are we going to see that 3 done? 4 MR. DYSART: This was referred last October. 5 MS. LEFFEK: Almost a year ago. Could we have 6 a time line on when that might be finished? 7 MR. BREWTON: If you would like to have a time 8 line, Teri, I'll be glad to consult with the 9 committee, and put that together, and bring that 10 back at a future meeting, and advise you of that. 11 At some point, in the future, I will bring that 12 information to you. 13 MS. LEFFEK: Can we have an answer next month 14 maybe? 15 MR. DYSART: Or whenever the next meeting is. 16 Okay. I declare that we have reached a consensus 17 on acting on that. First of many action items 18 today. Okay. 19 Old business. Morgan Rees requested that this 20 be put on. GPA report on the scoping meeting. 21 MR. SCHALLER: Ben, I'm going to handle that. 22 I wanted to provide a brief report to the SEG 23 concerning the scoping meeting that we held on July 24 26th. We had just short of about 100 folks who 25 visited. 22 1 2 All of the comments that were left, or sent to 3 us, have been posted on the SEG web page. So you 4 can look them up, if you are interested in seeing 5 what folks said. Our analysis on those comments 6 has already begun. 7 We will include a look at the Jasper County 8 site that has been talked about, and we plan to 9 include a little more extensive look at the hub 10 feeder analysis that we did originally in the Tier 11 I. We'll go back and review that as well. 12 We wanted you to know it was fairly 13 well-attended. We appreciate everybody who had 14 something to comment. Thank you. 15 MR. DYSART: Comments, discussion? Ben 16 Brewton. 17 MR. BREWTON: Dave, does GPA plan to respond 18 to those comments and provide answers, or responses 19 to some of the suggestions, questions, and other 20 things that were posed in those comments? 21 MR. SCHALLER: Independently of our Tier II 22 work? 23 MR. BREWTON: You said you had posted the 24 comments you received on the web site. I wondered 25 if you were going to post responses and answers to 23 1 2 the questions posed in those comments? 3 MR. SCHALLER: Those comments will be 4 addressed in the Tier II, and we do not anticipate 5 any independent response to those comments. 6 MR. DYSART: Further questions, comments? 7 Yes. 8 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly. David, you said the 9 Jasper site will be looked at in the Tier II, I 10 guess. You mean in a fairly detailed manner that 11 you'll consider that alternative, it will be 12 considered in detail in the next version of the 13 EIS? 14 MR. SCHALLER: In a more detailed fashion than 15 it was addressed. 16 MR. DYSART: Morgan briefly. 17 MR. REES: Very briefly. 18 MR. SCHALLER: To the next level, if you will. 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. The next item, 20 we get to committee reports. Is Chris Schuberth 21 here today? Is anybody prepared to give the 22 committee's report, recommendations, conclusions, 23 findings, whatever? Has Chris -- Larry, has Chris 24 submitted a draft report or anything for posting? 25 MR. KEEGAN: There was a draft submitted, but 24 1 2 that's still in resolution, as far as I know. It's 3 not a final version. So nothing is posted. 4 MR. DYSART: Is anybody here speaking for 5 Chris today? Okay. First of all, is there -- is 6 there an official report of activity, 7 recommendations, whatever, from the Aquifer 8 Committee. 9 MR. SCHALLER: The chair is not here. 10 MR. DYSART: I'm just saying, is there 11 anything that is to be officially reported that 12 anyone on the committee knows of? 13 MR. BREWTON: Perhaps Chris will be here 14 later. Maybe we should just defer that committee 15 report to the end of the committee report list. 16 He, perhaps, had a class or something this morning. 17 I'm not really sure. I received an e-mail 18 from him yesterday about another matter. 19 Indication I have was that he was probably was 20 going to be here, just from the way he talked. 21 MR. DYSART: Why don't we defer it, put it at 22 the end of committee reports and proceed. Beach 23 Erosion Committee. Bill Farmer. 24 MR. FARMER: Beach Erosion Committee did not 25 meet during the last two months, so we have nothing 25 1 2 to report. 3 MR. DYSART: Golly, might not need to have 4 lunch orders. Okay. Dredging and Disposal. Fred. 5 MR. BEASON: We did not meet. We're waiting 6 on the product that's going to be delivered by 7 Lockwood Greene on the research. Till we do that, 8 we're in hold. 9 MR. DYSART: Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. 10 Bill Bailey is here. We see our distinguished 11 friend, Press Brownell, came back to the meeting. 12 We've just got everybody here. Who wants to talk 13 about the Fisheries Committees? 14 MR. BAILEY: We didn't meet, have no report. 15 MR. DYSART: Do you have anything to add to 16 that, Press? 17 MR. BROWNELL: No. I don't. We haven't made 18 any significant progress, although we note a lot of 19 study within that arena, within the Fisheries and 20 Aquatic Resources Group. A lot of study is 21 underway. We eagerly await the interim results and 22 final results of those studies. 23 MR. DYSART: Bill, that was a lot more 24 inspirational way of saying it. MTRG. Bo. 25 MR. ELLIS: MTRG did have a meeting. We met 26 1 2 August 29th. We are coordinating a detailed status 3 report of that meeting. One reason it's going to 4 take a little while to coordinate fully on that, is 5 that the MTRG went through all of the comments that 6 have been received on the draft data report, and 7 the resolution was agreed by the group. 8 Now the wording is being put down on paper and 9 distributed to the group for everybody to agree on. 10 So we will have the status report at our next 11 meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for October 12 4th in Atlanta at 9:00 a.m. 13 MR. BOORER: Do you have the location? 14 MR. ELLIS: EPA office building. 15 MR. DYSART: Anything else? 16 MR. McINTOSH: Question. 17 MR. DYSART: Yes. 18 MR. McINTOSH: Could you tell us, Bo, when the 19 next meeting of the MTRG will be in Savannah? 20 MR. ELLIS: I can't. We did have a 21 discussion. I actually recommended that we hold a 22 meeting very soon in Savannah. We talked about 23 possibly holding it, this next meeting in Savannah, 24 but the decision was made to hold the next one in 25 Atlanta, and discuss the next meeting at that time. 27 1 2 MR. DYSART: When was your -- you had a 3 meeting in Savannah fairly recently? 4 MR. ELLIS: May. 5 MR. DYSART: May. Ben Brewton. 6 MR. BREWTON: Two questions. First of all, 7 follow-up on Neff's comment, I thought the MTRG was 8 considering alternating every other meeting back 9 and forth between Savannah and Atlanta. 10 MR. ELLIS: That suggestion came up here. I 11 took it back to the MTRG. It was not agreed to by 12 the MTRG, but they did agree that every third or 13 fourth meeting they would try to do it in Savannah. 14 MR. BREWTON: I have a specific question in 15 reviewing some of the materials in your draft data 16 report. I see frequent reference to something 17 called J values. 18 Could you explain to me, I think the group may 19 be interested too in hearing, about what you are 20 calling J values, and how they're used in the 21 report? 22 MR. ELLIS: I can. They are just a flag data 23 point that -- if anybody is here from an analytical 24 lab, they can explain it better. 25 It's a flag data point to recognize that that 28 1 2 value is below a certain reporting limit that the 3 laboratory has based on the methodology that 4 they're using. Anybody from a lab could answer it 5 probably better -- a qualifier of that data point. 6 MR. BREWTON: So it means basically the amount 7 was estimated because it was below the measurable? 8 MR. DYSART: Threshold, is that what you're 9 saying? 10 MR. ELLIS: No. I didn't say estimated. I'm 11 just saying it was qualified. 12 MR. BREWTON: Well, where did the number come 13 from? 14 MR. ELLIS: It depends on the analysis, the 15 actual tests, and how the data is derived from that 16 test. 17 MR. BREWTON: Let me ask this. I do have some 18 specific interest in that. It seemed like there 19 were a lot of J values in the data that you had. 20 In reading that, I did note it said there were 21 values that were below the measurement threshold 22 limit, or capability of the labs. 23 So I was wondering, since they were below, you 24 had a number there, but it was below the 25 measurement threshold, where the numbers came from? 29 1 2 And the second question would be, how many J 3 values are there in your data report or in your 4 actual data collection or data set? How many J 5 values are actually in there? 6 MR. ELLIS: I have no idea how many J values 7 are in the data report. 8 MR. BREWTON: Could you get with your folks, 9 and perhaps come back at the next meeting and 10 address those two questions? 11 MR. ELLIS: Well, that's really a request to 12 GPA. The MTRG is not actually doing that type of 13 work. Are you asking GPA? 14 MR. BREWTON: Well, I guess I'm asking someone 15 who is responsible for the report to explain to the 16 group here, so we can have a better understanding 17 of one, exactly what J values are, how they are 18 derived or determined; and two, how frequently do 19 those values appear in your data set, and how they 20 will be used in the model? 21 I'm directing that to you or Dave Schaller, or 22 Morgan Rees, or Larry Keegan, whoever is 23 responsible. I was directing it to you originally. 24 I thought that was your area of responsibility. 25 MR. SAWYER: Let me see if I can give Bo a 30 1 2 little bit of help. 3 MR. DYSART: Judy's up next, but -- 4 MS. JENNINGS: No. I think the answer to this 5 question is very interesting. I'll defer. 6 MR. DYSART: Go ahead, sir. 7 MR. SAWYER: Probably not by the next SEG 8 meeting, just because of the timing of getting 9 everybody together, but possibly by November, we 10 would like to bring together two or three of the 11 experts that are on the SEG, that by the way have 12 never been here, and let them explain to you how 13 the data was collected, what the thought processes 14 were behind where it was collected, how it was 15 collected, and how it was analyzed, any problems 16 with that -- with those data sets. 17 And they can answer your question to the inth 18 degree. I wouldn't even pretend I could spell J 19 value, much less explain. But those people, as 20 long as you want to listen, they can explain it. 21 But that would -- I think we can answer your 22 question, if you'll give us another month or so, 23 we'll provide all the data, and have somebody that 24 can thoroughly explain everything to whoever is 25 interested. We'll take it as long as you want to 31 1 2 take it. 3 MR. DYSART: Perhaps you could provide the 4 option of people who want a concise answer versus 5 people who want a long answer. 6 MR. SAWYER: That would be up to this group 7 right here. I guess these folks can come here and 8 do days of presentation, or do it within a matter 9 of a few minutes. It depends on how many questions 10 you want to ask, and how you want them to answer 11 it. 12 MR. ELLIS: One thing that's important for me, 13 it's important to distinguish if you have 14 recommendation for GPA that ATM can carry out. I 15 think that needs to be distinguished from any 16 recommendation that you are giving to me as the 17 committee chair of the MTRG. 18 MR. BREWTON: I guess that's a little 19 difficult because that line between what is GPA 20 driven and what is MTRG driven, I think, sometimes 21 is not as clear to some of us, as we might like it 22 to be. 23 And the -- those questions were the result of 24 some materials that came to me, that were copies of 25 the things MTRG was working with. So I assumed 32 1 2 they were MTRG matters. 3 MR. ELLIS: They have been fully discussed by 4 the MTRG for over a year, and there's plenty 5 material that we have that we have discussed and 6 even reported on. 7 MR. BREWTON: Right. I was just asking for an 8 answer to those specific two questions, and my 9 request was for someone -- John, I guess, offered 10 one alternative, to come back to the group here 11 specifically with those two things. And I also 12 assume later there will be a full report on the 13 entire report. 14 MR. DYSART: You have heard the questions, can 15 you provide a time line for responding to the 16 questions, or would you do that at the next 17 meeting? 18 MR. SCHALLER: John has already done that. 19 MR. DYSART: John has done it. We have a time 20 line for responding. It would be the next meeting, 21 right, John? 22 MR. SAWYER: No. I wouldn't say that. What 23 we have talked about is putting together a report 24 on the data, which is what you're talking about. 25 We can't make it necessarily happen at the 33 1 2 next meeting. We've got to have some time to get 3 those people -- I mean, they're doing this. 4 They're not paid to do this. So this group is kind 5 of having to work around everybody else's schedule. 6 The MTRG, as a part of this group, also has to 7 do that. Therefore, in possibly November, maybe 8 even as far as December, but we want to come back 9 with some information on the data. 10 In that, they will explain J values. They 11 will explain all the other things you've got 12 questions about. I mean, nobody here can explain 13 it. 14 MR. BREWTON: Question. You said these people 15 that would come speak are not people who are paid 16 to do this. Who, in fact, is the person or firm or 17 entity that is being paid to do this? 18 MR. SAWYER: I think you're -- I think you're 19 mixing up -- like Bo said, you're mixing up ATM 20 with the MTRG. The MTRG is a subset of this. 21 There are a few of those people, Larry Neal is 22 one, Law Engineers. He is paid, but paid by the 23 Harbor Committee. 24 We've got, up until at least the last meeting, 25 we've had two individuals, Jack Blanton from 34 1 2 Skidaway, and I forget the -- 3 MR. ELLIS: Harvey Seim, S-E-I-M. 4 MR. BREWTON: My question, who is paid by GPA 5 to do it. Someone's doing this on GPA's behalf. I 6 guess that's who I ought to direct my request to. 7 MR. ELLIS: We are. 8 MR. BREWTON: ATM. I thought I was looking in 9 the right direction to begin with. 10 MR. ELLIS: I'm trying to distinguish between 11 what ATM is doing for GPA and the MTRG. That's 12 what I'm trying to make as clear as possible. 13 MR. BREWTON: Well, let me ask you this, Bo, 14 what is the best way to get the answer to the 15 questions sooner rather than later. 16 I hear what John's saying. I think that's a 17 good idea at that point. What I'm concerned about, 18 though, is being able to, perhaps, give you some 19 feedback before your report is completely finished. 20 And in doing that, it might be helpful to have 21 answers to these questions. If you are comfortable 22 with waiting and giving the whole report, and then 23 dealing with any feedback at that time post your 24 report to this group, then as I suppose that's okay 25 with me. 35 1 2 MR. SAWYER: I think you're missing the point, 3 Ben. The report we're talking about is not the 4 full model. It's not anywhere near done. 5 The report we're talking about is strictly on 6 the data. It's a milestone. Here's the data 7 that's collected. Here's what it will do. All of 8 these people that are experts have looked at it. 9 We're going to come in and ask, are you 10 satisfied with it before we go forward and start 11 calibrating the model, and start making runs, and 12 spending hours upon hours, and dollars upon 13 dollars; are you satisfied with the opinions of 14 those experts that this data is acceptable? That's 15 exactly what we're going to do. 16 MR. BREWTON: Well, I just hope you're not 17 expecting to get a response to that on the spot -- 18 MR. SAWYER: No. 19 MR. BREWTON: -- at the time that's delivered. 20 I was trying to coordinate a little better with 21 your schedule, or Bo's schedule, the MTRG's 22 schedule, and provide some feedback prior to that 23 time. 24 In reviewing the materials that I had 25 requested that were sent to me, some questions came 36 1 2 up about those particular values. And I wanted to 3 request from Bo, since he is both head of the MTRG, 4 as well as the ATM rep to the SEG under the employ 5 of GPA, request from him the best way to the -- get 6 that information and get those questions in. 7 MR. SAWYER: E-mail the questions to them. I 8 mean, you're part of the MTRG. You get all the 9 information. E-mail it back. That's the way we 10 all do it. 11 Any questions we have, we e-mail back to the 12 MTRG, and they get responded to. I'm not sure I 13 understand the question. That's the way it's 14 always worked. 15 MR. DYSART: Is there anything -- Bill and 16 Judy have cards up, and David. 17 MR. BAILEY: Short answer to, I guess the real 18 answer will come in a couple of months. The answer 19 for today, J values are determined by the lab. 20 They are, my understanding, they are an estimated 21 value below the reporting limit. EPA procedures, 22 for a test to come up with a reported limit says 23 this test is good down to some number. 24 The MTRG wanted to know what was below that 25 number. It's important to know whether it's 0, 37 1 2 or .5, or where is it in there. 3 And so we asked the lab to go back, and we 4 understand that your official answer is it's 5 below .5, for example, but can you tell us where 6 below there you think it is. So that's their -- 7 their answer. Where, in there, it makes a 8 difference in the model, whether you plug it in at 9 0 or plug it in at .4. So that was their call of 10 where it is. 11 MR. BREWTON: Bill, I appreciate those 12 comments. That's exactly what I was asking, and I 13 appreciate you making the effort to answer that. 14 My concern is that with the values being 15 estimated, my assumption was that they were 16 estimated because someone had determined that they 17 were important to the model, just as you said. 18 And if they are important to the model, and 19 some of them I saw were what looked like a rather 20 large range between 0 and the reporting limit, then 21 I'm wondering are there not tests available that 22 would do it more accurately -- 23 MR. BAILEY: No, they're not. 24 MR. BREWTON: -- or exactly why we were having 25 to estimate them? Is that just the best available 38 1 2 technology? 3 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 4 MR. BREWTON: We still have a situation where 5 the model is dependent on values that we don't have 6 any way of measuring precisely. 7 MR. BAILEY: And that's with all the tests. 8 That's what comes up. 9 MR. BREWTON: That's really where I was 10 leading. I guess that's my area of concern. I 11 appreciate you answering that. 12 MR. BAILEY: That's state of the art, state of 13 science. 14 MR. DYSART: Judy and David. 15 MS. JENNINGS: I'm curious, Bo, the attendance 16 at the MTRG meetings, is it significantly better in 17 Atlanta? 18 MR. ELLIS: That's hard to answer. 19 MS. JENNINGS: You have had repeated requests 20 to have more MTRG meetings in Savannah. I'm just 21 wondering, I've attended every one that's been in 22 Savannah, and the attendance looks good to me. I'm 23 just wondering why Atlanta continues to be the 24 venue of choice. 25 MR. ELLIS: It is tougher for a lot of the 39 1 2 MTRG members, especially the most active MTRG 3 members to come to Savannah. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Tougher, harder than 50 people 5 showing up here today? 6 MR. ELLIS: Yeah. 7 MS. JENNINGS: I don't think so, Bo. Excuse 8 me. 9 MR. SCHALLER: I think it's a matter cost, 10 time out of the office. Many of those MTRG are 11 volunteers. They're, by and large, not paid to do 12 this, other than to do their work. 13 MR. ELLIS: I'd say relatively speaking, 14 there's people flying in, driving in, and there's 15 a core of people in Atlanta. Bill and I would 16 rather have it in Savannah. 17 MS. JENNINGS: I'm empathetic to that. I 18 guess I would be happy to answer my question, is 19 their attendance significantly different in 20 Atlanta? 21 MR. DYSART: Of MTRG members. 22 MR. ELLIS: I wouldn't say significantly, no. 23 MR. DYSART: Question asked. Question 24 answered. David. 25 MR. KYLER: Let me see if I can build on what 40 1 2 questions Ben was asking. Ben, if you'll excuse 3 me, I'm trying to clarify my understanding, maybe 4 the group's understanding, the implications of the 5 question. 6 What occurs to me when I hear this stuff about 7 J values is what effect the so-called modeling 8 experts would estimate these J values, and the 9 methodology used to get them, as on the model 10 itself and the outcome of the model. 11 And it would be good to know that, at some 12 point, whether it's when we're discussing the data 13 itself, or after the model begins turning out 14 results, so we have some sense of the sensitivity 15 of the model, the reliability depending on the J 16 values. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. As I understand it, 18 there is going to be a response coming, and doesn't 19 serve any purpose to keep on pursuing a topic that 20 is going to be answered later. Okay. 21 MR. DYSART: Card up, down there on this 22 subject, the MTRG? 23 MR. EUDALY: Yes. This is about the 24 hydrodynamic model, not the data collection. My 25 question, I guess, is in several parts. Could you 41 1 2 kind of summarize the progress on the hydrodynamic 3 portion of the model; what's being done; are there 4 any particular problems; what's the current 5 schedule for the completion for the hydrodynamic 6 portion of the model? 7 I would, while I've got the floor, I would 8 support having someone from MTRG come in and give 9 a presentation to this group, both on the data 10 report and the model progress, so we can all get 11 up-to-date on what's happening on that. 12 MR. ELLIS: Okay. I think that would be a 13 good idea. To give you a brief summary, ATM 14 presented an extensive set of -- of the calibration 15 plots, basically the model comparison to data for 16 '97 and for '99 to the MTRG. 17 I'll tell you that the '97 comparison was 18 better than the '99 comparison. There was a lot of 19 discussion about why that probably was. There were 20 recommendations for rerunning the model and 21 changing a couple of things. 22 ATM is doing that right now. As soon as 23 that's done, the plan is to put out a draft model 24 calibration report to the MTRG this month. So it 25 will be sent back out to the MTRG. As far as the 42 1 2 schedule, hopefully in the next month. 3 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. Question. 4 MR. BREWTON: I wanted to follow-up on Judy's 5 question, Bo. I thought she had a very good point, 6 very good question. In fact, how many MTRG 7 attendees were there at the MTRG meeting in 8 Atlanta, the recent one? 9 MR. ELLIS: 10 or a dozen. I don't have all 10 the names with me right now -- probably a dozen. 11 MR. DYSART: Other questions. Discussion. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I don't know if I can 13 leave this. There have been about a dozen MTRG 14 people when I've met in Savannah -- when they have 15 met in Savannah. If the issue is the cost of 16 gathering those people together, we represent a 17 significant cost here today, and the model is 18 pivotal to the question at hand. 19 And if we have people interested in attending 20 -- also, for the record, I'm going to say I think 21 Ben Brewton asked a very direct question about J 22 values that deserved a very direct, quick answer. 23 I appreciate all of your attempts to answer, 24 but I think that should have been quicker from the 25 MTRG. I want more MTRG meetings in Savannah, for 43 1 2 the record. 3 MR. SAWYER: Can I explain that? 4 MR. DYSART: Sure. John. 5 MR. SAWYER: We've got some folks on the MTRG, 6 such as Jim Greenfield, Roy Burke, Paul Conrad -- 7 we've got some people who are located from EPA, 8 EPD, USGS, and others that are located in Atlanta. 9 We can have them down here, but we -- they are 10 a vital part of developing the model that is so 11 critical. We can have the meetings down here, but 12 we cannot force those people to come down here to 13 work on that model. 14 If we want to have the MTRG meetings here so 15 that everybody in this room can be a part of it, 16 that's fine, but some of those people who are so 17 critical to that model can't necessarily make it. 18 And we schedule things around their schedules, 19 so that they can be a part of it. It's not a 20 matter of -- I don't like going to Atlanta every 21 month, but we schedule it around them because they 22 are so critical to it. 23 To be honest with you, other than Bill's 24 explanation, I don't know diddly about J values 25 even though I am on MTRG, so I couldn't explain 44 1 2 it even if I wanted to. 3 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 4 MR. BREWTON: John, what you just said, I 5 appreciate candor, it is exactly part of my 6 concern. Each time we ask a question about the 7 committee, or the work of the ATM project, or the 8 MTRG work, and I'm confused sometimes about who's 9 doing what, when we get to the place where there 10 should be a bottom line answer, we hear that none 11 of us here are modelers. 12 We can bring the modelers in. They can answer 13 the question. We're really not modelers. You 14 yourself just said you don't know what J values 15 are. 16 This group has been somewhat relying on those 17 of you -- in fact, I think you gave a very eloquent 18 response to something I said several meetings ago 19 about how we needed to have trust in people on the 20 MTRG, perhaps, not ask too many questions of it. 21 But it's just for that reason I am concerned. 22 I'd like to ask Bo directly a couple of questions. 23 One, ATM is the entity that is being paid by GPA to 24 develop the model, is that correct? 25 MR. ELLIS: Correct. 45 1 2 MR. BREWTON: Who, on behalf of ATM, is 3 actually charged with developing the model? 4 MR. ELLIS: For hydrodynamic salinity model, 5 Dan Middleson is leading that task. 6 MR. BREWTON: And he is with your office 7 where? 8 MR. ELLIS: He is in Rhode Island. 9 MR. BREWTON: I see. Then is there another 10 portion of the model that someone else is -- you 11 said for the hydrodynamic portion. Is there 12 another portion? 13 MR. ELLIS: They're different models. 14 MR. BREWTON: How many models are there? 15 MR. ELLIS: Dissolved oxygen chloride. 16 MR. BREWTON: Who is doing that? 17 MR. ELLIS: Dan Middleson is working on all of 18 it. 19 MR. BREWTON: On the -- participating in the 20 MTRG, I know we have people like Dan and Bill that 21 are much more knowledgeable than I, as far as 22 actual modelers, who are being sent there by their 23 organization, or agency, and being paid to be there 24 and participate in the evaluation of this, who -- 25 what organizations and what people are attending 46 1 2 and participating regularly in the model 3 development, that have modelers, professional 4 modelers working on it? 5 MR. ELLIS: EPA, EPD, DHEC, South Carolina 6 DHEC, USGS, Skidaway, the Corps of Engineers at 7 Waterways Experiment Station. 8 MR. BREWTON: Okay. 9 MR. ELLIS: And the Harbor Committee. 10 MR. BREWTON: Harbor Committee has hired a 11 consultant modeler who is attending? 12 MR. ELLIS: Right. 13 MR. BREWTON: Corps of Engineers has modelers 14 participating in these meetings actively, and DHEC, 15 let me direct this to Charlie, Rob, or somebody 16 with DHEC, my understanding in talking with y'all, 17 you did not have someone who was a dedicated 18 modeler at DHEC, is that correct? 19 MR. MIKELL: No. We do have a modeler, 20 several modelers. I'm not sure exactly how 21 involved they have been in this process. I know 22 there have been in some other issues related to 23 the water quality of the Savannah River that they 24 were working with EPA on. And that's what I need 25 to talk to them and find out more specifically 47 1 2 what's happening. 3 MR. BREWTON: Okay. I just think it might 4 bear clarification, at some point, for the SEG to 5 actually ask who is really working on this that has 6 credentials as a modeler. 7 I know we hired, on a few occasions, someone 8 as a representative for us to attend the meetings, 9 who is a technical person, but is not a modeler. 10 In fact, I know a lot of other people in the same 11 capacity are attending, and I'd like to get some 12 feedback, at some point, about who are the modelers 13 really working on this, and evaluating this, and 14 providing you with feedback and input on this, from 15 a modeler's perspective. 16 MR. ELLIS: Would you like to -- 17 MR. REES: I have my card up, Bo. 18 MR. DYSART: Morgan Rees' card is up. 19 MR. REES: Good question, Ben. You've raised 20 it before. And frankly, we have put together 21 exactly that kind of information. I thought we 22 had furnished it to the SEG, but maybe in the 23 process of not having met last month, whatever, we 24 didn't, but that information is available. We'll 25 make it available to you and the SEG. 48 1 2 MR. BREWTON: Okay. E-mail, or a future 3 meeting, or web site? 4 MR. REES: What's your preference? It's 5 available. 6 MR. BREWTON: It's up to you, make easy on 7 yourself. 8 MR. REES: Send it to you in an e-mail, 9 Anybody else interested, we'll send it to you as 10 well. Larry says we can post it. 11 MR. BREWTON: Okay. Thank you. 12 MR. DYSART: Further questions, comments about 13 MTRG? Okay. Couple of things here, one is we have 14 a menu. People downstairs recommend the cold 15 sandwiches. 16 They need to know soon -- Cathy said now. I'm 17 going to pass this around. Mark something, 18 circle something, put your name on it, pass it back 19 to Cathy, if you want something from downstairs, 20 which brings up another question. 21 It is now 10:00 o'clock, a little after 10:00 22 now. I'm sure many of you are going to be deciding 23 with two hours to go, being most of the way down 24 the page, are you going to be here at lunchtime. 25 I have no idea. You can flip a coin and 49 1 2 decide for yourselves. Anyway, all I can do is say 3 here it is, circle a cold sandwich, put your name 4 on it, and pass it back to Cathy. In a few 5 minutes, she will take the orders downstairs, and 6 that's that. 7 MS. VAUGHN: When we go downstairs, you give 8 them your name. 9 MR. DYSART: Yes, sir. 10 MR. NADELMAN: Are we going to have time for 11 public comment, comment by individual members of 12 this committee? 13 MR. DYSART: When does the body wish to have 14 public comments -- just general public comments, or 15 comments on specific agenda items? 16 MR. NADELMAN: General comments. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. At the end under new 18 business. Also, there have been several people 19 come in since everyone introduced themselves. I'd 20 like for Trip to start out and say who you are and 21 who you are representing. 22 MR. TOLLISON: Thank you for pointing out the 23 fact that I was late. Trip Tollison with Jack 24 Kingston's office 25 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia DNR, Wildlife 50 1 2 Resources Division 3 MR. CAMPBELL: Leon Campbell, concerned 4 citizen. 5 MR. CANNON: Robert Cannon, concerned citizen. 6 MS. COHEN: Juliet Cohen with South Carolina 7 More Than a Port. I'm just a visitor. 8 MR. COOEY: Bob Cooey, Georgia Pilots and 9 Marine Tugboats 10 MR. McCURRY: Jamie McCurry, Georgia Ports 11 Authority. 12 MR. DYSART: Let's see. We had some more 13 media folks that came in and left without -- 14 without getting their names on the record of 15 interested -- of interested parties. Okay. Card 16 up, yes, sir. 17 MR. BOOHER: There are number of us here 18 specifically interested in the aquifer impact 19 discussion. 20 MR. DYSART: Yes, sir. 21 MR. BOOHER: If that's not going to take 22 place, it will have a bearing on whether myself and 23 several others will have lunch. 24 MR. DYSART: Who here has some specific 25 knowledge of when or if Chris is going to be here? 51 1 2 Ben said he thought he was on his way, could be 3 showing up at any time, might showing up. 4 MR. BREWTON: I'll be glad to go try and call 5 him. I have the number in my car. 6 MR. DYSART: I think a lot people, obviously, 7 are interested in whether Chris is going to be here 8 and is making a report on behalf of his committee. 9 MR. BREWTON: Are we going to take a break 10 shortly? 11 MR. DYSART: 10:30. I wish we had some 12 idea. Trip. 13 MR. TOLLISON: I recommend item number two on 14 the cold sandwiches. 15 MR. DYSART: It's always nice to have some really definitive input here. 16 MR. TOLLISON: That's what I'm here for. 17 MR. DYSART: Morgan Rees. 18 MR. REES: I'd like to suggest we consider 19 taking a break now, and finding out if Chris is 20 coming, so we can plan the rest of the day a little 21 better. I think that's a key item. 22 MR. DYSART: I declare a break. We're going 23 to find whether Chris is going to be here. Then 24 we're going to move on. Thank you. 25 (Short Break) 52 1 2 MR. DYSART: It's 10:25. We're reconvening. 3 We have reconvened. Could Ben Brewton please 4 report to the group the results on the attempt to 5 find Chris Schuberth? 6 MR. BREWTON: Okay. I did attempt to call 7 Chris at both his home and business numbers. I got 8 two answering machines. I've left him two messages 9 with my portable phone number. I'm going to turn 10 the ringer back on, so don't call me rude if it 11 rings, but I asked him to let us know. 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. As I understand it, there 13 are about 30, or 40, or 50, members of this 14 committee. 15 Does anybody -- we should have 10 of the 16 committee members sitting around the table. Does 17 anybody have any idea what Chris' intentions were 18 about being here, reporting conclusions, 19 recommendations, any consensus from the committee 20 at this meeting today? 21 MR. BREWTON: I'll repeat what I said earlier, 22 the only thing I know is I received an e-mail from 23 him yesterday. He referred to correspondence he 24 had with Dave Schaller about record keeping 25 assistance for the committee. 53 1 2 I assume, from that, his intentions were to be 3 here today, because he did not say anything about 4 not being here. He was discussing Dave, the GPA, 5 the SEG, and the Aquifer Committee. That is 6 totally an assumption on my part. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. We will -- pending any new 8 information, we will hold the Aquifer Impacts 9 Committee report to end and move on. The next 10 committee -- excuse me. Yes, sir. 11 MR. JACK PHILLIPS: With respect to the 12 Aquifer Impacts, we have two folks here, who have 13 had the most input, from the studies that have been 14 done by the Corps of Engineers that have a flight 15 to catch at 1:00 o'clock. 16 If we're not going to get the Aquifer 17 Committee before we go to lunch, my recommendation 18 is we would table that subject for this meeting. 19 MR. DYSART: What is the pleasure of this 20 body? Ben Brewton. 21 MR. BREWTON: I was unaware we had folks here 22 from the Corps -- are you talking about people from 23 out of town? 24 MR. JACK PHILLIPS: No. Card and Bob, who 25 have had most input to our studies on the aquifer 54 1 2 have a plane to catch at 1:00. 3 MR. BREWTON: I was going to suggest, thinking 4 you were talking about someone from out of town, 5 our local folks, if they have something they want 6 to report on the aquifer, the Corps does, we ought 7 to certainly make time for that to be done right 8 now. 9 MR. DYSART: Does this body to wish to take 10 the non-report of the Aquifer Committee now, or do 11 you want to have the pieces and parts kind of 12 scattered. It's your group, your decision. What 13 is the pleasure of this body? Ben Brewton. 14 MR. BREWTON: I'll just repeat again, if the 15 folks from the Corps have something they were 16 planning on sharing or presenting today, I 17 certainly wouldn't want us to miss out on that. I 18 think we should give them the opportunity to do 19 that. 20 MR. DYSART: Any other SEG member other than 21 Ben have a view? 22 MR. O'KELLEY: We don't have anything 23 specific, unless Chris is here to report on the 24 committee meeting, so as far as I know -- you did 25 not have anything? 55 1 2 MR. SMITH: No. 3 MR. DYSART: Okay. We will hold the remainder 4 of the committee reports until the end. 5 MR. DYSART: Striped Bass, Carl Hall. 6 MR. HALL: Striped Bass also did not meet 7 during this period. I will report that last month, 8 late last month we were able to appoint a new 9 biologist to assume Tom Meronek's vacated position. 10 Effective November 1st, Ted Will, University 11 of Georgia, who has done the 1135 Striped Bass work 12 and been GPA field supervisor will be working for 13 Georgia DNR. 14 He is also going to be our Striped Bass 15 Committee Chairman. Ted is currently just finished 16 up the last report for the Corps of Engineers on 17 our striped bass fecundity studies and sampling. 18 They're in the process right now of writing 19 the interim report for Georgia Ports Authority on 20 the front river studies, and probably when -- also 21 Ted's involved in conducting and setting up the 22 extra dependent species work. 23 When Ted comes to work on November 1st, we'll 24 be working together, all of us together, I'll 25 probably have to cut him loose. It will probably 56 1 2 be around December before Cecil has the person he 3 wants to fill Ted's position as field supervisor 4 for all these contracted studies. 5 So we're getting a good man. He'll be sitting 6 at the table every month, and we're all going to 7 work together to make sure all the work gets done. 8 MR. DYSART: Is he related to George? 9 MR. HALL: Don't think so. 10 MR. DYSART: Next, Communications. Ben 11 Brewton. 12 MR. BREWTON: We did not meet this month. I 13 will give a short report to follow-up the question 14 Ms. Leffek asked earlier about the status of the 15 minutes that were referred to the Communications 16 Committee. 17 I guess if I were trying to make a joke, I'd 18 start off saying Teri, we decided to give you a 19 break, since you often thought it was taking too 20 much time, we needed to move to science. Since 21 today your priority is on communications rather 22 than science, I guess I would say the group has 23 communicated, some of us by e-mail. 24 I've talked with Dave Schaller and Morgan 25 Rees. Various ideas have been put forth including, 57 1 2 I think Mr. Schaller suggested, we might consider 3 simply deleting the minutes altogether and saying 4 the tape was the record of the meetings. 5 Since there was not a consensus on how that 6 should read, Morgan and I have discussed some other 7 options. I've given some consideration, and talked 8 with my fellow Coastal Environment Organization 9 board members, about the possibility of us actually 10 funding a court reporter of some type to go back 11 and transcribe the missing parts of the tapes. 12 But there seems to be no consensus about what 13 to do with them, other than the fact there are some 14 people who are still not satisfied with the way 15 they read. 16 I am pleased, though, since the group adopted 17 the Communications Committee's recommendations, 18 some months back, that I think we've had minimal 19 time spent discussing minutes and transcripts, 20 which is a testament to the value of having a court 21 reporter here. 22 I would again like to thank Dave and GPA for 23 finally agreeing to fund that. So I just wanted to 24 give that short report. Over the last months, 25 there have been no official meetings. We, a couple 58 1 2 times, tried to coordinate with other meetings that 3 had to be canceled or moved. 4 It did not seem to be a real pressing matter, 5 since they were many months late at the time 6 they were referred to us, to try to ask Morgan or 7 other folks to make a special trip down here. It 8 has had some back burner status. 9 But I think the intent is to deal with those 10 minutes at a time it is convenient, and bring back 11 a solid recommendation to this group, and does have 12 a consensus reported of the committee. That 13 concludes my report or non-report. 14 MR. DYSART: Questions or comments. Teri. 15 MS. LEFFEK: I was going to say thank Ben for 16 his timely answer, insults notwithstanding. 17 MR. BREWTON: You're welcome on both counts. 18 MR. DYSART: Economics Working Group. Judy. 19 MS. LEFFEK: She stepped out. 20 MR. DYSART: We'll recycle her. Operating 21 Guidelines. Morgan Rees. 22 MR. REES: We also did not meet, 23 notwithstanding the fact that we tried to 24 coordinate schedules. It was really difficult over 25 the last couple of months getting all the principle 59 1 2 players together at the same time in the same 3 location. 4 We've had that difficulty with the 5 Communications Committee as well. And so, you know 6 I'm going to continue to try to find the time 7 that's most mutually convenient, but I've come to 8 the conclusion unless somebody objects strongly, 9 somebody is going to have to be left out. 10 There's no time we can get everybody who has 11 an interest together at the same time. People are 12 going to have to trust to the system that the 13 committee report will reflect what happens. 14 They will have a chance to learn what the 15 committee did, so forth. I'm going to send out 16 another e-mail, solicit dates. Hopefully, we can 17 have another meeting before the next SEG meeting, 18 because there are some items that we put out on 19 the committee agenda that are important to deal 20 sooner rather than later, in my judgment. 21 In that context, Ben, I'd like to -- since I'm 22 going to be here, I'll make a special point to be 23 here, we'll do a Communications Committee meeting 24 in conjunction with the Operating Guidelines, not 25 at the same meeting, but the same day, next morning 60 1 2 or whatever. 3 MR. BREWTON: I was going to suggest exactly 4 the same thing. Perhaps when we leave, you and I 5 can compare some notes, and at least get a starting 6 point for those meetings. 7 MR. REES: That's all. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. John. 9 MR. ROBINETTE: One committee -- we don't have 10 it on here, but it's a group, doesn't have a 11 committee, the marsh studies that Wiley Kitchens is 12 conducting, and the Fish and Wildlife Service 13 studies, I can give a brief synopsis of what's 14 going on with that, if the SEG would like it. 15 MR. DYSART: The body would love hear some 16 science reports. Would you like come to the table 17 so the reporter can hear you better? 18 MR. ROBINETTE: We handed out a list of tidal 19 fresh water wetlands impact studies in previous 20 meetings. I think most of you got a copy of that. 21 I'll just go through that briefly. 22 Continuing, the vegetation monitoring, we've 23 been taking monthly samples from each of our 10 24 stations. We have the spring sample, which is a 25 lot more intensive. The next sampling effort will 61 1 2 be about mid-October of this year. 3 The transplant experiments, they will begin in 4 late fall. We didn't want to do the transplants 5 during the growing season. Estuary transplants 6 will be between fresh and intermediate or brackish 7 marshes on the refuge to monitor the vegetation 8 response from that. 9 With the transplant experiments, we had 10 previously talked about trying some growing 11 season burns, in lieu of transplant experiments to 12 try to accomplish the same thing to get a similar 13 response, but with a transplant experiment, the 14 data will be more quantitative and better data. So 15 we will not do the growing season burns. 16 The continued salinity monitoring is an effort 17 that's ongoing. They have been doing -- Wiley's 18 crew has been doing a monthly sampling. 19 This is a measurement over time or temporal 20 representation of the salinities within the marsh, 21 looking at four different sites starting with fresh 22 water, going to the more brackish water sites. So 23 far what we've found at the sites, one, two, and 24 three, one being the most fresh, the salinities 25 have all been less than two parts per thousand in 62 1 2 those areas. 3 This is sort of significant to us because this 4 has occurred during a drought cycle, when the 5 salinities have been a little higher than normal 6 flows. 7 The brackish water site on the south end of 8 the refuge, the salinities have been running from 9 about 5.5 to 7 parts per 1,000. Average salinities 10 at the next site up, going toward the fresher sites 11 has been averaging about 1 part per 1,000, 12 significantly fresher than what we had during the 13 tide gate operations. And the marsh does seem to 14 be in state of recovery. 15 We'll be putting out continual reading, 16 salinity readers at each of the sites in October. 17 Salinity spatial synoptic samplings, the June 18 sample has been completed. We'll start another one 19 in October. 20 This is a spatial representation of the marsh 21 where we're taking an air boat, we go out and take 22 salinity readings over the entire marsh area at 23 certain grid points, and also take soil samples for 24 analysis. 25 We have a lot of data. It has not been 63 1 2 crunched yet. Seed production study will begin 3 this spring. The thing that initiated this was one 4 of our biologists, Russ Webb, looked at wild rice, 5 which has been coming back into the marsh since the 6 tide gate was taken out of operation. 7 We're getting more and more of this plant back 8 into the community. So as a project, he looked at 9 seed production of wild rice in the tidal fresh 10 water marsh. He's found it will produce a little 11 less than about two tons per acre of seed. 12 This is significant wildlife food for 13 migratory birds, which is the purpose for which the 14 Savannah Refuge was established. With that, we 15 thought we probably needed to look at the entire 16 community. So we'll get a representation of seed 17 production in brackish areas as compared to fresh 18 areas, and that will tie in nicely with the plant 19 diversity, and other stuff like that. 20 The tree gap analysis will be done this 21 spring. We're looking at the forested communities 22 under different historic hydrologic regimes, 23 looking back in times at what was there years ago, 24 what is there now, and what is the seedling 25 production coming up for the future. 64 1 2 Sediment characterization samples were taken 3 in June. The next set of samples will be taken in 4 October. This is looking at spatial 5 characterization of the marsh substrate. 6 Vegetation change analysis, looking at 7 satellite imagery to determine changes in 8 vegetation signatures over time. We got the first 9 satellite images in July, before we had the money 10 processed through the government. We get the money 11 through GPA, then it goes in the government 12 process. That just takes forever for Fish and 13 Wildlife to paid for the first spot imagining. 14 We'll get another one in October. We'll get 15 another one this coming spring, which should give 16 us a pretty good picture over time of the marsh 17 community and plant community, as associated with 18 the satellite image to help produce the model. 19 The tidal wetlands succession development 20 model is what we're going to do with this. It's 21 going to be sort of a map showing the plant 22 community from the more salty areas, all the way up 23 to the fresh, and how that changes. 24 This is what Wiley Kitchens did during the 25 tide gate era. If you ever saw any of those models 65 1 2 or pictures, a picture is worth a thousand words. 3 It shows the marsh and where the tidal fresh 4 wetlands are. 5 Also, it should define the acreage a little 6 more accurately than what we have now in the marsh, 7 as far as acres of tidal fresh water, marsh, 8 brackish marsh, and saline marsh. 9 The Nekton studies are getting underway. 10 First samples will begin in October. Those 11 samplings will be monthly. We have changed this a 12 little bit. 13 We're going to a bottomless lift net, instead 14 of flume traps. With the bottomless lift net, 15 essentially it's a net that lays on the bottom of 16 the marsh. We're looking like right where the 17 creeks come into and feed the marsh, and the fish 18 that come in there, and how this the marsh serves 19 as a nursery for the fisheries resources. 20 The bottom lift nets, what we can do, as the 21 area floods, it gets closer to high slack tide and 22 the marshes fill up with the fish into that 23 habitat, we can lift those nets straight up and 24 capture a known quantity, which quantifies your 25 data, and makes it a lot more accurately, a lot 66 1 2 more meaningful than using the flume traps. So 3 we're beginning that in October. 4 The bird monitoring study, Fish and Wildlife 5 Service has just completed a breeding bird survey, 6 and several sites in the marsh including a saline 7 site down on the right river, which is out of the 8 refuge, we're looking at almost a sea strength 9 site all the way up to the fresh water site. A 10 graduate student is currently putting that together 11 for his Master's thesis. 12 What we're looking at now is the migratory 13 pattern. We'll be looking at fall migration which 14 will begin this Saturday and go every Saturday 15 through October, possibly into November, to capture 16 some of the winter residents that we have in the 17 marsh. 18 We have five sites set up representing fresh 19 water wood-lock area, fresh water marsh, and 20 intermediate marsh, brackish marsh, and then saline 21 site on the right river. We'll be setting up six 22 mist nets at each site. Each net will be 23 considered a replica of the other. 24 We'll be doing that, running that this fall. 25 We'll be doing that this spring too. That begins 67 1 2 this coming Saturday. 3 Anybody that wants to get out and stomp in the 4 marsh, if you love to step on ground that moves 5 with you, lets you fall through it, come on and 6 join us. 7 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Judy, do you have a 8 report from the Economics Working Group? 9 MR. BREWTON: I had a couple of questions 10 about John's report, if I might. 11 MR. DYSART: Excuse me. Ben Brewton is 12 recognized. 13 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. I have asked, over a 14 period of several months on and off to Bo, John, 15 you and I think talked about this a couple of 16 times, a question relating to a concern about the 17 modeling projections that ATM was going to be 18 doing, considering, as I understand it, DO and 19 salinity, so forth, only in the river between the 20 river banks perhaps, I should say, that there were 21 marsh cells to account for the volume of water that 22 would overflow into the marsh, but not necessarily 23 a qualitative approach to that. 24 I have some concerns about whether there was 25 going to be enough information in the modeling 68 1 2 capabilities, for you guys at Fish and Wildlife, 3 and Press, you guys working at fisheries, so forth, 4 to adequately understand or project the effects on 5 the marsh, and the upper reaches of the creek, and 6 the breeding areas, the areas where the juveniles 7 of the various species might be. 8 Bo had told me, I believe, and correct me if 9 I'm misstating this, there were some independent 10 studies that were looking at the marsh areas and 11 the effects there. So I guess what I'm asking 12 here, are these indeed those studies, and do these 13 studies take into consideration the effect on the 14 spawning or areas that the juvenile -- the 15 juveniles might frequent, or is this strictly a 16 vegetation study, and John or Sam? 17 MR. ROBINETTE: This is not strictly a 18 vegetation study. We're looking at the fish and 19 some encroachments, I guess, coming into the marsh 20 and using these areas as a nursery ground. 94% of 21 all commercial sport fish landed on the Atlantic 22 Coast are associated with estuary systems like the 23 Savannah River, and the health of that estuary 24 determines the health of those fisheries. 25 So that's why we're so concerned about this. 69 1 2 What we are trying to do is to look at this over 3 that salinity rating, and determine the value of 4 those areas as nursery habitat for these fish, by 5 capturing those fish as they come in and 6 determining what age those fish are when they are 7 using those areas. 8 We have some adult fish that use those areas 9 extensively too, as feeding grounds. So that's 10 what we're trying to capture over that salinity 11 rating. It's a very difficulty task, as I'm sure 12 you understand how difficult it is to work in the 13 marsh. 14 We're capturing a very small portion of the 15 entire area, but we're doing as much as we 16 physically and logistically can to capture that, 17 and look at that. 18 Wiley has been working with the folks doing 19 the fisheries studies at other locations, doing 20 more intensive sampling at other parts of the 21 estuary, trying to coordinate. Hopefully, toward 22 the end of September, we are going to get most of 23 the modelers and researches together, which we have 24 done in the past, you know, and sit down about 25 mid-term or whatever, and make sure that we're 70 1 2 still -- that our efforts are still measuring that. 3 We're getting everything we need and everybody is 4 essentially riding the same horse. Does that help? 5 MR. DRAKE: Ben, I would just add there are 6 two groups of studies ongoing. Fish and Wildlife 7 has conducted the first part. ATM was funded to 8 conduct studies in Tier I EIS. We were comparing 9 apples and oranges. 10 And Tier II ATM studies are being done on the 11 same transect lines that Fish and Wildlife studies 12 are being conducted on. They're using the same 13 monitoring wells for continuing salinity data. 14 Once the model is complete, we'll have some 15 data, accurate data, on the marsh to compare with 16 the model, what we actually saw during certain flow 17 conditions. 18 You get into the calibration, that type of 19 thing, and we'll have a lot more folks involved in 20 that process, as will ATM. 21 Right now, everything is pretty well in sync, 22 and the studies are kind of an ad hoc-type 23 committee, because we're not working through the 24 fisheries, whatever. It's kind of a separate 25 committee -- ATM and Fish and Wildlife folks have 71 1 2 been working on. 3 MR. BREWTON: I guess -- thank you John and 4 Sam for that. I guess what, at some point, I'm 5 looking to hear as an SEG member and representative 6 of a conservation organization, is to hear feedback 7 from Fish and Wildlife, from fisheries and so 8 forth, that assure this group that the data, the 9 modeling they're doing, the independent or 10 coordinated studies that you are doing, in fact, do 11 comprehensively cover the question of the projected 12 changes that there might be, or projected impacts 13 on the suitability on these areas, nursery areas, 14 adult use, and other things John referred to. 15 We're relying on you folks to tell us that. 16 My concern is to see and know that these studies 17 are complete, and give you all the tools that you 18 need to understand what the impact will be, and 19 give us good feedback on that. 20 At some point, after you have these meetings 21 and make the evaluations of whether you're getting 22 the information you need, I hope you can maybe 23 share that in some basic way with us, the answers 24 to those questions. 25 MR. BOOHER: I'd like to share our concern 72 1 2 with the point Ben's bringing up. We share the 3 very same concern. 4 MR. DYSART: Further comments, questions, 5 observations? Judy, you have a report from the 6 Economics Working Group. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Yes. We met regularly. Our 8 meetings are well attended, I think, by a variety 9 of those interested in economics, the Corps, GPA, 10 environmental. 11 We've had a lot of discussion lately about 12 design vessel choice, and reasons for validating 13 the design vessel in the economic analysis, as it 14 currently exists, or whether or not it will change. 15 There's been significant discussion about 16 that, but we have no recommendations for the SEG at 17 this time. 18 MR. DYSART: Questions, observations, views, 19 opinions? Ben Brewton. 20 MR. BREWTON: Judy, I'd just like to ask, in 21 this past Sundays paper, in the Washington Post, 22 there was an extensive analysis of the Corps of 23 Engineers, very, very lengthy. And in that 24 article, they referred to a couple of projects, and 25 questioned the assumptions that were made to do 73 1 2 the economic benefit calculations for those 3 particular projects. 4 Now, those are independent projects. I don't 5 mean to reflect in any way on the Savannah project, 6 different districts of the Corps, different area of 7 the country so forth. 8 The question I have for you, those working 9 economic issues, certainly one assumption is the 10 design vessel that's used. One of the things that 11 they pointed out, in figuring the benefits of this 12 project, was that 1957 interest rate of 2 1/2% was 13 used, or something like that. 14 In the project here in the harbor, are you and 15 the other members of Economics Committee working 16 with the Corps and GPA, in fact, in examining -- 17 have you made or do you intend to make yourself 18 comfortable with the assumptions made in the 19 economic projections? 20 MS. JENNINGS: Appreciate the question. It's 21 a good one, in fact, is pivotal to our 22 conversation. 23 You can't do an analysis without certain 24 assumptions. We are systemically reviewing what 25 those assumptions are, and trying to review the 74 1 2 rationale for them, validate them or invalidate 3 them with -- and explain them. 4 So, you can't look at an economic analysis, 5 you can't look at an ND (phonetic) analysis or 6 benefit cost analysis without reviewing the 7 rationale and underlying assumption. We are 8 systemically looking at everyone of those. 9 MR. BREWTON: You, in fact, are going through 10 those with the committee. At some point, I guess, 11 the committee is going to have some complaints 12 about them, or come back to this group and 13 reassure us you have looked at those things? 14 MS. JENNINGS: Actually, Ben, I apologize to 15 the group. I'll defer to Will, or anyone else who 16 wants to add in our discussions, our discussions 17 are quite in depth. Our meetings are a couple of 18 hours at a time. I apologize, I'm not the best 19 reporter, but I think our examination of the issues 20 is very thorough. 21 And in fact, we have identified some 22 assumptions in the original analysis that we agree 23 we don't agree with, and we've identified numerous 24 issues that we all agree should be revisited. 25 MR. BREWTON: I guess what I was asking is, at 75 1 2 some point, we can count on the Economics Committee 3 basically giving a report back to the SEG and 4 letting us know -- 5 MS. JENNINGS: I have that in my word file 6 right now. 7 MR. BREWTON: I understand you are doing that 8 as you go. I'm talking about at some point maybe a 9 summary report of what issues you've looked at. 10 MS. JENNINGS: That's a good question too. 11 One of the issues that we're dealing with in the 12 Economics Committee, just as we talked about 13 earlier in this meeting is, what product do we 14 produce. 15 I think that's important for the SEG. We've 16 already been there. It's also important for the 17 Economics Committee. We are, at this point in time 18 -- in fact, one of the members has presented a 19 rather detailed plan of what the product of the 20 Economics Working Group could be. 21 At any given point in time, I could present 22 this group with quite a few details of what we 23 discussed. In terms of work product, that's also a 24 matter of discussion. 25 MR. BREWTON: Let me perhaps rephrase the 76 1 2 question to comment then I would hope, at some 3 point, you would come back to the group with some 4 type of report, and summarize the issues, and 5 category of issues, and let us know which the 6 committee is agreement on. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Sure. On paper I'll be glad 8 to. 9 MR. BREWTON: If there's a difference of 10 opinion in those, you could sort of share those 11 differing views with us. I'm not able -- I think 12 I came to one maybe. No, I didn't. Neff came on 13 behalf of our organization to one meeting. We just 14 have not had the personnel power to attend those. 15 We are very interested in what you are doing 16 and hope it will be shared in a summary way with 17 us. 18 I do want to note, no implication by 19 mentioning these other Corps of Engineer projects, 20 with the GPA and the Corps Savannah district at 21 all. I just used that as an example of questioning 22 whether you were examining those type of issues. 23 MS. JENNINGS: They're pivotal. They're 24 absolutely at the heart of it. I will make a 25 comment is that I'm more dedicated to the economics 77 1 2 issue than I ever was. When I first started the 3 question, I thought that it was relevant. I can't 4 over-emphasize the relevancy. You realize how long 5 we've been talking about this -- this is three, 6 four years. 7 The reconnaissance study for this project was 8 July of 1996. As I have scanned and read news of 9 the maritime industry, there have been huge 10 changes. In fact, it is a fact that ships, larger 11 than the design vessel in this study, represent a 12 larger proportion of the world fleet than the 13 design vessel did, in this study, when it was made. 14 So one of my humble suggestions, and in the 15 Economic Committee is that at some point in time we 16 need severely updated information. I think when 17 that update is made is strategic. 18 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. 19 MR. DYSART: Further questions concerning the 20 Economic Workings Group? Okay. Chris Schuberth 21 has now joined us. Before Chris, who has joined us 22 since we introduced ourselves. Stand up or sit 23 there, Gwen. Say who you are and who you are 24 representing. 25 MS. McKEE: I'm Gwen McKee. I'm representing 78 1 2 Georgia Wildlife Federation. 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: Chris, say who you are, and 4 we'll come back to you very quickly. 5 MR. SCHUBERTH: Chris Schuberth with the 6 Chatham Environmental Forum. 7 MR. DYSART: Any others who have joined the 8 meeting, who have not introduced themselves on the 9 record? Okay. 10 Chris has joined us. Chris, could you give us 11 a report from the Aquifer Impacts Committee, 12 please. 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: The report, this morning, is 14 unofficial. We have met. Our last meeting was on 15 the 21st of August, I think it was. We met for 16 about two and a half hours. 17 We had a presentation by both Rick Krause from 18 Hydrovision, who had been asked by the City of 19 Savannah to assess the '98 report from the Corps of 20 Engineers, regarding the potential impact of the 21 harbor deepening on the aquifer. 22 There were some comments made as to improving 23 the aspects of that report in light of, and I 24 emphasize in light of some new information that may 25 be on the table, particularly information that is 79 1 2 within the area of professional hydrogeologists, 3 which I am not, and many of the folks on the 4 committee are not. 5 This was followed by commentary about the 6 sound science initiative by John Clark, both of 7 whom were purposefully, intentionally, 8 deliberately, invited to make their presentation, 9 in order to get a better understanding of what may 10 or may not be going on vis-a-vis the Floridan 11 Aquifer, particularly in terms of it's upper cap, 12 the so-called "miocene" aquifer. 13 The big question center's around the volume of 14 "leakage" of surface water, salt water, into the 15 aquifer, which is known to occur, which has been so 16 identified in the '98 report by the Corps. 17 The discussion that followed was spirited. 18 The discussion that followed was, to some degree, 19 animated. 20 We tried to establish whether further studies 21 should or should not be done, and we couldn't 22 resolve that question. Part of the problem, a 23 serious problem, a backbreaking problem is there 24 was no one, not one person of the 30 plus people 25 that were there offered to be the record keeper -- 80 1 2 not one. 3 And actually, it wasn't until the conversation 4 began to get underway that key members did not 5 really participate, and then when I pointedly asked 6 is there further -- is there any comments from this 7 area, then there were comments. 8 Some of the comments were not the most -- not 9 the kind of things you had really wanted to hear, 10 but that's really neither here nor there. 11 In any event, I put up the minutes to the best 12 of my recollection. My senior moments are 13 increasing in number, but I tried to put together 14 -- I spent probably an entire Friday afternoon 15 putting minutes together. I had a death in the 16 family which delayed the process of getting these 17 minutes together, in anticipation of the next 18 scheduled meeting, which had been scheduled -- this 19 would now be the third meeting for the 8th of 20 September. 21 The venue was identified, since we have now 22 outgrown -- we are, the Aquifer Committee is three 23 fifths the size of the SEG. I just printed out my 24 list, and there are 31 names on the list, but 30 25 plus people came. 81 1 2 That means there are people that came as part 3 of a larger group that are not on this list, and 4 that's fine. That's fine. It's unwieldy. It's 5 unmanageable. It precipitates difficulties in 6 trying to get to the heart of the question, which 7 is what I thought we were trying to get to when 8 Bill Farmer so kindly and graciously put me up for 9 endorsement to chair this very important group. 10 And I had really thought that we were going to 11 be something like MTRG, a group of rock knockers 12 sitting together and trying to debate whether we're 13 dealing with an anticline or syncline, or whether 14 we're dealing with this or that in terms of the 15 ground water. But it didn't turn out that way. 16 There was a point there where I was really at 17 a low spot. My colleagues said -- prevailed -- 18 said, hang in there. There is a light at the end 19 of the tunnel. We're not anywhere near into the 20 tunnel yet. 21 In any event, the minutes were sent out, and I 22 apologize for the short delay, the short lapse time 23 in getting responses. It was the Labor Day weekend 24 coming up. We all know what happens on Labor Day 25 weekend. 82 1 2 So there was some serious objections to the 3 way the minutes were written up. No one accused me 4 of being biased, but the minutes were not 5 satisfactory, so basically they were withdrawn. 6 In my last announcement, which announces our 7 third meeting which is scheduled for Friday, the 8 22nd of September at high noon, and I must say, for 9 the record, that we are blessed by generous folks 10 who provide us lunch. I mean a lunch that you 11 would die for. 12 The first lunch for the first meeting was 13 provided by, and I think it should go on the record 14 that there are folks who are very generous to our 15 welfare, and help nourish our body, soul, mind, and 16 spirit, was Ben Brewton and the CEO. 17 The second lunch was provided by CEFGO 18 (phonetic) and CEFGO offered the facilities of 19 their conference room for the next meeting, since 20 we are now an enormous group, on Bay Street. And 21 Harry Jue and the City of Savannah offered that 22 lunch, and fortunately, maybe unfortunately 23 depending how you look at it, we caught the caterer 24 in time to postpone the September 8th meeting, 25 which generated a flurry -- I mean a flurry of 83 1 2 comments. 3 I commented to my good friends that I felt 4 like Saddam Hussein sitting in his bunker in Bagdad 5 as these missiles kept coming in. Ultimately, by 6 the end of day, things quieted down. Those who are 7 most -- most annoyed, having lost financially and 8 not having this meeting on Friday September 8th, 9 took the negative and tried to turn it into a 10 positive. 11 Among things that have happened is that we 12 have basically unofficially but distributed to the 13 distribution list, a memorandum, an official 14 memorandum that has been signed by five leading 15 scientists in this community, four from Georgia 16 Southern, and one from the Skidaway Institute of 17 Oceanography, making some important suggestions. 18 That's to be discussed. 19 Also, on the table, that is the Aquifer 20 Committee table, not the SEG table, the Aquifer 21 Committee table, is a comprehensive, thorough, 22 scope of work recommending, I underscore 23 recommending, to the Aquifer Committee by the City 24 of Savannah. 25 Harry Jue has told me that he has basically 84 1 2 the solid support of the city, and the city 3 manager, in dealing with the question of the 4 aquifer from a scientific, again from a scientific 5 perspective, find the information, get us the best 6 information, so that if we say what conceivably 7 could be a worst case scenario, we really wouldn't 8 like to hear a response like the dredge operator 9 falling asleep. It goes beyond that. It's meant 10 to be a figure of speech, I am aware. 11 There is a third one pager that came to me 12 from Camille Ransom, who is hydrogeologist with the 13 South Carolina folks, who also has made some 14 recommendations, regarding the technology, 15 regarding the specific, the specifics of aquifer 16 behavior, vis-a-vis the cap rock and the possible 17 leakage, should that cap rock be -- be thinned any 18 further. 19 So we basically have three documents that are 20 sitting there, and in my announcement of the 21 meeting, we still need to write up the -- what I 22 now call the draft of the minutes of the second 23 meeting. 24 I have made an administrative decision that I 25 personally will not serve as the recording 85 1 2 secretary. I -- it's impossible. I have had some 3 minimal conversation through e-mail with Dave 4 Schaller about can we -- can we facilitate this? 5 I got a voice message early this morning from 6 a gentleman who I don't -- I think I know but I may 7 not know Don Ernst -- I'm sorry. Okay. Somebody 8 else I'm thinking of who offered to become the 9 recording secretary, which is, of course, much 10 appreciated. 11 I'm also a little troubled, although it's not 12 a major issue I don't think, that early in the 13 development of this Aquifer Committee there was 14 some question about whether there should be 15 additional scientists involved in kind of -- I 16 don't know the right word -- ancillary capacity, 17 which generated some additional reaction and 18 response. 19 And one of the things that I learned, which 20 somewhat surprised me, is that the folks in the 21 federal offices that have the real authority to 22 allow, not allow the project to move forward, 23 should be on the committee, so that their input can 24 be recorded for posterity. 25 And to the best of my knowledge, outside of 86 1 2 perhaps Camille Ransom, I don't know of any other 3 officials from Fish and Wildlife, Georgia DNR, or 4 others who are not sitting on that committee, and 5 that may or may not be an important point. 6 Anyhow, anyone sitting here is welcome to the 7 come on Friday, September 22nd, at our third 8 meeting which will probably -- I was always told if 9 you can't run a meeting in an hour, then you're 10 wasting the rest of your time after the 60 minutes. 11 It won't be an hour. It will be more than 12 that. In the event anybody would like to be part 13 of distribution, please get in touch with me. By 14 the way, when I send e-messages out, at the bottom 15 is a little signature card. If you open up 16 personal, you'll get my whole history, when I was 17 born, my Social Security Number, the name of my 18 wife -- no, no. But you'll get my phone number and 19 get my fax number, as well as my e-mail address. 20 So that's basically an impromptu, off-the-cuff 21 update as to where we are with an issue that, 22 obviously, has tremendous interest, because it is 23 an extremely important issue. 24 MR. DYSART: Chris may have been smart, he 25 managed to miss the hour's worth of discussion we 87 1 2 had this morning about whether to spend two minutes 3 on the product of the SEG. That was humor. 4 I think it's wonderful that you've got the 5 kind of participation you have. Comments I've 6 gotten 30, 40, 50 people showing up, and you 7 certainly have a hopefully large number of diverse 8 group from this body actively involved in your 9 committee. Wish you godspeed. 10 MR. SCHUBERTH: Oh, need that. 11 MR. DYSART: Comment? Trip. 12 MR. TOLLISON: Chris, if you can let me know 13 the federal agency you think needs to be at the 14 meeting on the 22nd, we can help make sure they're 15 there. 16 I think USGS definitely has a presence at the 17 table. Corps of Engineers. If you can tell me 18 some others, our office can try to make sure 19 they're present. 20 MR. DYSART: Further comments? 21 MR. O'KELLEY: For the record, both of them 22 were represented at the meeting. 23 MR. TOLLISON: USGS and the Corps? 24 MR. O'KELLEY: Yes. 25 MR. TOLLISON: Can you think of any other 88 1 2 agencies that need to be there that were not 3 present. 4 COLONEL SCHMITT: EPA, South Carolina DNR, 5 South Carolina DHEC, Georgia DNR -- who else, Bob? 6 MR. O'KELLEY: Pretty well covers it. 7 DR. HENRY: Georgia EPD, to my knowledge. 8 COLONEL SCHMITT: Well, yes. Georgia DNR -- 9 EPD. 10 DR. HENRY: Georgia Geological Survey 11 specifically is what I'm talking about. 12 MR. O'KELLEY: Dr. McLemore from there was in 13 attendance. 14 MR. SCHUBERTH: But he had indicated that 15 don't put him on the list because he wasn't coming 16 back. 17 MR. O'KELLEY: But he was there. 18 MR. DYSART: Further comments on the Aquifer 19 Committee informal update from the Chairman? Ben 20 Brewton. 21 MR. BREWTON: I have a couple. First, Chris, 22 you were talking about the unwieldy size, but you 23 gave a pretty strong recommendation on the lunches 24 we've been having, so you might want to tone that 25 down a little bit. 89 1 2 I do have a couple of questions. One, Chris, 3 I think we all appreciated and also sympathized 4 with the effort you had last week. 5 And one of the concerns that came up that 6 caused the meeting to be postponed is some folks 7 were saying, because the minutes had not been 8 resolved we should not have the meeting. 9 Based on the pattern we've had in SEG and 10 other committees, all the minutes -- let me say 11 that other way. If we were going to stop the 12 meeting everytime the minutes were not agreed to, 13 we would not be meeting to this day in the SEG. 14 So in fact, it seems to me that having a 15 meeting that would be one of the things on the 16 agenda to resolve, would be minutes of previous 17 meetings, if they were not resolved by e-mail 18 beforehand. 19 So I would like to ask that we don't let that 20 be a reason not to have a meeting in the future, 21 that the minutes aren't resolved. 22 Second thing you referred to, a couple of 23 conditions of reports, so forth, that the committee 24 was going to looking at. I would like to ask, 25 Chris, if you would give those to Larry Keegan, let 90 1 2 him put those on the web site, I'm sure there are 3 other members of the group that would be 4 interested, and may attend the meeting, that are 5 not yet on the mailing list, that would like to 6 look at the various documents you referred to, 7 the memorandum from the scientists, the proposal 8 from the City of Savannah, I think the Corps of 9 Engineer's statement they released on the aquifer 10 study, so forth. I see a lot of cards going up. 11 I'll defer for a minute. 12 MR. SCHUBERTH: Let me just answer to Ben's 13 question. I think Larry is on the distribution 14 list, and Larry does have as an attachment, that I 15 think is readable, the scope of work from the City 16 of Savannah. 17 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, I do. 18 MR. SCHUBERTH: That was sent out. I have to 19 say, at this point, since this was the document for 20 consideration of the Aquifer Committee, I just 21 hesitate to send that document out to the SEG in 22 its broad generality. Same with the memorandum, I 23 call it the memorandum of the five signatory 24 scientists. Why this awkward title signatory? 25 Because the initial transmission was by e-mail, and 91 1 2 the signed copy was going to be discussed on the 3 September 8th meeting. 4 And because that meeting was postponed to 5 September 22nd, I don't think the rules have 6 changed, in that I think both of these documents 7 should be considered first by the -- by the Aquifer 8 Committee. 9 I mean, that's just my response to that. And 10 then we have that third one which came, and I did 11 not distribute that, because it came late. That 12 was a one pager by Camille Ransom. 13 If it is felt now that should also be 14 distributed to the Aquifer Committee, I will be 15 more than happy to do that, when I get back to the 16 campus. 17 MR. DYSART: For clarification, is it or is it 18 not a general practice that things that are posted 19 are done so with the recommendation of the 20 committee, as opposed to just anything that is on 21 the committee's table? 22 MR. BREWTON: We have an area -- 23 MR. DYSART: Do you have a comment, 24 Mr. Chairman first, please? 25 MR. SCHUBERTH: No, I didn't. 92 1 2 MR. DYSART: I was directing that to the 3 chairman. Ben Brewton. 4 MR. BREWTON: I'm sorry. Are you asking for 5 general practice as opposed to the practice of the 6 Aquifer Committee? 7 MR. DYSART: No. 8 MR. BREWTON: I think there's an area on the 9 web site that was set up for background and 10 reference materials related to any agenda item. We 11 previously agreed, could and would be posted at the 12 request of anyone. 13 I was not suggesting this be posted as a 14 recommendation of the Aquifer Committee. I was 15 simply suggesting it be posted for the information 16 of those in the group, who I know seems just about 17 everyone is interested in what is going in this 18 committee, and the questions for the aquifer. 19 I think it would be helpful background 20 information for them. If nobody wants to see it, 21 then there's no reason to post it, I guess. In 22 conformance with the agreement that we had reached 23 earlier about the posting of relevant materials, I 24 was making the request as it related to this agenda 25 item, that Chris transmit that to Larry for 93 1 2 posting. 3 DR. HENRY: I was going to point out to Ben 4 that the minutes may have been problem. I think 5 the main thing the meeting was postponed was for 6 was the fact that the memorandum and so forth came 7 just the day before the meeting was to be held, and 8 people felt like they needed to review it before we 9 met. I think that was the main thing. 10 MR. DYSART: David and Gwen. 11 MR. SCHALLER: That was the point that I 12 wanted to make as well. 13 MS. McKEE: That really begs the question. 14 I'm not sure I wanted to raise it and complicate 15 things. It does seem like there's a tremendous 16 amount of interest in this committee. 17 I see the last item on the agenda or next to 18 the last is our next meeting date. At some point, 19 we discussed whether we would meet in alternate 20 months, and have committees meet in the months on 21 the same day that the SEG does not meet. 22 And I would just like to throw out the 23 possibility, just for fixing dates, to shift the 24 committees to the October meeting date, not to 25 preempt the meeting on the 22nd, maybe an 94 1 2 additional meeting, whatever, so the entire SEG 3 perhaps could come. 4 It does seem like with the attendance you're 5 getting, there's a real interest in that. That may 6 be a problem -- not to complicate that, just to 7 throw that out. 8 MR. DYSART: Chris. 9 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think we have to keep in 10 mind, I understand open records. I think I 11 understand open records and open meetings, but I 12 had originally envisioned this as a working 13 committee, consisting of a relatively small, 14 knowledgeable folks to basically distinguish 15 whether we're dealing with a nice or a gneiss, in 16 very simple geology. No one cares outside of 17 geologists if it's a nice or a schist. 18 I think the same goes with the details of 19 the mechanics of groundwater exchange. I think 20 what the SEG and the membership is really 21 interested in is, at a given point in the future, 22 the Aquifer Committee acts like E.F. Hutton and 23 speaks to the question. 24 It can then be assessed in terms of the 25 conclusion drawn, whatever the conclusion is. So 95 1 2 to have a oversize group of people debating the 3 details of the geology, or the details of 4 hydrogeology, I'm not sure if that really is in the 5 best interests of the Aquifer Committee. 6 MR. DYSART: I think what we always hope to 7 get back from a committee is a consensus on the 8 scientific studies that need to be done, as opposed 9 -- and that -- that hopefully is the focus. Any 10 other comments? Further comments. Is there 11 anything else that needs to be discussed about the 12 Aquifer Committee? Yes, sir. 13 MR. NADELMAN: Is the Aquifer Committee 14 dealing with the dangers of flooding at all, 15 deepening the harbor I know because I read about 16 the dangers, the increased danger of flooding -- 17 this article was in the News Press. What committee 18 is dealing with that? 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: That issue came up several 20 months ago. That's somewhere in the famous Bill 21 Farmer matrix. That flooding aspect has no 22 connection with the workings of the specifics of 23 the aquifer. 24 The Aquifer Committee is not dealing with the 25 increased or decreased flooding, as a consequence 96 1 2 of deepening the harbor. 3 MR. NADELMAN: What committee is dealing with 4 that? 5 MR. SCHUBERTH: I don't think there is a 6 committee. 7 MR. McINTOSH: There is none. It was actually 8 turned down at -- I think three or four meetings 9 ago it came up, and it was the consensus of the 10 group not to assign that particular possibility to 11 a committee. 12 MR. NADELMAN: It's still a reality, I think, 13 since the morning news wrote an article about it. 14 MR. McINTOSH: There you go. 15 MR. REES: I would just like to clarify that 16 the issue is being addressed. There is no 17 committee per se, but the issue will be addressed 18 in the Tier II EIS and explain -- 19 MR. NADELMAN: I think it better. 20 MR. REES: It will be -- it is on the 21 schedule. It's on Bill Farmer's matrix. It will 22 be incorporated in the Tier II process. 23 MR. DYSART: Couple cards against the wall. 24 Don. 25 MR. ERNST: The issue of flooding, wouldn't 97 1 2 that be addressed in the hydrodynamic model that 3 ATM does? 4 MR. ELLIS: An aspect of it, the impact on 5 tidal amplitude. 6 MR. ERNST: To Mr. Schuberth, since we aren't 7 approving any of the minutes of any of these 8 meetings, am I to understand that the minutes that 9 were submitted through the SEG, or through the 10 Aquifer Committee e-mail, are they going to be 11 introduced to the SEG as our unapproved minutes, 12 and additionally, the memorandum I would oppose 13 posting the memorandum, because there is questions 14 involved as far as some verbiage inside of the 15 memorandum I think you should discuss on September 16 22nd, before we post the memorandum before the five 17 distinguished signatory scientists. 18 MR. SCHUBERTH: I stepped out. I'm not sure 19 exactly where you're coming from. What I heard you 20 saying is that the information, that is of the five 21 -- the memorandum of the five signatory scientists, 22 the memorandum of the scope of work from Harry Jue 23 is, at this point, I'd like to think privileged 24 information for the Aquifer Committee to deal with 25 in all of its aspects, and to make whatever 98 1 2 revisions, changes, amendments, to strength, to 3 whatever, should stay really, at this point, within 4 that committee. 5 MR. ERNST: As far as the minutes from the 6 Aquifer Committee second meeting -- 7 MR. SCHUBERTH: Well, what I would like to see 8 is that someone, other than Chris Schuberth to take 9 the minutes that were presented, fairly lengthy, 10 and propose a revision of those minutes to more 11 accurately, more broadly, reflect the discussions, 12 together with the nuances, together with the 13 implications, and so on so forth. 14 Those minutes, I think, have been withdrawn 15 from the web page, because they're -- I mean I 16 didn't see them, not that I went looking for them. 17 At this point, I don't want to look at them. 18 MR. ERNST: To measure for the SEG as a group, 19 since we're not approving any of the minutes, and 20 it would give people in this group a look at what 21 was actually or has actually taken place in the 22 second meeting, I apologize for not being at the 23 first meeting. 24 Everytime I come to these meetings it costs 25 me money, so I have to pick and choose which 99 1 2 meetings I come to. There was one point in the 3 minutes, if we should so decide to publish them as 4 written that, to establish what impact, if any, 5 deepening of the Savannah Harbor from 42 feet with 6 depths in places currently at 50 feet, to as much 7 as 48 feet with depths in places to exceed 48 feet 8 -- I believe the question was posed directly to GPA 9 exactly what are the pluses and minuses of 48 foot, 10 50 foot, whatever foot dredging we're going to do, 11 I think this needs to be established, and it's very 12 important. 13 That was one of the recommendations in the 14 Aquifer Committee meeting, that the verbiage that 15 specific statement be changed. Even though we're 16 shooting for a 48 foot deep dredging, it's going to 17 be deeper than 48 feet. I think that's an 18 extremely important point that we need to bring 19 forward. That's my opinion. 20 MR. DYSART: Colonel Schmitt. 21 COLONEL SCHMITT: I just want to make it a 22 matter of record from the Corps of Engineers that 23 when the Aquifer Committee addresses the proposal, 24 or the proposed statement of work from the august 25 group that made that recommendation, that in fact 100 1 2 they be careful in singling out an individual firm 3 to do the follow-on work. 4 The Corps of Engineers, we certainly do not 5 disagree in way, shape, or form, that follow-on 6 work be conducted for the study of the aquifer. 7 We're just concerned that a technically 8 qualified selection committee selects a firm, 9 an independent firm, that everyone within the SEG 10 has the trust, confidence, and frankly that the 11 firm is impartial to the process. 12 I would leave that selection process up to 13 GPA, because frankly, it's their dollar that's 14 paying for it. From the Corps' perspective, I 15 know Hydrovision has been discussed, this does not 16 create an opportunity for a single firm to, again, 17 benefit off the recommendation from the SEG. 18 That should be an independent selection 19 process, and it be done in accordance with 20 procedures to select a private firm. 21 DR. HENRY: Well actually, we did not 22 recommend that firm. We said work such as 23 described by. 24 COLONEL SCHMITT: Okay. Just a point of 25 record that my concern is that if a firm is to be 101 1 2 selected, they be selected appropriately, and not 3 appointed by the subcommittee, and that is a 4 process that would be, frankly, approved through 5 the SEG, and ultimately by the Georgia Ports 6 Authority. 7 MR. McINTOSH: Ben, I've had my card up a good 8 while. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. Neff is recognized. 10 MR. McINTOSH: Thank you. The first thing is 11 to respond to the gentleman's discussion about the 12 flooding and all, that was discussed prior. There 13 was a request to MTRG to bring back some tide data 14 along with USGS. Haven't seen it yet. 15 Between the time I put my card up to make the 16 comment about the flooding, the discussion about 17 posting, not posting these documents, and city 18 recommendations on the web, I think it borders on 19 censorship. 20 Most of us here come pretty regularly to these 21 meetings. I can't believe that we wouldn't post 22 recommendations to the Aquifer Committee, even if 23 they hadn't be approved by the Aquifer Committee, 24 that we could view, and perhaps contact the Aquifer 25 Committee members we're closest to as to our 102 1 2 inclinations or feelings, if we are not going to 3 the Aquifer Committee meeting itself and crowd it 4 up. 5 That would certainly be the case for me. I 6 suppose it would be the case for those of you that 7 didn't go to the Aquifer Committee. It seems to me 8 we ought to have those things on the web. 9 MR. BREWTON: Actually, that memorandum, the 10 minutes should be posted, but the memorandum -- it 11 has not been, because of the timeliness submission 12 to the group, it has not even been spoken about 13 within the group. That's not a form of censorship. 14 That's a form of us wanting to manage the 15 information that we have, and be able to come to 16 the SEG and make educated and structured decisions 17 or recommendation, which obviously in the last year 18 has been alluding a number of the different things 19 we've been talking about. 20 As far as hiring an outside firm I am 21 emphatically in disagreement of bringing someone 22 on that GPA would hire, because they're not going 23 to be a disinterested party. 24 If the Corps of Engineers do not have -- they 25 should have the best science. I think we should 103 1 2 petition the Corps to send in an outside group 3 that's not here working with the Corps everyday. 4 If the Corps can validate the work or 5 recommend additional study, then we should look 6 at it from that point of view, before we bring in 7 Hydrovision, who -- I have no idea who Mr. Richard 8 Krause is. He obviously knows this area, has been 9 here for quite some time, but to stand up before 10 the group and rake him through the coals, I just 11 found that to be in extreme distaste. 12 The Corps had no opportunity to stand up and 13 say whether this was good science or not. We can 14 put 10 experts in a room and get 10 different 15 opinions. To have them battle it out in a public 16 forum like that, I find it extremely unproductive. 17 MR. DYSART: Ben and Chris both have cards up, 18 which one wants to go first? 19 MR. BREWTON: The first thing I was going to 20 say, sounds like those of us who are holding off 21 ordering lunch are wondering whether we're going to 22 finish can probably make the decision to order. 23 The second thing I wanted to say, comment on 24 several things I've heard here. We often hear the 25 cliche reinvent the wheel, I think in terms of 104 1 2 access to information, we are indeed trying to 3 reinvent the wheel. 4 It is clearly spelled out in the operating 5 guidelines and in the Communications Committee 6 recommendations that have been adopted, and that is 7 that we operate under the procedures of the open 8 records and open meetings, and that in fact 9 preliminary background information, so forth, would 10 be posted at the request of any individual, so long 11 as it relates to a particular agenda item or 12 committee item. 13 And in doing that, I think there is a clearly 14 distinguished place on the web site for background 15 information, and other information that does not 16 have the official sanction of the committee or the 17 SEG, versus the places where official 18 recommendations, so forth, are. 19 I think those questions have been decided long 20 ago. We need to make that information available, 21 if and when people ask for it or want it. 22 The second thing I would comment on is Colonel 23 Schmitt's statement, which I find myself agreeing 24 with parts of it and differing with parts of it. 25 I would certainly agree that what is called 105 1 2 for here is a truly independent firm and 3 independent evaluation and/or continuation of the 4 work. 5 I would differ in that I don't think that GPA 6 is the party that can be looked at as an 7 independent, disinterested party. It was well said 8 by this gentleman earlier. 9 In fact, when we talk about the Corps' 10 response or ability to respond, so forth, I think 11 we have to back up a couple of steps here. In 12 fact, what the Aquifer Committee is looking at is 13 not initiating studies, but rather evaluating 14 studies that have already been done. 15 I think this group has devoted most of two 16 meetings to a presentation by the Corps, and 17 the various Corps scientists and officials involved 18 that gave extensive information about the studies. 19 And the Aquifer Committee devoted about an 20 hour to an individual from a firm who presented a 21 differing view. Now, that's not to say that I 22 disagree with or I have any problem with the 23 committee hearing the Corps' response to that 24 critique, or anyone else's. And I think we need to 25 do that, but I think it is a little bit out of 106 1 2 context to characterize that as something that was 3 set up strictly to criticize the Corps of Engineers 4 or its study. 5 It was, in fact, a follow-up to extensive 6 presentations that we had at the SEG. What that 7 leads to is, I think, the consideration that we 8 must have that what we're talking about here, as I 9 said, is not just a study that is being initiated 10 simply for the sake of initiating a study about the 11 aquifer, but is to evaluate the findings of an 12 earlier study. 13 The memorandum from the scientists, I'll leave 14 off the rest of the verbiage, Chris, I'm not sure 15 what that is as you've titled it, specifically 16 talks independent peer review, terms heard over and 17 over at the SEG. 18 I think when this study is done there probably 19 should be a selection committee, and hopefully 20 there be some recommendations from the Aquifer 21 Committee as to how and who might make up that 22 selection committee. But in terms of the committee 23 simply making a recommendation, and GPA deciding 24 what's done, and when, and by whom; I don't think 25 that's going to give us the independence that is 107 1 2 going to be needed in this particular study, since 3 it is, in fact, going to be at least in part an 4 evaluation of earlier work. 5 These things, I will submit, the Aquifer 6 Committee we will have the opportunity to talk 7 about that. I just wanted to throw out that 8 thought. 9 MR. DYSART: Chris, Joe, and David. 10 MR. SCHUBERTH: Let me just comment on the 11 good Colonel who made some comments which I agree 12 with, and which I don't necessarily agree with. 13 Central to this is a report that was published 14 with the best information available at the time by 15 the Corps, and it's like a manuscript that's been 16 written, and then it is supposed to be finalized 17 for publishing in which the author says, I don't 18 want you to make these changes. 19 You have the author, which is the Corps 20 serving also as the assessor of any commentary that 21 comes down the line. And that was made very clear 22 by a three paragraph position statement made that 23 their case is closed with the report, and so it 24 should be, and unless if the Corps determines that 25 further study should be made, then that should be 108 1 2 made. 3 And again, I sit here and this discussion goes 4 on, there's rarely any comment that ever comes from 5 the Corps. 6 Secondly, in terms of the scope of work that 7 was prepared by the City of Savannah, all of us who 8 are in the sciences know that very often what we 9 have is something that somebody else doesn't have. 10 We have an idea. We have a creative product 11 that reflects the skill, the intuition, the 12 insight, that is not out there. 13 For that document then to say be read by 14 someone else and say, oh, wow, let's put the bid in 15 and maybe we'll get this job, and it's already out 16 in the public domain. 17 So the good Colonel says we really need 18 somebody who is totally independent, I agree, but 19 then everybody should start at the same starting 20 line. 21 COLONEL SCHMITT: Ben, I want to clarify, 22 first of all, what I said was that again it's up to 23 the subcommittee, the Aquifer Committee, to make 24 the recommendation. 25 As a matter of record, the Corps said yes, we 109 1 2 concur that if the subcommittee recommends further 3 study be done, that in fact, we concur. We said 4 that in the past. 5 What I said, frankly, was a group of qualified 6 folks to make a selection of who would do that 7 study, they are the independent folks. I didn't 8 refer to GPA being independent. Of course, GPA 9 is ultimately paying the bill, so they have to make 10 the final decision. 11 I respect Mr. Ernst's confidence in the Corps. 12 Thank you very much from that regard. I want you 13 to know yes, we have made that recommendation that 14 again the Corps continue with that. And we have 15 made a recommendation -- Card Smith made a 16 recommendation that we have a learned expert from 17 USGS involved in this by the name of Mr. Clifton 18 Voss, who is an internationally renowned and has a 19 reputation in ground water work. 20 That is the Corps' position, if in fact there 21 is going to be -- I'll use the word peer review, it 22 would a USGS involvement in this, along with the 23 Corps of Engineers and anyone else who wants to be 24 involved. 25 My concern, and I'll go back to the committee 110 1 2 chair, my concern is that the committee has to make 3 sure this is not a self-searching proposal, meaning 4 that one firm is identified and selected because of 5 their opinion, that it has to be -- the opinions of 6 all the experts in this field have to evaluated. 7 The decision to review the Corps' work and 8 the other work, and evaluate that work, and then 9 make a decision whether or not additional work 10 should be initiated, and if additional work is 11 initiated, ask for a private firm to come in and do 12 that, and in fact, that firm be selected through 13 some competitive process. 14 That was my point. I'm not saying that the 15 Corps would make up that team. I would expect that 16 to be members of the committee and everyone else, 17 but the fact is, Ben, GPA is paying the bill until 18 such time this project is ultimately -- dollars are 19 appropriated, and we determine the cost sharing 20 aspects between the federal government and local. 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: Can I get the spelling of 22 gentleman's name, Clifton who? 23 COLONEL SCHMITT: V-O-S-S -- USGS. 24 MR. DYSART: David -- 25 COLONEL SCHMITT: I would defer to Card if you 111 1 2 have any statements on that, since I got the floor. 3 MR. SMITH: I would like to say we have made 4 what we call the preliminary contact with Dr. Voss, 5 and he really hasn't agreed totally to what his 6 involvement would be, although he has an interest 7 in looking at it. 8 COLONEL SCHMITT: We all know this is an 9 emotional issue and it -- 10 MR. SCHUBERTH: Should not be. 11 COLONEL SCHMITT: -- It needs to be 12 deliberately and scientifically analyzed as such. 13 MR. SCHALLER: Our duty is to comply with the 14 law, and make decisions about what studies are done 15 and who does them. 16 Every study that has been done is subject to 17 peer review, review in the public domain. Anyone 18 can challenge it. Anyone can point out flaws, if 19 any. 20 So it's right there, got it right in your 21 face. Take a look. If it's flawed, then we're 22 ready to address the flaws. 23 As Colonel Schmitt said, unless somebody here 24 who can volunteer to pay for the studies, I'm 25 afraid it is GPA's burden. We'll have to do it. 112 1 2 We'll have to do it as objectively as we have done 3 all of our studies, as we possibly can in an open 4 and inclusive manner. 5 MR. DYSART: Teri. 6 MS. LEFFEK: I hear different stories. I hear 7 one person say, well, the committee is only 8 reviewing and evaluating previous studies. I hear 9 another person say, no, we're going to select 10 people who will additional studies, if additional 11 studies are needed. 12 Can someone tell me exactly what is the 13 purpose of the Aquifer Committee? I thought that 14 we had charged the Aquifer Committee to look at the 15 issue and recommend any additional studies, if 16 needed. 17 Is that what the Aquifer Committee is doing? 18 What exactly -- what end product does the Aquifer 19 Committee expect to achieve? 20 MR. DYSART: Directed to -- 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: Does somebody have the four 22 purposes of its mission that's on every document 23 that goes out. Don, why don't you read that out, 24 just read it out. 25 MR. ERNST: Does it begin to establish what 113 1 2 impact? 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: Yes. It's four bulleted 4 items, I think. 5 MR. ERNST: Five -- to establish what impact, 6 if any, deepening of the Savannah Harbor from 42 7 feet in parentheses with depths in places currently 8 at 50 feet to as much as 48 feet with depths in 9 places to exceed 48 feet will have on the Upper 10 Floridan Aquifer, the principle public drinking 11 water source of the region. 12 Bullet two, to establish what impact, if 13 any, the current depth may have on the Upper 14 Floridan Aquifer. 15 Bullet three, to recommend a scope of work 16 and/or other recommendations. Bullet four, to 17 continue meet until these objectives have been 18 established. Bullet five, to recommend a SOW or 19 other recommendations to the SEG. 20 MR. BREWTON: Could I make one point just to 21 add on that particular point? Teri, I think the 22 answer to your question is kind of both. Part of 23 that scope of work is to decide whether to simply 24 accept the previous work as adequate, in which 25 case, I guess, we are evaluating, to some extent a 114 1 2 previous study. 3 The other part of the purpose is if the 4 decision is made there does need to be additional 5 study, then as he said, decide the scope of work. 6 I think it's really both of those things. 7 MR. DYSART: Is this mission statement -- 8 has this been adopted by the committee? 9 MR. SCHUBERTH: The only thing that came to me 10 was a -- one of those forms with the word 11 establish changed to recommend. 12 And I made it very clear that it is a 13 recommend that is being done, and I think I also 14 made it clear in my commentary earlier this morning 15 that is in the mode of to recommend. 16 MR. BREWTON: Chris, I think just as a note as 17 Don pointed out earlier, I think we did agree to 18 change that parenthetical, a depth of exceeding 48 19 feet to an actual number, based on the GPA or the 20 Corps gave us numbers. 21 MR. ERNST: Right, once we get that number. 22 MR. BREWTON: Right. 23 MR. DYSART: Harry. Judy. Morgan. 24 MR. JUE: I just would like to clarify a few 25 things I've heard. We're unfortunately a 115 1 2 bureaucracy. Like everybody else, we understand 3 procurement process, et cetera. 4 We did not go out and just grab the first 5 consultant on the street to perform this critique. 6 You know, we're charged with providing water to the 7 community. The City of Savannah has spent millions 8 of dollars making sure we can provide this service 9 to the community. 10 Without asking these questions, critiquing a 11 report we didn't understand, we wouldn't be doing 12 our jobs. 13 I want to make it, for the record, it was just 14 a recommendation only by the City of Savannah that 15 the GPA would take a look at Hydrovision performing 16 this work, in conjunction, and hand in hand with 17 the Corps of Engineers, who did the Tier I EIS. 18 I think with those two levels of expertise it 19 would provide a recommendation to this SEG. Also, 20 I do believe that GPA would give this group, you 21 know, a higher degree of credibility, as far as 22 that recommendation. 23 I'm not saying -- I'm not challenging anybody 24 here, as far as their credibility. This is not a 25 personality fight. It's just a request for 116 1 2 information and science. 3 That's pretty much our position. We 4 understand procurement requirements. It's just a 5 recommendation of the city. It's not a 6 recommendation by the Aquifer Committee yet. 7 It is my recommendation to the Aquifer 8 Committee that we proceed on with this. That's it 9 in a nutshell. 10 My consultant -- we have spent quite a bit of 11 money up to now getting to where we ultimately are. 12 I can continue that when I heard the fact that 13 anybody that wanted to step up to the table and 14 fund a study, I mean, I just heard that, and it 15 just went that way. You know, that's pretty much 16 again our objective. 17 I was scolded once before because supposedly 18 at this group that -- that if people ask questions 19 they're allowed to ask questions. 20 I just heard, you know, my consultant 21 publicly, you know, criticized the Corps, and it 22 wasn't a forum, you know, it was a waste of time. 23 It wasn't a waste of time. It was a scientific 24 critique. It's how this world was formed, people 25 asking questions. 117 1 2 When the boss tells me to do something, I do 3 it. I'm going to ask the questions. That's 4 basically the city's position is that we're 5 performing the additional studies. 6 Let the Aquifer Committee decide whether or 7 not it is adequate. We want input from the Corps. 8 We don't want to get into -- get the personalities 9 out of it. Let's go. 10 That's why I decided to throw that on the 11 table. I saw all the e-mails going back and forth, 12 everybody fussing communications, minutes, 13 everything, frustration of Chris over there, and we 14 didn't want to lose a good chair. Everybody's got 15 all kinds of hat to wear. 16 That's why I said, let's get going. You guys 17 decide how fast you want to go, or get your feet 18 stuck in the mud on technicalities. The public is 19 watching this body, okay. We just done what we had 20 to do. 21 MR. DYSART: Judy. Morgan. Chris. 22 MS. JENNINGS: I'm sorry. I've been up so 23 long. 24 MR. DYSART: That's you. 25 MS. JENNINGS: About who pays, I think we need 118 1 2 to make a point about that. Remember Section 203. 3 GPA is writing the checks right now, but this is a 4 public project. 5 Everything we do, everything we have done, 6 about $10,000,000 to date, and every penny we spend 7 in the future is paid for either by the federal or 8 the state. The taxpayers pay, regardless of whose 9 writing the check right now. 10 I'm sorry. I just need to make that point. 11 That is a function of Section 203. Whether we're 12 in 203 or moving to 204 or some other authority, 13 it's a federal and/or state cost share. It's a 14 cost share project. Taxpayers pay. 15 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 16 MR. REES: Thanks. I just want to go back and 17 make sure I understood two things that Chris had 18 mentioned in response to Don reading the list of 19 mission statements, that wherever the mission 20 statement had said something about to determine, 21 you had agreed to change that to recommend, and do 22 I understand that whether that wordsmithing was 23 done or not, my understanding -- I'm not on the 24 Aquifer Committee. 25 I've not worked in it at all; my 119 1 2 understanding is it had not been approved by the 3 Aquifer Committee. Do I understand that correctly? 4 MR. SCHUBERTH: Well, no one other than saying 5 replace establish with recommend, and left it in 6 the pile of papers for me to pick up at the end of 7 the meeting, and I saw it, opposed. And said I 8 think we need to rewrite this. I think we need to 9 rethink this. No one has ever said that. 10 So I have made it a point, again, 11 administrative decision on my part. In every 12 agenda, those words that represent the so-called 13 mission, the four bulleted or five bulleted items 14 will always be there. 15 So, as I think as I said in the very first 16 thing, it's a statement that can be changed, 17 depending upon as the committee continues to work. 18 I think it's very important the committee 19 self-destructs, once it has made whatever 20 recommendation -- recommendations it has made. 21 Now, since I have the floor, I would like to 22 comment to the good Colonel saying this is an 23 emotional issue. It should not be. This should be 24 no different than the gain or loss of freshwater 25 salt marshes, freshwater marshes. 120 1 2 This is exactly the point. The emotion, if 3 there is emotion, it should not have come down into 4 the workings of the Aquifer Committee, because I 5 can see it, and it's going to be hard for me to 6 change my viewpoint, that the Aquifer Committee 7 consists of the best of the best who have the best 8 understanding. 9 And there's going to be differences of 10 opinion, as we all know, in terms of bringing 11 together some kind of best understanding. 12 And I have to echo almost everything that 13 Harry Jue has said, in regard to the manner in 14 which this is moving forward, because it does 15 deeply, deeply trouble me. It should not be 16 emotional. 17 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 18 MR. BREWTON: Thanks. I'd like to get some 19 clarification on something at this time from Dave 20 Schaller and the GPA. 21 All of us probably recall several months, and 22 I happen to be, I believe, out of the room at the 23 time this occurred, but several months ago there 24 was some discussion, I think, between Larry Keegan 25 and Chris Schuberth, and a follow-up article in the 121 1 2 newspaper referring to some additional work that 3 was either being done, or proposed by GPA to be 4 done under the auspices of, what at the time seemed 5 to be different committee, as Chris or someone 6 said, a group within a group. 7 There was e-mail communication back and forth 8 to Chris, to Dave, after some lengthy delay after 9 Chris made inquiry, and I made inquiry of Dave at 10 GPA asking if there indeed was such a committee or 11 group under consideration, what the purpose of that 12 committee would be, and who would be on that 13 committee, and perhaps when that group would meet. 14 I sent that back to Larry Keegan, because the 15 paper had commented on something that he had said 16 in the meeting. 17 And after some time and several inquiries, I 18 did not hear back. I usually hear from Larry very 19 quickly. I was told he referred that question to 20 Dave Schaller. 21 Dave then responded to me sometime later, 22 after a couple more copies were sent out. I think 23 I may have sent six copies or something out before 24 I got a response with the statement, Dave and I 25 almost had some words outside here earlier. 122 1 2 Dave responded to those three or four 3 questions with a one sentence response that I'll 4 repeat here as nearly as I can. 5 If I'm in error, Dave can correct me on the 6 exact wording. It said something like Georgia 7 Ports Authority is endeavoring to bring the 8 necessary resources to bear to fulfill our 9 responsibility for protecting this public resource, 10 or something pretty close to that. 11 My question was, of course, we now that know, 12 Dave. My question, is GPA setting up another 13 committee, or entity, or group, or firm, to do the 14 work on the aquifer issue; and in fact, are they 15 doing that prior to getting the recommendations of 16 the committee? 17 So I wrote back Dave, with a little bit of 18 sarcastic reply, asking how many hours of 19 wordsmithing did it take him to develop that 20 response? 21 What I meant by that was, it was effectively 22 non-responsive, something that we sometimes see 23 from politicians under fire, where they answer a 24 question without really answering. 25 Trip was looking right over at me when I said 123 1 2 that. No reflection on your boss. So I asked 3 Dave, I said, what about this statement you sent. 4 He said, well, it was true at the time. We hadn't 5 done anything. 6 I said, are you saying you have done something 7 now? I don't want to misquote him. He said 8 something, at least, I was able to infer from, yes, 9 something had been done. There have been some 10 discussions, have been some meetings, and that they 11 are going to have some aquifer studies done. 12 And I believe he said, if and when, 13 independently of the committee, and if and when, 14 the committee makes a recommendation, we will 15 consider whether to add those to the scope of work. 16 So I'm going to put you on the spot, Dave, 17 right here in front of god, our congressman's 18 representative, and everybody; is there, in fact, 19 or are there, in fact, discussions going on between 20 you and other agencies, or other firms, for 21 additional work to be done on studying, or 22 evaluating the original report, or a continuation 23 of it, regarding the Floridan Aquifer, as related 24 to the harbor deepening, what those are, and who is 25 taking in part in those discussions, and how you 124 1 2 expect that work to relate to the work that is just 3 being developed by the Aquifer Committee? 4 MR. DYSART: Let me -- it's a little bit after 5 noon. Do you want to continue this right now? 6 MS. LEFFEK: No. 7 MR. DYSART: Do you want to go get your 8 sandwich? 9 MS. VAUGHN: We can't go get our sandwiches. 10 We didn't turn them in. I was told that the 11 meeting might be finished. 12 MR. TOLLISON: Can we finish by 1:00 o'clock? 13 MR. DYSART: That just depends on how long you 14 want to go on. If this body wants to be through by 15 1:00 o'clock, it will be through by 1:00. If it 16 wants to be through at 4:00, it will be through at 17 4:00. 18 MR. BREWTON: Let's continue at least for a 19 few minutes. 20 MR. DYSART: It's also an hour and a half and 21 the court reporter needs a break. 22 MR. BREWTON: Can we go ahead and get the 23 answer to this question? 24 MS. JENNINGS: Let's just go to lunch. 25 (Short Break) 125 1 2 MR. DYSART: At 12:24, our 15 break is over. 3 Madam Court Reporter says she couldn't figure out 4 why we had taken a break. We had completed the 5 agenda, except for taking two minutes about dealing 6 with where it was we were trying to go. 7 I told her I didn't think we had quite gotten 8 to the point yet. Is there a sense of the body on 9 how long you would like to go, on how long you 10 would like to pursue it, or would you prefer to 11 have it unlimited, as is kind of customary to this 12 group? What is the sense of this body, because the 13 discussion can go and on and on. 14 MR. McINTOSH: The whole idea was to get it 15 done. That was the idea behind the single not half 16 day being here. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. How long do you want to go 18 to get it done? 19 MR. McINTOSH: I think 4:30 would be a great 20 time to reevaluate it. 21 MR. BREWTON: Or till we get it done, 22 whichever comes first. 23 MR. DYSART: What does the body think about 24 that, anybody else other than -- anybody else. 25 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think it should be whatever 126 1 2 it takes to lay to rest questions that are being 3 asked today. 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you, Chris. Bill. 5 MR. FARMER: Sometime within the next hour, 6 people will want to have lunch. You know, the only 7 question is whether after lunch they go home, or go 8 back to the office, or come back to the meeting, 9 you know. 10 So I would feel that we should break for lunch 11 sometime, and then come back. If it takes a half 12 hour, that's fine. If it takes two hours, that's 13 fine, but the given is within the next hour. 14 Everyone's going to have lunch somewhere, why not 15 here? 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. We have, as you know, the 17 potential to go and on and on forever as always. 18 We also have some members of the public here who 19 wish to speak. I guess I would like for the body 20 to be aware that they might not be interested 21 staying here all day, going on and on forever and 22 forever with no time, simply say 4:30 you would 23 like to reevaluate and see how much longer would 24 you like to go. 25 At some point in the middle of the afternoon, 127 1 2 would you like to hear from the public, so they can 3 leave, so the inside discussion can continue after 4 that? 5 MR. BREWTON: I have a comment on that, since 6 it looks like we're going to be here for a while. 7 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 8 MR. BREWTON: I would propose we do this, 9 since it looks like we're going to be here a while, 10 let's go ahead and fill out the forms, those of us 11 who want to eat, and give them to Cathy, let her 12 take them downstairs, those of us who want to or 13 are already eating, which was probably the smartest 14 thing to do. 15 Let's give these to Cathy, let her give them 16 to downstairs. Then let's resume and finish the 17 Aquifer Committee discussion. At the conclusion 18 of the Aquifer Committee, why don't then stop and 19 eat our lunch. 20 When we come back, before we dive into 21 anything else, let the members of the public who 22 want to make comment do so, and members can stay or 23 stay or go. 24 MR. DYSART: You think you can listen to the 25 public while you quietly eat? 128 1 2 MR. BREWTON: Yeah, sure, we can do that. 3 MS. LEFFEK: How about court reporter, does 4 she need to break to eat? That's not thinking 5 about her. 6 MR. McINTOSH: I'll feed her. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. I'll tell you what, we 8 have been in this situation before, where the court 9 reporter has said, I simply cannot go further. 10 That has been the only thing that has terminated 11 endless discussion. That is the one way we know we 12 get out before midnight. 13 MR. BREWTON: I made a proposal, what do we 14 want to do? 15 MR. DYSART: We have a proposal on the floor, 16 which is universally agreed to, by and from Ben 17 Brewton, you fill out your lunch orders and give 18 them to Cathy. 19 MR. BREWTON: Finish the aquifer, eat lunch 20 and have public comment, go on. I certainly didn't 21 mean to slight Bill Farmer's agenda item. We do 22 need to get to that. 23 MR. DYSART: We do need to save two minutes to 24 see where we're headed with the project here. Bill 25 could probably do it in two minutes. Fill in your 129 1 2 lunch order. Give them to Cathy. She will hand 3 them in. She will come back and announce when they 4 will be ready. Okay. Provide them to Cathy. 5 We will now proceed with the aquifer 6 discussion. Question was asked. Answer is going 7 to be given by David. 8 MR. SCHALLER: We have an obligation to 9 discharge the duties of project sponsor, pursuant 10 to the law, and that is exactly what we're doing. 11 We are assembling some experts, since we have 12 begun, on our team to address the issues related to 13 the aquifer that have been raised. 14 We do not have a program of work specifically 15 identified, at this time, but we'll continue to 16 work toward developing a program of work. 17 Part of that will involve the recommendations 18 of the Aquifer Committee, when they percolate up a 19 specific recommendation about what more work, if 20 any, ultimately needs to be done to address the 21 Floridan Aquifer issue. 22 MR. DYSART: Further discussion. 23 MR. BREWTON: Yes. A couple follow-ups, Dave. 24 Could you tell us who, currently, sits on that team 25 of experts you referred to, and secondly, could you 130 1 2 tell us when and where that group meets, and if 3 some of us from the SEG or Aquifer Committee might 4 be able to attend, if only as observers? 5 MR. SCHALLER: No and no. Can you tell me -- 6 Mr. Keegan may -- 7 MR. KEEGAN: No, sir. We haven't assembled 8 it. 9 MR. SCHALLER: We haven't anybody on board 10 yet. 11 MR. BREWTON: I just heard someone say you 12 have some of them. 13 MR. SCHALLER: Okay. Who. 14 COLONEL SCHMITT: The initial contact we 15 talked about with Dr. Voss. 16 MR. BREWTON: Let me rephrase the initial part 17 of the question. Who is making the selection of 18 who will be members of that team? 19 MR. SCHALLER: The Georgia Ports Authority is. 20 MR. BREWTON: Sounded like the Corps had 21 selected someone too. 22 COLONEL SCHMITT: No. We only recommended, if 23 there is an independent professional analysis, but 24 as David said, the bill payer right now is the 25 decision maker, and that's Georgia Ports Authority. 131 1 2 MR. BREWTON: Dave, could I ask then that -- 3 couple things. You're obviously, I guess, not 4 looking for any input from anyone as to who should 5 be on that team? 6 MR. SCHALLER: Nonsense, Ben. I don't know 7 what motivates you to say things like that. Be 8 happy to hear -- 9 MR. BREWTON: Well, then you are. When would 10 you then -- are you going to request input from the 11 group as to who we might recommend be on that team? 12 MR. SCHALLER: We're waiting for a 13 recommendation from the Aquifer Committee. 14 MR. BREWTON: So you will not be assembling 15 this team, until you get your recommendation from 16 them? 17 MR. SCHALLER: That's not what I said. 18 MR. BREWTON: That's a question, not a 19 statement. 20 MR. SCHALLER: No, that's not correct. 21 COLONEL SCHMITT: What team, Ben? I'm lost as 22 well. 23 MR. BREWTON: I don't know if you were back in 24 the room yet. Dave said that there was a team of 25 experts that GPA -- perhaps I could ask the court 132 1 2 reporter to read back exactly what he said. 3 (Whereupon, the following was 4 read back: 5 "MR. SCHALLER: We have an obligation to 6 discharge the duties of project sponsor, 7 pursuant to the law, and that is exactly what 8 we're doing. We are assembling some experts, 9 since we have done (sic) -- we have done (sic) 10 on our team to address the issues related to 11 the aquifer that have been raised. 12 We do not have a program of work 13 specifically identified, at this time, but 14 we'll continue to work toward developing a 15 program of work. 16 Part of that will involve the 17 recommendations of the Aquifer Committee, when 18 they percolate up a specific recommendation 19 about what more work, if any, ultimately needs 20 to be done to address the Floridan Aquifer 21 issue." 22 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. I think you referred 23 to assembling a team of experts that we have done, 24 if I understood her correctly. 25 MR. FARMER: In other words, we are 133 1 2 assembling, not have assembled 3 MR. BREWTON: That we have done, okay, so you 4 haven't done -- I'm trying to get it straight, 5 Dave. 6 MR. SCHALLER: It sounded like you are. 7 MR. BREWTON: Is there a team experts, yes or 8 no. If there is not, when and how it will be 9 assembled, and when and how would you let us know, 10 so that we might have some input, or if, in fact, 11 we're not able to have any input, I'd like to know 12 that. 13 MR. SCHALLER: Do you have any input, Ben? 14 MR. BREWTON: Yes, I will have input at the 15 appropriate time. 16 MR. SCHALLER: Be happy to hear it. One more 17 time, we are going to, or are in the process of 18 assembling some experts, who can help guide us with 19 respect to the aquifer issue. 20 MR. BREWTON: Well, two questions then, Dave. 21 I'll sort of repeat the second and rephrase the 22 first one. 23 First question is, at the appropriate time, 24 would you notify the SEG and Aquifer Committee by 25 e-mail, so that we can give our -- any 134 1 2 recommendations to you, if you're interested in 3 hearing them. 4 Secondly, I think you said no the first time, 5 but I will ask you again. When this team starts to 6 meet, would you agree for that team to meet in an 7 open setting, where members of this group, and the 8 Aquifer Committee, the news media, or the general 9 public might attend and hear the discussions among 10 this team of experts? 11 MR. SCHALLER: With respect to your latter 12 question, yeah, we'll consider that. 13 MR. BREWTON: Okay. Would you give us an 14 answer, prior to the meeting, as to when the 15 meeting is, and if we may attend yes or no? 16 MR. SCHALLER: Yes, I will consider doing 17 that, Ben. I'm a little concerned by the 18 administrative burden you endeavor to put on 19 Georgia Ports Authority, with respect to the 20 conduct of its work, relative to the development of 21 Tier II EIS. 22 Everytime Mr. Keegan and Mr. Rees meet with 23 Mr. Plachy, I'm afraid I'm not going to be in a 24 position to notify you, and all the members of the 25 SEG, that that meeting has taken place. So I can't 135 1 2 agree to do that. 3 MR. BREWTON: Dave, let me respond to that. 4 Everytime I turn on a faucet in the City of 5 Savannah and take a drink of water, I don't care 6 what it costs you to notify me by e-mail, or other 7 members about discussions going on. 8 Now, I am asking these questions for your 9 benefit and the benefit of your project, because I 10 think if you sincerely want to address the concerns 11 and critiques that have been raised by well-known 12 and reputable people about the initial study, and 13 if you want to respect the effort that people 14 are making to give you a sincere recommendation 15 from the Aquifer Committee, that you would try to 16 make this process as open and inclusive as 17 possible, rather than giving such carefully crafted 18 wordsmith answers, rather than qualifying your 19 answers so much, and in fact telling me initially 20 no, that we would not be welcome to attend, and 21 complaining about the administrative burden, which 22 as I understand takes one click of a mouse, since 23 Cathy has the e-mail address, in letting people 24 know when such a meeting might take place. 25 I would think, because of the importance of 136 1 2 this issue to community and indeed the people in 3 this room, that you would want everyone to know 4 everything that you're doing, and all details of 5 it, such that there would not be any questions, 6 there would not be any suspicions, and you would 7 not have to handle questions, such as this, in this 8 type of forum. 9 That's what I'm asking you for, openness, 10 inclusiveness, and a sincere effort to make this a 11 joint process. And hopefully, one day, GPA will be 12 able to do that willing. 13 MR. SCHALLER: GPA has been doing that 14 willingly. This is the most open and inclusive 15 process of its kind in the entire United States. 16 We are sincere, and we will continue to be so, 17 and we will keep it open and inclusive of any 18 public scrutiny, comment, recommendation, what have 19 you, all of the time. 20 MS. LEFFEK: Can I jump in here with a 21 comment? I am embarrassed that we are even having 22 this discussion. This is so unprofessional. This 23 is just totally unprofessional. 24 I hear assignations thrown at GPA. How is 25 this even going to accomplish anything? We can't 137 1 2 expect to know every single thing GPA is doing. 3 This body to recommend studies, is to give GPA 4 recommendations. They're going to complete the 5 project. They're going to do the studies. They're 6 going to come back to us and say, this is what we 7 have. Do you like it; do you not like it? 8 We're going to have plenty of opportunity for 9 public comment. I personally don't think it's our 10 responsibility to decide whether David wears a 11 green tie or a blue tie today, whether Morgan goes 12 and meets with the Corps every single day that we 13 have to be there. 14 This is just ridiculous. It is. I'm sorry, 15 Ben. It's ridiculous. I think the line of 16 questioning is totally out of line. 17 MR. BREWTON: Teri, I'm not asking about the 18 color of his tie. I'm asking about our drinking 19 water supply. 20 MS. LEFFEK: I know, but you are getting 21 into things that are personal, that are getting 22 into GPA's business of operations. 23 David has already told us, time and time 24 again, he's going to take recommendations from 25 Chris Schuberth's committee, he's going to listen 138 1 2 to them, the Corps' going to listen to them, 3 they're going to include those recommendations, and 4 they're going to do -- they're going to look at 5 what the SEG has said to them. 6 So this whole line of questioning is 7 irrelevant and is out of line. Maybe I'm the only 8 person that feels this way here. I don't know. 9 Maybe other members feel this way. This line of 10 questioning does not need to continue. We're 11 wasting our time. Can we get back to the aquifer 12 and dealing with things we need to do? 13 MR. DYSART: Judy Jennings. Chris Schuberth. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Thanks. To follow-up on what 15 Teri said, GPA's answer is a fine one. Whether or 16 not the public is involved now or later, it is one 17 or the other. 18 If GPA doesn't involve the public now, the 19 public can involve itself when the GRR or the EIS 20 is published. It's definitely to GPA's best 21 interests to involve the public sooner than later, 22 but there is statutory -- literally mandate for 23 public involvement. 24 By the way, I might say I've been asking the 25 question for sometime about other activities of 139 1 2 GPA. 3 Morgan actually prepared a report on that. It 4 was quite lengthy, but he -- the interest from this 5 body was so small, that by virtue of the interest 6 of this body, his presentation was quite short. 7 So there are tremendous activities at GPA that 8 this body does not have any input into or feedback 9 from, even though it was offered. We barely took 10 them up on it. 11 MR. DYSART: Chris. 12 MR. SCHUBERTH: I don't -- I don't think it's 13 a question of what GPA does or doesn't do. What 14 troubles me in the content of the exchange is that 15 we have a committee, the Aquifer Committee. We 16 have on that committee, the best of the best, 17 unless if we go to other areas of the country. And 18 this gentleman, Dr. Voss, might be coming from the 19 Denver office, as far as I know. 20 What troubles me, and I shared this with 21 David, he knows where I'm coming from, is that why 22 it's necessary to have a second parallel group of 23 experts to filter through what might filter out of 24 the Aquifer Committee, why instead they're not 25 asked to join Aquifer Committee, in the same way I 140 1 2 was kind of surprised that our Aquifer Committee 3 may not be totally legitimate, and I don't mean to 4 use legitimate in the way it sounds, because 5 sitting on that committee are not representative of 6 the various federal agencies. 7 And consequently, if we say that A is A, we 8 want to now have other folks make sure that A is A. 9 And I have to agree with Ben in that regard, 10 leaving aside how we part our hair and the color of 11 ties we wear. 12 The word I have used originally in this 13 exchange when it first emerged was the word 14 divisive. I know that all of us who are in the 15 profession of earth sciences basically follow the 16 same path. 17 We learn our stuff from respected and highly 18 regarded professionals. There isn't anyone here, 19 as geologists, who are going to come out with 20 radically different idea about something. 21 Every once in a while, it does happen. We do 22 have folks who are on the outer fringe, and 23 sometimes they have insights and see the bigger 24 picture, and other times they do not. 25 Again, I ask the question, why can't this 141 1 2 Dr. Voss and Dr. James, whoever else there may be 3 that's in this nebulous group become part of the 4 committee, as the Aquifer Committee, as I 5 envisioned it, was the people who roll up their 6 sleeves and knock rocks, for the positive not for 7 the negative? They knock them for the positive. 8 So I ask that question. 9 MR. DYSART: Further comments, questions. 10 Trip. Then Ben. Then David. 11 MR. TOLLISON: He was up before me. 12 MR. DYSART: Ben first. 13 MR. BREWTON: Three comments. I'd like to 14 respond to some comments Ms. Leffek made. The 15 first, I would say, I said before, we're not 16 talking about colors of ties or parting of hair, as 17 Chris said. 18 We're talking about the aquifer, our drinking 19 water supply. But we're not just talking about the 20 aquifer in relation to any project. We're talking 21 about the aquifer in relation to a project by the 22 public agency of the State of Georgia. So Teri 23 whether you think it's my business or this group's 24 business or not, I would submit that the 25 legislature of the State of Georgia has long ago 142 1 2 determined that all the work done by the public 3 agency, the records of the public agency, their 4 memorandum, their e-mails, and anything that is 5 there is, in fact, public record. 6 And the legislature has determined that it is, 7 in fact, our business, all of our business. So I 8 think that is -- has already been determined, and I 9 don't think we're off base in asking for this sort 10 of information and inclusion. 11 Secondly, I can't help but note the contrast 12 between the attitude I'm hearing from Dave and GPA 13 in relation to this committee, as compared to the 14 MTRG. 15 Repeatedly, I've been told the MTRG is a 16 group of experts. You have trust them. They have 17 their own way of doing business. We're relying on 18 that group to tell us what to do. 19 On the other hand, the Aquifer Committee, 20 we're hearing, well, we're going to consider the 21 Aquifer Committee's recommendations, along with 22 what we hear from this other group of experts. 23 Now, I would certainly encourage GPA and 24 anyone else to get as much information as possible, 25 to get as many opinions as possible, to get as 143 1 2 much expert testimony and input as possible, and to 3 do as many studies as possible. 4 So I'm not questioning the wisdom of doing 5 that. I'm only saying that we're seeing an 6 inconsistent response and an inconsistent way that 7 GPA's is relying on the committee. 8 It could lead one to believe that if the 9 committee is saying what GPA's wants it to say, 10 that it is considered more carefully than if the 11 committee is saying something GPA doesn't want it 12 to say. I think we need to do everything we can to 13 avoid that type of impression. 14 Thirdly, I would simply say, Teri, there are 15 a lot of us here with a lot of diverse interests. 16 I thought we decided long ago if something was a 17 significant issue for a member of this group that 18 we would, indeed, try to support the ability of 19 that member to get the answers to the questions 20 they need. 21 There may be issues you have, from time to 22 time, that are not directly of interest to me. I 23 support your right and GPA's responsibility to 24 answer those. And whether you quite understand or 25 not, I would hope you would indulge me in the same 144 1 2 way. 3 MS. LEFFEK: If there handled in a 4 professional manner, and that was the not handled 5 in a professional manner, in my opinion. 6 MR. DYSART: Trip. 7 MR. TOLLISON: I have a suggestion. The 8 Aquifer Committee has not made a recommendation, 9 correct? 10 MR. SCHUBERTH: Correct. 11 MR. TOLLISON: I think we should let them meet 12 on the 22nd. When they come to the full SEG with 13 a recommendation, then we can move forward. Until 14 then, I think, we should probably move on. 15 MR. DYSART: Chris. 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: I had asked a question in 17 terms of why it is felt that a second, detached 18 body of experts be convened, whenever that 19 convening takes place? 20 MR. DYSART: David. 21 MR. SCHALLER: Yes. There isn't anything, 22 Chris, we are doing that is divisive with respect 23 to the work of the Aquifer Committee. We need some 24 advice, if you will, from experts. 25 It's my understanding, and I'll stand 145 1 2 corrected that there are no hydrogeologists, no 3 specific expertise on the Aquifer Committee, is 4 that correct or not correct? 5 DR. HENRY: No, there's one. Jim Ricard from 6 Georgia Southern is a bona fide hydrogeologist. 7 MR. SCHALLER: There's one person. When we 8 assemble our experts, they will participate in the 9 Aquifer Committee, if the Aquifer Committee is 10 still operative, when we get those folks on board. 11 But there's no beach head here. We're not 12 seeking to confront the recommendations of the 13 Aquifer Committee to beat them back. We need to 14 hear what the Aquifer Committee has to say, what 15 they recommend with respect to further study, not 16 further study, you know, different study. We don't 17 know those things yet, and we'll have to learn 18 them. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: Why not have them participate? 20 MR. SCHALLER: We don't have them yet. We 21 don't have them yet, is that right? 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: When you have them, why not 23 have them integrated? 24 MR. SCHALLER: That's what I just said. 25 That's what I just said. We will include them in 146 1 2 the Aquifer Committee, and they will participate. 3 Does that answer your question? 4 MR. SCHUBERTH: That's the gospel. 5 MR. SCHALLER: That's the gospel. With regard 6 to Mr. Brewton's comments, for the same reason I 7 don't think there's any inconsistency in our 8 reliance on the work of the committees whatsoever, 9 we are duty bond, as I have said on numerous 10 occasions, to comply with the law. 11 We have an affirmative obligation to comply 12 with the law, with respect to our roll as project 13 sponsor. 14 The MTRG is staffed with experts, people who 15 know that work better than you or I will ever hope 16 to know it. 17 The Aquifer Committee, on the other hand, as I 18 just mentioned and was corrected by Dr. Henry, I 19 believe, has one hydrogeologist expert on board, 20 and that is not the same as the MTRG committee 21 which is staffed with 10 or 12 experts and 22 modelers, that kind of thing. 23 There's no inconsistency, in terms of GPA's 24 perspective, on the work of the committees that 25 have been established by the Stakeholders 147 1 2 Evaluation Group. 3 MR. DYSART: Doug. 4 MR. PLACHY: Just to clarify, for the record, 5 I don't want to misquote from the record. We'll 6 let it stand as it is. 7 A while back, we had an individual, Card Smith 8 come to the SEG and give a presentation about what 9 was done in back in '98, as far as the aquifer was 10 concerned. 11 There was some good discussion about that and 12 there were some questions raised. We wanted to go 13 forth and consult with some additional folks, to 14 find out what additional work should be done to 15 determine if the report done in '98 is, indeed, 16 correct, or if additional works needs to be done. 17 That's what we wanted to do. Of course, as 18 time went on, there was the decision to establish 19 the Aquifer Committee, which was fine. 20 But when we were just about to the point of 21 going out to USGS, water waste permutation with the 22 Corps to go seek some additional expertise, there 23 was a debate, I believe, on e-mail between Chris 24 Schuberth and Mr. Schaller about a group within a 25 group. 148 1 2 There was some accusations the Corps or GPA 3 was putting together a separate group than the 4 Aquifer Committee, and the concern Chris raised, 5 he raised it here today, why can't the work be 6 done within the Aquifer Committee. And that was a 7 valid question, because there was never any intent 8 of not doing any of the work within the Aquifer 9 Committee. 10 What we wanted to do, as a federal agency, was 11 to get additional support and advice from the 12 experts to look at this. This is a serious issue 13 that needs to be resolved, and needs to be done 14 very, very thoroughly. 15 Because there was this concern about a group 16 within a group, we held off contacting anybody. We 17 wanted to wait until the Aquifer Committee was 18 formed. 19 We figured that would all be part of the 20 discussion of the Aquifer Committee, who should we 21 go out and who should we consult with, so on and so 22 forth. 23 But unbeknownst to us, for whatever reason and 24 the happenstance behind it, the city went ahead and 25 sought advice from experts, even though we sat back 149 1 2 and didn't, they did. 3 They got some input from Hydrovision. Then 4 you have another group of scientists, five 5 scientists who have gotten together somehow and 6 have come up with their recommendation. 7 I guess what I'm saying is, you know the Corps 8 of Engineers, I'm not speaking for GPA, the Corps 9 of Engineers truthfully wanted to work with and 10 through the Aquifer Committee to do all this. 11 We didn't follow through with going to get 12 some expertise. As we noticed, things were racing 13 right along for some unforeseen reason that there's 14 this hurry to get to the study, rather than 15 determine, consulting with the expert, what needs 16 to be done. 17 We had decided we better hurry up and get 18 somebody right away. We wanted to make sure, yeah, 19 we may use the Hydrovision philosophy, but some 20 people have to realize, one of the key players 21 at hydrovision was also one of the key players that 22 scoped the '98 study. 23 So you've got a problem there. If the 24 individual who scoped the '98 study now says it is 25 incomplete, and now is going to scope the 2000 150 1 2 study, how do we know that's the right answer? 3 That's why we wanted to go get some expert 4 advice from outside of the area. And so we started 5 to do that. We didn't even contact Dr. Voss until 6 yesterday, in discussions of what should we do, as 7 a federal agency, as part of our oversight 8 responsibilities to congress. 9 So that's what we did. That's all we've done. 10 We haven't assembled any group. We haven't had any 11 meetings that people haven't been allowed to 12 attend, so on and so forth. 13 We've been really straight up about this whole 14 thing. I guess I'm concerned about the 15 accusations, and some of the things being said. 16 What we want to do is to make sure if there was to 17 be a deepening of this harbor, to make sure to the 18 best science that we have, it would not harm that 19 aquifer. That's all I have to say. 20 MR. DYSART: Chris. 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: Doug, I want to really thank 22 for bringing us up to date, in terms of the process 23 that we've been following through. And I think 24 your response just now sheds enormous amount of 25 light on the question. And I think everything that 151 1 2 you've said is indeed, the way it is. I just -- 3 the way it played out. 4 I just hope that whatever final decision is 5 made, is that everyone works together in a 6 cooperative way, which I realize is what everybody 7 wants to do, in such a way we find the best 8 answers. 9 I'll still stand on the position that the 10 entity that is best endowed to do this, if it gets 11 beefed up with one or two or three other highly 12 regarded hydrogeologists that it is done, that 13 it's done this way, that they become part of the 14 committee. 15 I would not like to see us working gratis our 16 time, and then these chaps get contracted for to 17 make profound statements, and as I say, I just hope 18 that we all become a single entity to find a best 19 answer. 20 MR. DYSART: Trip made a recommendation some 21 little while ago, I think, along the lines of since 22 we had an Aquifer Committee, and they hadn't 23 brought any recommendations back, perhaps it would 24 be wise to let them actually meet and go through 25 some of this, and bring some of it back, my words, 152 1 2 instead of trying to get out ahead of everything. 3 Is there interest around the table in doing that, 4 or do you want to continue? 5 MR. BREWTON: I've had my card up here for a 6 while. 7 MR. DYSART: My logic was trying to kind of 8 hear from the principles involved here where we 9 could get this where we kind of understood things. 10 If you wish to, please proceed, but I would 11 like to come back to the recommendation made by 12 another member of this body, Trip -- 13 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. 14 MR. DYSART: -- sometime soon. 15 MR. BREWTON: The -- most of what I was going 16 to say when I put my card up, prior to Chris 17 speaking, Chris has said. But I think this is an 18 example of how lack of communication, and lack of 19 forthcoming answers can cause things to get perhaps 20 blown out of proportion. 21 I can't speak for Chris and some of the other 22 people involved in communications, but Dave, I can 23 tell you sincerely, if I had gotten a yes or no 24 answer to three or four of the questions, or a one 25 sentence answer to what I posted in e-mail to you 153 1 2 and sent a couple of months ago instead of only a 3 vague answer, and no answer to my subsequent 4 follow-ups asking for a little more detail, I would 5 certainly have been a lot more satisfied. 6 And I think what happens is when an idea or a 7 thought or a concern gets voiced, and it appears 8 that someone may be avoiding the question, may be 9 not answering it directly, then suspicions starts 10 to running rampant about what is the other group, 11 who is it, what are they going to do, what is the 12 intent of the other group. 13 It sounds like we're getting close now to 14 where we really need be. That is, the people on 15 the Aquifer Committee certainly need to have 16 benefit of hearing what these folks have to say. 17 The Corps of Engineers needs to hear that. 18 You need to hear that. We don't need to be making 19 our recommendations, or the committee doesn't need 20 to be making its recommendations from a vacuum, in 21 which we are not privy to hearing half of the input 22 you're getting. 23 So if you're sincere in saying that you will 24 consider my request, and that you will try -- and 25 you're sincere in what you said to Chris, you're 154 1 2 going to get people integrated into the Aquifer 3 Committee, if you are going to try to let people 4 know and participate, at least, be aware of what's 5 happening, who these experts are, when and where 6 they're meeting, and get them really involved in 7 meeting with the Aquifer Committee, as opposed to 8 a separate effort, I think we can all come together 9 on this. 10 When all the information is on the table, I 11 think you'll have a very thoughtful, studied 12 response made, but the problem comes when we're all 13 dealing with different information. 14 MR. DYSART: We have a question, and that is 15 are you sincere, David? 16 MR. SCHALLER: Ben, I stand behind the answer 17 I gave you to the question you asked. I'm sorry 18 you didn't like it. 19 MR. BREWTON: I didn't comment on liking it 20 one way or another, I don't believe. 21 MR. DYSART: Chris has his card up. 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: I was going to say, I think 23 Trip made a very sensible suggestion. I'd like to 24 go on the premise of what Doug had commented on, as 25 to how this had unfolded. 155 1 2 And I think that I see convergence of the 3 effort. And I do think that the Aquifer Committee 4 meeting on the 22nd of February (sic) has already 5 issues on the table that can be discussed from the 6 scientific perspective. 7 And I think we have someone who has offered to 8 take -- be the recording secretary. So I think we 9 can move along in a constructive way. 10 MR. DYSART: Hearing Trip's recommendation, 11 it being left to the committee to meet and do its 12 business, bring its recommendations, consensus, 13 recommendations, back to this body, that's the 14 spirit of it. 15 The learned chair of the distinguished 16 committee seems to think it makes sense. I would 17 hope we can have some consensus around the table we 18 let them do that, and move on with the agenda. Is 19 there anyone who cannot live with that? 20 I declare that a consensus has been reached. 21 Okay. We have now completed the committee reports, 22 and we can move on. We now have -- I think we were 23 going to save two minutes of discussion about the 24 work product of this body, to be after we hear from 25 some of the members of public, who have been 156 1 2 sitting here all day, and are obviously much -- 3 much smarter than they were before, hopefully. 4 MR. BREWTON: Do we need to pick up food? 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Ben wants to know, how 6 about lunch? 7 MS. VAUGHN: They're going to let us know, 8 It should be another 10, 15 minutes. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. We would be delighted to 10 hear comments from the public. I would hope that 11 this input would relate to the mission of this 12 body, which is to specify the scientific studies 13 that are needed, to determine the nature of the 14 impacts and how they can be mitigated. So I 15 believe you, sir, were the first one who sat at the 16 table this morning. 17 MR. NADELMAN: Yes. 18 MR. DYSART: If we have anyone else from the 19 public who wishes to speak to the things that are 20 before this particular body, we welcome you. Sir. 21 MR. NADELMAN: Begin now? 22 MR. DYSART: Yes, sir. 23 MR. NADELMAN: I'm going to speak of the 24 dangers of deepening the harbor. I know this is 25 pro and con meeting. So if you disagree with me, 157 1 2 feel free to do so. 3 As a resident of Savannah since 1974, and as a 4 member of the Citizens for Clean Air and Water, 5 I've seen several changes in the industrial 6 landscape of the Savannah area. 7 The most obviously welcome is the sharp 8 reduction of the odorous sulfite compounds emitted 9 from what is now the International Paper factory. 10 We still have much that is in need of cleaning; 11 namely, the pollution that is still produced in the 12 factories on the west side, as well as the east 13 side of Savannah. 14 In 1995, we had a big chemical explosion in 15 what was then the Powell Duffrin storage tank 16 facility where S & T Services is now located. 17 Many people were hospitalized, or I should say 18 treated on an emergency basis, and much of the Pine 19 Gardens area of Savannah had to be evacuated. 20 People are still being treated for chemical 21 inhalation injuries, resulting from this disaster. 22 I know a couple personally. 23 Transported from the factories on the wheels 24 of trucks, the east side of Savannah still has 25 gypsum powder pouring throughout the area, coming 158 1 2 largely from the wheels of trucks. 3 As I said, we now have the reuse of the Elba 4 Island containers as a repository of liquid natural 5 gas. 6 This presents a danger of the release of this 7 gas in large quantities throughout the Savannah 8 area, from either an airplane crashing into it, or 9 a ship exploding in the harbor, or a hurricane, 10 lightning, just about anything, despite the safety 11 precautions the factory utilizes, or I should say 12 the plant utilizes. A stray spark would cause it 13 to become an airborne bonfire, as I've indicated. 14 The east side also has underground dangers, 15 resulting from the production of natural gas in the 16 form of coal, water-borne runoff, and cancer 17 causing residue. 18 This hazard, which began in the early 19th 19 century still needs to eliminated as a source, 20 talking about the areas where the Pirate's House 21 is now located, as well as the area of the 22 Hillyard house on the east side of the bluff of 23 Savannah. 24 A principle location of this danger, as I 25 said, is our well-known Trustees Garden area. 159 1 2 Furthermore, we have the danger of a runoff in the 3 Savannah River of nuclear fuels from the Savannah 4 River Site near Augusta. Radioactive cesium was 5 found in the Savannah River in the early 90's, yet 6 the reprocessing of nuclear warhead fuels 7 continues. 8 Now, the abundance of plutonium stored in the 9 area has become a principle source of MOX, if you 10 will, is to be manufactured at this site. 11 Additionally, what has been buried in the ground 12 in cardboard boxes, may I add, due to years of 13 mismanagement is still finding its way to the 14 Savannah River in this very area, not too far from 15 us. 16 As we see, Savannah has become a principle 17 toxic dump site for the waste of every industry 18 along its river. 19 I want to emphasize this. In addition to what 20 is coming down the river, if our river is deepened, 21 we now have a prospect of more salt intrusion 22 entering the river from the ocean. This would 23 supplement the saltwater already in the ground 24 water of our barrier islands, such as Tybee, 25 according to the Georgia Environmental Protection 160 1 2 division. They will verify this as they have 3 already have earlier. 4 Our aquifer has thus been dangerously lowered 5 already. That's why we have the intrusion. We do 6 not need more saltwater further reducing the 7 variety and abundance of animals and plants already 8 endangered in the area, such as the striped bass, 9 the short-nosed sturgeon. 10 The greater danger of flooding, due to 11 increase deepening of the harbor is also present. 12 A lot more research needs to be done on this. The 13 Savannah Morning News wrote a very fine article 14 about this subject a couple of months ago. 15 Deepening the harbor will indeed be a mixed 16 blessing. It may attract more ships, whose cargo 17 would provide more jobs, but we will only add to 18 the deficit to our quality of life along our coast, 19 if we proceed unwisely. 20 I might add that quantity of ships bringing in 21 materials that are potentially hazardous, on ships 22 that are not up to top quality and safety, will 23 also increase. Thank you. 24 MR. DYSART: Thank you, sir. Anybody have any 25 questions, or comments, or follow-up, on those 161 1 2 comments? Yes, sir. 3 MR. CANNON: My name is Robert Cannon. I'm a 4 private citizen. I live up on Augustine Creek, 5 about a mile north of the Savannah River Houlihan 6 Bridge. 7 I lived there 41 years. I've seen a major 8 change in the river and the environment. I'd just 9 like to tack it on to some of the people that might 10 have access -- that have access to the knowledge 11 that I have, that you don't have through these 12 scientific studies. 13 Comparing today to 40 years ago, that creek is 14 four times as wide and half as deep as it was 40 15 years ago, on account of the volume of water that 16 travels from up the river, and comes up in the salt 17 marshes in that area of the wildlife refuge across 18 the river. 19 It's destroying everything in that whole area. 20 We're getting all kind of saltwater fish up in 21 the Augustine Creek. I hate to see the changes 22 that's going on. 23 If the next 25 years produces as much changes 24 as it has in the last 25, there won't be any salt 25 marshes on the Savannah side of the river, because 162 1 2 it will be -- waterfront will be up on Highway 21. 3 All of the land area back there is being washed 4 into the river. 5 I can't say anything about Georgia Ports 6 Authority about wanting to deepen the river. I 7 have reservations about going any deeper with it on 8 account of the impact of the environment, because I 9 was made a living through Georgia Ports Authority. 10 I've been in transportation all my life. So I 11 know what they're trying to achieve. I think the 12 cost they are going to have pay for what they want 13 to achieve is more than the public can bear. 14 I don't know. I'm not an educated person. I 15 don't know how to speak like you polished speakers 16 do, but I'm trying to get a point across, that the 17 detrimental aspects of deepening the river channel 18 and increasing the volume of water up in the fresh 19 water estuary is destroying all the ecology. 20 There's no such thing as big cypress trees 21 anymore. They're all gone on account of saltwater. 22 I appreciate it very much. 23 MR. DYSART: Any comments or questions of the 24 speaker? You have a comment? 25 MS. COHEN: My name is Juliet Cohen. I'm the 163 1 2 Alliance Director for South Carolina More Than a 3 Port. Briefly, South Carolina More Than a Port is 4 an alliance of 16 organizations, both local to the 5 Lowcountry of South Carolina, as well as national 6 organizations throughout the country. 7 And I guess you can picture or just imagine me 8 as an ambassador of the South Carolina Lowcountry 9 coming to speak to y'all, and let you know what 10 we're doing in regard to our proposed port 11 expansion in the Charleston harbor. 12 Just in case you're not familiar with it, the 13 South Carolina State Ports Authority has proposed 14 to expand and build a new marine cargo or container 15 terminal on Daniel Island, which is a peninsula 16 within the Harbor of Charleston. 17 That project was proposed about a year ago. 18 It's been debated for the past year in a very open 19 and public setting. We've had plenty of hearings. 20 Although we do not work with the same system as the 21 SEG, we are considering a lot of the same issues 22 that y'all are, although some of the details are 23 different, since we're not working on a river 24 system. We're working on a harbor, so on and so 25 forth. 164 1 2 I did want to let you know a little bit about 3 what we are doing. Some of you may have heard 4 lately South Carolina has been looking at a dredge 5 disposal site in Jasper County on South Carolina 6 side of the Savannah River. That is correct. 7 The governor of South Carolina has instructed 8 various state agency to do further research on the 9 feasibility of using that site for further or 10 future port development. 11 The Charleston legislative delegation is 12 actively researching that site as well by taking 13 site visits and doing some studies of their own, 14 both economic and scientific. And at least from 15 our perspective of South Carolina More Than a Port, 16 we're very interested in the site as one of the 17 proposed or possible alternatives to a port 18 expansion on Daniel Island. 19 Just so you know, South Carolina More Than a 20 Port has not endorsed any alternative sites to 21 Daniel Island, but what we are in pursuit of is the 22 best alternative, which at least we have determined 23 Daniel Island is not. 24 So I just wanted to ask a couple of questions, 25 if possible. If they're not able to be answered 165 1 2 right now, then I would be willing or appreciate 3 the answer sometime in the future. 4 One is, does the SEG have a formal interest in 5 pursuing a regional approach to harbor expansion or 6 port development? 7 And by that I mean, picture the southeast 8 region from maybe Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, 9 Jacksonville and down further south possibly Miami, 10 when all of these ports are considering an 11 expansion of some kind; is the SEG willing to 12 participate in some type of discussion between 13 those various ports? And there are groups working 14 on it such as the SEG, such as the Alliance. 15 The other question I have, and this is 16 directly to Georgia Ports Authority; that is, does 17 the Georgia Ports Authority have -- have they 18 considered entering into some type of joint 19 business strategy with the South Carolina State 20 Ports Authority, even possibly setting up a joint 21 terminal with South Carolina at the Jasper County 22 site? 23 Has that been considered, if not, why not, and 24 if so, what is the time line, what has been 25 discussed so far? I'm unfamiliar with any 166 1 2 discussions so we'd like to know. 3 And I think that's it. The only other thing I 4 did here during the economic report or economic 5 committee report was Ben Brewton had asked several 6 times about maybe having economic report be 7 submitted to this larger SEG group. 8 I wanted to offer something that we've done in 9 South Carolina; that is, we have commissioned a 10 study or analysis, a cost benefit analysis of the 11 proposal in Charleston. 12 We have a very lengthy and detailed report 13 that was put together by an international 14 economist, Bruce Siddell (phonetic). He has used 15 resources from all over the country. I'd happy to 16 provide that to the SEG, to yourself, or anyone 17 else interested, so you can see the type of cost 18 benefit analysis we have conducted over our 19 terminal, and maybe you can use that as some sort 20 of basis for this one. Yes. 21 MS. JENNINGS: Juliet, the CB analysis you're 22 talking about, what CB analysis on exactly what 23 project? 24 MS. COHEN: South Carolina State Ports 25 Authority project. 167 1 2 MS. JENNINGS: The Global Gateway? 3 MS. COHEN: The Global Gateway. I do actually 4 have one last question -- actually two. I think 5 one of them you were already discussing, that is 6 what is the proposed time line of the SEG and these 7 various studies. I guess that's something you're 8 going to talk about. 9 The other is, can I get an answer to my two 10 questions; one is about the does SEG have a formal 11 interest in partnering, or entering into 12 discussions on the regional approach for port 13 expansion, and the other one to the Georgia Ports 14 Authority is about any discussions of a joint 15 business strategy or joint terminal with South 16 Carolina? 17 MR. DYSART: Let me speak just a second to 18 the first one. I'm facilitator. I'm neutral, not 19 pushing anything. There is a mission statement for 20 the SEG. 21 It's purpose is to be a broad stakeholders 22 group, and specify the scientific studies that are 23 needed in order to determine what the environmental 24 impacts will be, and how -- how -- whether they can 25 and how they can best be mitigated. So that is 168 1 2 a very specific mission. 3 So as far as I know, there's not anything in 4 there about getting involved in regional endeavors, 5 so forth. 6 You could be provided a copy of the mission 7 statement, and anybody else that wants to say 8 anything in addition can. 9 MS. COHEN: Let me say one thing in response, 10 you might want to foresee, put my question in 11 context of if your objective is to find or 12 investigate the scientific studies and promote the 13 scientific research of this project, as entering 14 into discussions on a regional approach, as a 15 scientific alternative to the proposal that you are 16 looking at now. That is one way you can consider 17 this request. 18 MR. DYSART: Sam. 19 MR. DRAKE: I think when the concept of the 20 SEG was sold, GPA and a lot of other agencies said 21 on the Tier II EIS, we'd be looking at all 22 alternatives. One of the criteria the Fish and 23 Wildlife Service had when we joined the SEG group 24 was that not only would we be looking at the 25 present site and alternative sites, I think David 169 1 2 indicated that they would look the Jasper site as a 3 alternative in the Tier II EIS. 4 So I think what she is asking is not outside 5 of what may be has already been agreed to by this 6 group. I think it does call for a serious look, 7 primarily because the site that is being proposed, 8 I think primarily by Jasper County and the folks 9 over there, is much closer to the ocean, would 10 require a lot less annual maintenance dredging for 11 the ships that would require a 50 foot draft or 12 greater. 13 I think we're talking within area, I think 14 it's 14 B, John, within spoil area 14 A and B, in 15 that vicinity. 16 So it does have, you know, enough there for 17 long-term to look at, to where you could have a 18 win win situation. It's close enough to Savannah, 19 the infrastructure currently supporting the ports, 20 if you will, those type of things. It has the 21 economic benefit. 22 Certainly, it's located inside Carolina, but 23 the State of Georgia owns that land. I think that 24 transfer has taken place. I think there's a lot of 25 things there that can be looked at. 170 1 2 I think CSX Railroad, Georgia Ports, and South 3 Carolina have a joint bid on CSX's abandoned rail 4 line that would provide rail service to that part 5 of the world. 6 I don't write it off as some type of flippant 7 proposal. I think we seriously, whether it's 8 Brunswick, whether the site is close to the ocean, 9 I think a 4 to 26 miles upriver, sooner or later, 10 is increasingly hard for Congressman Kingston and 11 others to get annual appropriations to do the 12 dredging. Look at the long-term, something that 13 would serve more than the one certainly is in 14 order. 15 MR. DYSART: John Phillips. The sandwiches 16 are outside, Cathy. 17 MS. VAUGHN: Downstairs, go in on the right 18 side and pick the sandwich up and go to the 19 register. 20 MR. JOHN PHILLIPS: I just would like to 21 represent, the Georgia DOT, we do own the property. 22 If there's a group going in on the property, we've 23 got it locked. I know Henry Moss in Jasper County 24 has the key. 25 MS. COHEN: It's all been coordinated with 171 1 2 Henry Moss. 3 MR. JOHN PHILLIPS: See, Jasper County owns 4 2.3 acres, and it's nowhere near where you want to 5 go. Give us a phone call. You've got my number. 6 MS. COHEN: I've never gone out there without 7 permission. Henry Moss, I can talk to him, if you 8 like. 9 MR. JOHN PHILLIPS: Where they own is nowhere 10 near where you want to go. 11 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 12 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. I noticed a few 13 faces around the room somewhat taken aback by what 14 the lady from South Carolina said before the others 15 started speaking. 16 But I concur wholeheartedly with what she said 17 and what Sam Drake said in follow-up. This is 18 something we should take very seriously. There are 19 definitely scientific implications to the river 20 ecology and biology and so forth of locating it in 21 a different place. 22 There are probably some issues different down 23 there, some of the same, but it certainly would 24 mitigate many of the things that have come up here. 25 I know different people in this group, I know 172 1 2 I've heard from Will and Patty, the Conservancy, 3 perhaps Judy and others, the multiport analysis or 4 lack of multiport analysis was one of the -- what 5 many people felt was a fatal flaw in the Tier I 6 EIS, and in fact was one of the cornerstones of the 7 Southern Environmental Law Center's lawsuit right 8 now. 9 They don't feel that was adequately done. I'm 10 not commenting on the merits of that. I guess 11 we'll hear that from the judicial quarters at some 12 point. 13 But it is a very, very important and viable 14 thing. I heard someone say, well, we're in 15 competition with them. I think that's the 16 whole issue. 17 If all these ports are going to continue to 18 compete, and what I think the National Wildlife 19 Federation and the Taxpayer's for Common Sense call 20 the race to the bottom, this is just going to go on 21 over and over and over again. 22 When we talk about the economic benefits to 23 the State of Georgia, many of those benefits could 24 still accrue to the businesses in Georgia, whether 25 the port is in Jasper County, or whether it's here 173 1 2 in Savannah, or the truth is even if it's in 3 Charleston. 4 I don't think it matters to Home Depot's 5 distribution center in Atlanta or the Wal-Mart 6 distribution center, where that cargo -- whether 7 it comes from Charleston, Jasper County, or Georgia 8 Ports Authority terminal here. 9 Granted, there are some local benefits to 10 businesses here that might be lost, and all that 11 would have to be balanced out. But the idea 12 Georgia would lose all economic benefit, simply 13 because the port was on the other side of the river 14 is just nonsense. 15 I think we've had someone walk in here from 16 the outside, sort of slap the side of the head very 17 politely, and I think it's something we need to 18 take very seriously. 19 I would recommend that we come up with some 20 way, through the SEG, to entertain and at least 21 hear the merits of some of this. Sounds like they 22 have done a lot of work already. 23 I will also make this proposal, if it's 24 something the SEG or the sponsor, I should say, if 25 it's something the SEG is not comfortable with, we 174 1 2 at Coastal Environmental Organization would be glad 3 to partner with any agencies, the Corps, the Fish 4 and Wildlife, as well as any conservation groups, 5 local governments, business entities represented 6 here, in putting together some kind of process to 7 do this outside the SEG. We will support that 8 notion being examined either way. 9 MS. COHEN: Thank you. 10 MR. DYSART: Judy. Then Colonel. 11 MS. JENNINGS: I make this in the form of an 12 announcement, not knowing exactly what the meeting 13 will produce. I don't want to do it in any other 14 way, but the Maritime Administration is sponsoring 15 a series of meetings/hearings on -- one of the 16 focuses is regional transportation planning. 17 And there was a meeting in Jacksonville about 18 a month or two ago. I know GPA had a 19 representative there. Charlie Sutlive is gone, but 20 his counterpart in Charleston, John Hassell was at 21 that meeting and offered and has followed through 22 on an effort to do a regional planning meeting 23 in charleston on September 26th and 27th. 24 I don't mean this to be a plug. I'm not 25 exactly sure what the -- what regional planning 175 1 2 means in that context. 3 MS. COHEN: Actually, I do, because I've 4 spoken with them. In regard to that group who is 5 meeting, regional planning is mostly a discussion 6 of operation and trade, best practices, and not a 7 regional approach to coordinating business, 8 transportation, contracts with shipping lines, 9 ports, harbor deepening, river deepening between 10 the various ports in the region. 11 So it's mostly, the best way to track 12 containers, the best hurricane preparedness 13 information, that type of information, operation 14 information versus building, I guess, some type of 15 strategy to -- I guess even the playing field with 16 shipping lines, that type of thing and the 17 dredging. 18 MS. JENNINGS: I appreciate that. I hope, 19 however, the meeting shares the characteristics of 20 the SEG in that other issues can be brought to 21 the table. 22 MS. COHEN: Sure. I will be there. 23 COLONEL SCHMITT: Couple of points. One, 24 a regional study if it were to be done most likely 25 would have to come from congress to direct it, have 176 1 2 the Corps, if they were asked, to do that kind of 3 study. 4 I think the other important aspect, I'm not 5 here to criticize the proposal, the folks that are 6 involved in understanding this process need to also 7 understand that we're shifting impacts now to a 8 whole other aspect of our ecosystem. 9 That's a tremendous loss in the saltwater 10 estuary, saltwater wetlands that exist on that side 11 of the river. I know we're talking about a 700 12 acre dredge disposal area which Georgia DOT owns, 13 but the other issue is one that would most likely 14 have to be replaced, because we have to put the 15 material somewhere. 16 I, as the Corps of Engineers, I'm responsible 17 for maintaining whatever harbor is developed. 18 Naturally, I have an interest in that. 19 But the real issue here is before you head 20 down that road and that tangent as far as this is 21 alternative, there are significant impacts and loss 22 of wetlands to construct the infrastructure needed 23 to support a port on that side of the river. So 24 there's give and take. 25 MS. COHEN: Absolutely. 177 1 2 COLONEL SCHMITT: We're trading impacts with 3 this harbor deepening versus the impacts that would 4 be to create an infrastructure over there. 5 Naturally, that's our problem. In fact, it 6 would be the Charleston District Corps of 7 Engineers, because they have the responsibility for 8 the Section 404 Clean Water Act, which is the loss 9 of wetlands. 10 There's a whole other issue involved in that 11 study as well. So I just want to make sure you 12 understand that. We're dealing with tremendous 13 impact on that side of the river. 14 MS. COHEN: Absolutely. I just wanted to 15 respond by saying, many times I've been presented 16 with the same arguments. 17 I can say that those same reasons potentially 18 to the Jasper County site would be detrimental to 19 the environment are the same reasons it would 20 detrimental to dredge the Savannah River to the 21 miles or the point that is proposed on building the 22 Daniel Island terminal. All of those impacts, 23 benefits, disadvantages, apply to each site. 24 COLONEL SCHMITT: Absolutely. 25 MS. COHEN: -- to varying degrees. My 178 1 2 proposal, our group, we're asking to give the 3 Jasper site a comprehensive or thorough evaluation 4 as an alternative site, which it has not yet 5 received. 6 Just to address your other comment about 7 having congress, I guess, appropriate or initiate 8 some type of regional approach study is exactly 9 what we are looking for. 10 I think that, I guess, the pressure might not 11 -- is the right word, but the interests on behalf 12 of the public is what we believe will be the 13 impetus for congress to actually do that. 14 What we're looking for is a mass of public, 15 which we have been able to motivate in the 16 Lowcountry of South Carolina. We're looking to 17 motivate that all throughout the southeast to have 18 such a study conducted. 19 COLONEL SCHMITT: Plus there also has to be a 20 local sponsor that steps up and identifies 21 themselves as the local sponsor for such a project, 22 before federal interest will be involved. 23 So that -- that is, again, an issue that is 24 not the Corps of Engineers' issue. It's between 25 the two states. 179 1 2 MS. COHEN: Okay. 3 MR. DYSART: Will. 4 MR. BERSON: With respect to your suggestion, 5 I see a great deal of merit in doing a regional 6 study; however, you define region, up to the north, 7 to Jacksonville, or whatever. At the same time, I 8 have to ask you a question. 9 Charleston has to be in that mix as a fair 10 player with everybody else. We don't get to say, 11 not Charleston. Let's look every place else. 12 MS. COHEN: Absolutely. 13 MR. BERSON: So it has to be Charleston, 14 Jasper, GPA, how ever you define it, all those 15 players have to be in play and sort of be evaluated 16 on their own merits. 17 MS. COHEN: Absolutely. I agree absolutely. 18 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 19 MR. BREWTON: I think Dr. Henry had his card 20 up. 21 DR. HENRY: It's my understanding that the 22 proposed channel would be several feet deeper than 23 the presently proposed channel, is that right? 24 MS. COHEN: I'm sorry. 25 DR. HENRY: What would be the depth of the 180 1 2 Global Gateway port -- what would be the depth of 3 the new channel? 4 MS. COHEN: Is the proposed new depth for 5 the Global Gateway deeper than it is already, is 6 that your question? 7 DR. HENRY: Yes. How deep is the proposed 8 channel? 9 MS. COHEN: I think right now it's at about 45 10 feet. It's proposed to be dredged to about 47. At 11 certain areas deeper, such as near the berms, so 12 on. I think that's roughly within a matter of a 13 foot up or down. 14 DR. HENRY: I just want to point out that's 15 getting to that spot, if you are dredge deeper, 16 that's where the aquifer is shallowest. 17 MS. COHEN: Absolutely. That's of great 18 concern to us. I'm not here to endorse or promote 19 the jasper County site. 20 I'm here to offer it up as an alternative to 21 the preferred alternatives that are on the table 22 now, whether they're for the Georgia Ports 23 Authority or the South Carolina Ports Authority. 24 What we have realized is there are 25 alternatives that have not been considered, and we 181 1 2 believe they should be. That's what I'm here to 3 do. 4 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton and then we're 5 going take about a 10 minute break. 6 MR. BREWTON: Question. Do you have at this 7 point any sort of preliminary study, or review, or 8 discussion, of this multi port analysis or concept; 9 or has your analysis so far simply been critiquing 10 the Charleston proposal? 11 What I'm getting at, is there something where 12 we could have someone speak, or give us at least an 13 initial introduction to the concept you're talking 14 about? 15 MS. COHEN: Yes. That could be done. Nothing 16 besides communication with these agencies such as 17 EPA, and DOT, then national public interest groups 18 and groups throughout the southeast region, just 19 communication within the -- from the Alliance 20 towards those organizations or entities happen. 21 Nothing more formal than that has happened. 22 This has been probably, you know, this is one of 23 those steps to effect that change, but absolutely, 24 I do know and I would be happy to coordinate that 25 type of discussion or presentation. 182 1 2 MR. BREWTON: I will repeat again, I ask the 3 SEG after Trip makes his comment, and anyone else, 4 to consider perhaps letting someone come and give 5 us a short presentation at a meeting very soon. 6 In the absence of if SEG decides it's not 7 appropriate, I would ask any that are interested 8 maybe get with me after the meeting. We can 9 coordinate something we can do independently of 10 the SEG. 11 MR. DYSART: Let's hear from Trip before we 12 take a 15 minute break. 13 MR. TOLLISON: That was my suggestion. I 14 think the scope of the SEG is to focus on Savannah 15 proposed harbor deepening. 16 If anybody is interested this avenue, I think 17 it should be done through an organization that is 18 on the level of hers, like CEO. 19 I don't think this is something that the SEG 20 collectively as a whole has a responsibility to 21 promote or vote against. 22 I think we're going out of our scope. I think 23 we've got too much on the table as it is. If any 24 organization wants to write my boss a letter saying 25 look at it, it's a great idea, we support the 183 1 2 congressional funding, then your organization has 3 that right. 4 My boss will be more than happy to take it up. 5 But I don't think this is something that the SEG 6 takes as a whole. 7 MR. DYSART: We're going to take a 15 break 8 and then come back and see if we find two minutes 9 to think about the future. 10 (Short Break) 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. Bill, what time is it, 12 what's the official clock? I guess my thing here 13 says 2:06. We're reconvening after the kind of 14 remaining half of the people have had their 15 delicious lunch downstairs. 16 I've kept thinking all day that we were just 17 about to get through, particularly, the middle of 18 the morning when everybody thought we were going to 19 be through before lunch, but I believe that the 20 only thing left on the agenda is this topic that 21 Bill put on there about what is going to be -- 22 thinking about just for a few minutes on what is 23 going to be the final work product of the SEG. 24 That is a very important issue. If you don't 25 know what it is you're trying to produce or you 184 1 2 aren't sure where it is you're trying to go, you 3 probably are definitely going to get nowhere. 4 You're going to off on lots of tangents 5 getting there. So anyway, we've been saying that 6 we wanted to spend a couple minutes on that. 7 Bill, why don't you share? We'll hope that 8 everybody who is here is interested in spending 9 a couple minutes on that. 10 We can not go off on a diversion until we have 11 spent two minutes on that, at least, maybe even 12 four. 13 Why don't you share the thoughts that were in 14 the e-mail you sent to me getting this on the 15 agenda? Let's hope we get some good, thorough 16 discussion around the table on this topic, as well 17 as it is pretty easy to do on anything else. Take 18 off, please. 19 MR. FARMER: All right. The congressional 20 language that establishes the SEG indicates what 21 the SEG should do, but it does not say whether or 22 not there would be a final report or not, and I'd 23 like to bring the issue to the SEG as to whether or 24 not the group thinks a final report would be 25 proper, or not proper. 185 1 2 And if the answer is yes, then I would be 3 willing to serve as the ad hoc interim committee 4 person or whatever to come up with an outline of 5 what that report might contain, then bring that 6 outline back to the full SEG at the next meeting, 7 and use it as a working outline, recognizing the 8 SEG will continue on for a year or two, and that 9 the outline can contract and expand during that 10 time period, but would at least give us a start, so 11 people could be ready in their chapter or have 12 their efforts be oriented towards say a final 13 chapter. 14 So I guess the first question, should there be 15 a final report of the SEG or not, and then the 16 second part, if there is to be a final report, what 17 should be in it, and that decision can be delayed 18 until the next meeting. 19 So I'll bring the first question to the SEG; 20 namely, should there be a final report of the SEG, 21 or should we just do our work and at the end we 22 smile and have a party and disappear. 23 MR. DYSART: I gather doing the work means 24 getting the science specified, and then after the 25 work is done, the SEG and committees would review 186 1 2 the results of the studies, and prepare -- state 3 their impressions of the adequacies thereof. 4 So it's principally reviewing the products, as 5 well as reviewing all the science that is laid out, 6 and supposedly making a determination will this do 7 the job. So -- 8 MR. FARMER: Right. I've spent maybe four or 9 five minutes trying to figure what would be in such 10 a report, and I've come up with maybe six or seven 11 items, but that could contract or expand, but it 12 would not certainly be all the minutes, you know, 13 that's another world. 14 But it would be such things as the operating 15 guidelines, which has several appendices, which 16 identify the issues that we have addressed, and how 17 we've addressed them, and what committees have been 18 formed, and all the different agencies that are 19 participants, and that sort of thing. 20 The committees have come up with studies that 21 have been suggested, and perhaps a listing of those 22 studies would be in this report, or perhaps even 23 an outline of what the studies are. 24 But the study results would not be in the 25 report, I don't think. I think the study results 187 1 2 would be more properly be in the Tier II documents. 3 But since our function is to develop studies, 4 that would most certainly be an important aspect of 5 what would be in a final report if, again, such a 6 report is voted upon to be made. 7 MR. DYSART: I want Dodi to introduce herself, 8 say who she is representing. Tell us who you are, 9 Dodi? 10 MS. GAY: Dodi -- Dodi Gay from the Chamber of 11 Commerce. I'm the Governmental Affairs Director. 12 I also serve with the Manufacturer's Council. 13 MR. DYSART: Anybody else not introduced 14 themselves? Patty's card is up. Teri's card is 15 up. 16 MS. McINTOSH: I would just like to add 17 another questions to Bill's two questions, and that 18 is what standing would such a report have, where 19 would it fit in the GPA's broader process? 20 MR. DYSART: Teri. 21 MS. LEFFEK: Another question, to whom who is 22 the intended audience for this report? Maybe that 23 will answer the question as to whether or not we 24 need a report. 25 We are making recommendations to GPA. We're 188 1 2 not making recommendations to congress or 3 anyone else, you know. 4 Who is the audience of our report, before we 5 even decide whether we need one or not? That may 6 help answer that question. 7 MR. FARMER: Well, I took two minutes to 8 introduce the subject. Now it's going to be 10 or 9 15 minutes, which is fine. I want the record to 10 show I promised two minutes and did my thing in two 11 minutes. 12 MR. DYSART: And you were good at waiting all 13 day to get your two minutes. David. 14 MR. KYLER: Yeah, just a couple of off the top 15 of my head type of questions that occurred to me 16 from what Bill said to me. 17 I guess another couple of dimensions you might 18 consider is do we want this to be descriptive or 19 prescriptive? Are we describing what happened, or 20 an overview of the process, or are we prescribing 21 what the process has -- through the process the 22 body has learned and is recommending to others who 23 have some interest in the outcome of the whole 24 process? 25 Then picking up with what Patty said, some 189 1 2 sort of more complete understanding of the formal 3 relationship, if any, between whatever report would 4 come out of the SEG and NEPA process, in review of 5 Tier II, also any constraints that would be imposed 6 on those making comments as members of the SEG. 7 MR. DYSART: Will. 8 MR. BERSON: Usually, when you -- regardless 9 of the recommendations, there -- it seems to me a 10 wrap-up function of the SEG would also be an 11 enumeration of the outstanding issues either that 12 were raised as a result of the studies that were 13 done, or that are sort of outstanding that have 14 occurred to us over time. 15 In such a report, I think there should be some 16 sort of chapter that speaks to the future, future 17 needs, I mean, things that are unknown now or 18 things that have been raised as a result of the 19 studies. 20 MR. KYLER: Question. As part of that, would 21 that include some sort of flagging of those issues 22 which would be unresolved, or having uncertainties 23 and risks, associated with them, we are alerting 24 the public to especially scrutinize those aspects 25 of Tier II. 190 1 2 MR. DYSART: Ed. 3 MR. EUDALY: I think another question you have 4 to answer is who would prepare such a report? As 5 far as I know, the SEG has no staff. 6 I'm not sure who that who would be tasked to 7 do that, how that would work? I think that's 8 something you would have to answer, how that could 9 be carried out? 10 MR. DYSART: I guess I would -- I'm not going 11 to answer that question. I think, in addition to 12 thinking in terms of just a report and all the 13 questions, so forth, I think you also think in 14 terms of what is the work product? 15 What is the output of this body to be, which 16 may or may not be a big report of historical 17 documentation, so forth. So Teri 18 MS. LEFFEK: Listening to the discussion, it 19 almost -- it almost sounds as if -- if for anything 20 this would be a good, just final wrap-up. 21 Like Will mentioned, there might be issues 22 that were outstanding that SEG decided not to 23 address, or said this is outside of our realm, but 24 needs to be considered, maybe some sort of very 25 quick summary, not very detailed, but a summary 191 1 2 sort of document would be a good idea to do at the 3 end, whenever we decide we've reached the end of 4 the seg, if that ever happens, just to have 5 something that's sort of comprehensive that any of 6 us could go back to and look at. 7 It would help for the public, as I think Dave 8 mentioned, if people are looking at the EIS Tier 9 II process, who haven't been through the process, 10 who maybe aren't very involved in the project, 11 could look at the EIS and go, these issues that are 12 or are not addressed. 13 It might be a good idea to have the document. 14 I still think there are some issues we need to 15 address, again, who is the audience; how detailed; 16 who would, as Ed mentioned, who would actually 17 compile such a report? 18 MR. DYSART: This is a miscellaneous 19 administrative matter. The court reporter 20 mentioned during the recent lunch break that if you 21 plan to go past 4:30, she needed to phone in and 22 get a replacement to be sent out to take her place. 23 So is there any possibility that this body 24 could determine whether they want to keep meeting 25 past 4:30. We might need a little lead time in 192 1 2 order to actually plan and make that possible. Is 3 there a consensus about wanting or not wanting to 4 meet past 4:30? 5 MS. LEFFEK: Do not meet past 4:30. 6 MR. McINTOSH: I had a dream we were gone at 7 4:15. 8 MR. DYSART: Was that the downside or the 9 upside? 10 MR. BREWTON: I think there's a pretty good 11 consensus of not being here past 4:30. 12 MR. DYSART: I wanted to mention that now. 13 How much more discussion do you want on the work 14 product? If not, is there anything we need to do 15 beyond deciding on the next meeting date, or can we 16 make it last longer. 17 MR. FARMER: Ben, I would ask that you 18 determine if there's a consensus, among this group, 19 to have a report or to not have a report, just that 20 simple? 21 And then if the answer is yes, the outline or 22 whatever could be prepared in time for the next 23 meeting, which again would have to go through the 24 consensus decision. 25 MR. DYSART: There certainly needs to be 193 1 2 something wrapping up. The word report sounds 3 awfully much like an Atlanta phone book. 4 I think that scares anyone thinking about 5 preparing one. I think there is interest here in 6 what could wind things up, and what are the things 7 that need to come out of here. 8 And I think there would be interest, if we 9 could find another two minutes at the next meeting 10 for you to bring something back to share with us, 11 trying to boil down at a very high level the kinds 12 of things that would be in a wrap-up. 13 Then we can have a little more discussion on 14 that. I think certainly there's a consensus, you 15 know, there would be some kind of wrap-up product, 16 in addition to the commentary. 17 MR. BREWTON: I don't think there's a 18 consensus at all -- if I may interrupt. I don't 19 see any consensus at all for a wrap-up product, 20 when that might be. 21 I certainly had comments. I see other cards 22 up. We might discuss that before you draw a 23 conclusion from it. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. You said you determined 25 there was not a consensus for a wrap-up document. 194 1 2 MR. BREWTON: I can speak, there's definitely 3 not a consensus. 4 MR. DYSART: That's right. 5 MR. BREWTON: I think I can tell you that for 6 sure. 7 MR. DYSART: Because in this body a consensus 8 means if anyone cannot live with it, there's not a 9 consensus, so we do not have a consensus. 10 MR. BREWTON: What I'm speaking about, I don't 11 believe you asked for a consensus. I don't believe 12 we have enough description of it for you to charge 13 one member of the SEG to go write up that. 14 I was just questioning you, I guess, 15 procedurally where you were going. I thought we 16 were still having discussion about it. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. I guess I got a little 18 ahead of myself on whether we wanted to go past 19 4:30, whether we were headed toward completion. I 20 see tents up. Ben Brewton's tent is up. Neff's is 21 up. 22 MR. McINTOSH: Mine was a different subject. 23 MR. BREWTON: I wanted to go back and ask, for 24 just a minute, the meeting was reconvened while I 25 was out of the room. I missed the first couple 195 1 2 minutes. Bill, I apologize. 3 Was there a reference in the discussion to the 4 congressional language, or EIS language -- maybe it 5 was about this group providing some type of report 6 within six months of the date it started, which, of 7 course, we're well past that now. 8 COLONEL SCHMITT: No. 9 MR. BREWTON: Does anyone here have that exact 10 language? 11 MR. DYSART: I don't have that exact language. 12 MS. JENNINGS: I don't, but this is purely 13 from memory, Ben, but I think the language was that 14 if there was no consensus on the scope of 15 scientific studies, that a report would be 16 furnished as to why there was difficulty. 17 MR. BREWTON: I think, Judy, go one step. I 18 think it said there would a report recommended on 19 scientific studies, if there was not a consensus at 20 that time, then the report said about there not 21 being a consensus. 22 MS. JENNINGS: It's a good question. I'm not 23 saying it's not. 24 MR. BREWTON: I guess the reason I bring this 25 up, two things. One, we need to examine exactly 196 1 2 what that language is, see what type of 3 responsibility we have there. 4 Secondly, I think the idea of trying to wrap 5 things up is appropriate at some point in time. 6 But I guess my objection, why I spoke so strongly, 7 Ben, a moment ago when it appeared you were heading 8 that direction, I don't think there's a consensus 9 about wrapping this up yet. 10 I look at the people around the room, in fact, 11 the opening exercise that you passed around, at 12 least several people shared their answer with me, 13 about the remaining work or how far along we were, 14 looked like they were the 50 to 60% range. 15 MR. DYSART: I haven't reviewed the data yet. 16 MR. BREWTON: I can only speak for a few 17 people that shared theirs with me sitting near me 18 here. 19 As we talked about before, I realize everyone 20 at some point, particularly those at GPA, the 21 Corps, those charged with making a decision on this 22 do need to come to some conclusion. 23 I would, again, speak of great concern that we 24 do not try to wrap this thing up into a neat bundle 25 and say we're finished with the studies, we're 197 1 2 finished with even identifying the studies this 3 soon. 4 As we see here today, simply just the Aquifer 5 Committee is just beginning to think about 6 identifying what studies are needed. So I just 7 don't want us to start a train we have trouble 8 slowing down later. 9 MR. DYSART: Let me restate some things that 10 were discussed that I mentioned, other people 11 mentioned before you returned to the meeting. 12 Perhaps that would shed some light on things. 13 There was not an imminent threat that we're 14 going to wrap things up in the very immediate 15 future. That is not a threat. Rest easy. 16 The reason that I was talking about wrapping 17 up, Bill was talking about a final report. So I 18 slid off of that, and said that yes, there is a 19 feeling sometime there would need to be something 20 that would wrap things up. 21 People talk about documenting all the 22 procedures, documenting the matrices, documenting 23 all the historical stuff -- that's wrap-up. 24 I made it clear, also before you returned to 25 our meeting, that I personally was more concerned 198 1 2 with thinking in terms of generic work product, 3 getting the things done that are called for in the 4 mission than I am in a report document. So that 5 was discussed before you returned. 6 So let us make it clear, we are not -- no one 7 has suggested it is going to get wound up in a 8 flash -- in the flesh in a flash. It's going to 9 keep going probably. 10 MR. BREWTON: I heard Bill's proposal about 11 creating a committee or something, then coming back 12 with recommendations about what the report might -- 13 MR. DYSART: I don't think Bill recommended a 14 committee. 15 MR. BREWTON: Bill -- let him say it, you 16 recommended or asked for an action on one or two 17 things. 18 MR. FARMER: I divided the question into two 19 parts. The first part is to decide if there would 20 be a final report or not. 21 MR. DYSART: Someday. 22 MR. FARMER: Someday. Secondly, if there is, 23 if we decided there would be, then start worrying 24 about what's going to be in it. I said that would, 25 could be delayed until the next meeting. 199 1 2 I would be happy to coordinate that activity 3 in some fashion, if you wanted me to, to come up 4 with an outline, one page outline, whatever, has 5 seven items on it or something period. 6 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton has a question. 7 MR. BREWTON: That's what piqued my interest. 8 I just think trying to determine what might be in 9 the final report is way premature right now, and I 10 would be not in favor, while I'm not opposed to 11 doing that at some point, I am not in favor of 12 starting down that path at this time, to try to 13 identify and bring back recommendations in two 14 months to the SEG to decide what is or isn't going 15 to be in the report. 16 I think we've got a lot of work to do. I 17 think at the time we start completing that 18 work, I think, some of what needs to be in the 19 report will become self-evident at that time. 20 MR. DYSART: Ed. Teri. Morgan. 21 MR. EUDALY: I do think there needs to be some 22 kind of documentation. I think it's premature. I 23 think, perhaps, a list of recommendations at the 24 end of the report does imply sometimes a major 25 document, but we will need some documentation, but 200 1 2 a simple list of recommendations might suffice. 3 Just a little early to tell right now. 4 I think there are a lot of questions. We 5 probably want to think about it some more before 6 we make a decision. 7 MS. LEFFEK: Kind of springboarding off what 8 Ed said, I think it is a little premature. It is 9 something, I think, that should be done as a final 10 wrap-up. 11 Maybe this is something operating guidelines 12 can look at, not to issue a final report, but look 13 at who would be the audience, what would be the 14 goals, what kind of information would we want to 15 put in there, who is going do this, is it a 16 committee and several people, just to begin to look 17 at the issue, not to put any substance to it, just 18 kind of to give recommendations of what might be 19 feasible, what might be the best thing to do, and 20 then bring that back to the SEG, again, not to 21 finalize anything, but just to start the 22 discussion. I just offer that as an option. 23 MR. DYSART: Morgan Rees. 24 MR. REES: Going back to the earlier 25 discussion about what the EIS says about reports, I 201 1 2 have here in my hand a copy of that section of the 3 EIS. 4 It says, if the SEG is unable to develop 5 consensus on the scope of additional scientific 6 analyzes within a period of six months, blah, blah, 7 blah. 8 So Judy was correct in her recollection that 9 it's a default kind of thing. If you can't reach 10 consensus, give a report, but it doesn't ask for 11 a report under any circumstances. So there's no 12 obligation for a report. 13 MR. BREWTON: What does it say before that 14 though; in other words, if they can't -- 15 MR. REES: That's where the discussion starts. 16 The previous paragraph identifies the participants, 17 and sort of states the mission, to identify 18 potential impacts at each incremental depth, blah, 19 blah. 20 MR. BREWTON: Where does that put us then, 21 that language? I guess that's one of those things 22 in retrospect, at least -- 23 MR. REES: I have to tell you, having 24 participated in generating the language and 25 negotiating with the other agencies, we expected 202 1 2 that within six months we would have identified all 3 the studies, but we haven't. 4 So there's nothing that compels this body to 5 do anything, unless we reach a point of 6 non-consensus, and reach a point of, in my 7 interpretation I think this is probably reasonable, 8 unless we reach an impasse we think we can't get 9 past. 10 MR. BREWTON: That is only in the GPA Tier I 11 language; that doesn't appear in any congressional 12 notes or -- 13 MR. REES: I can't say for sure whether it's 14 in the committee report. It's not in the 15 legislative language. I don't believe it's in the 16 committee report either. 17 MR. BREWTON: My only concern would be about 18 that, Morgan, the reason I brought it up is that, 19 in fact, we have not reached a consensus about 20 exactly what needs to be done. 21 But I will say, for the benefit of GPA, I'm 22 not saying at all that we won't a consensus or 23 can't reach a consensus. I'm just saying at the 24 six months point -- today, in fact, at the 19 or 20 25 month point, we do not have a consensus. 203 1 2 In fact, we don't even have the information we 3 need yet, or haven't specified all of the studies. 4 So we can't have one. I say that not in a negative 5 sort of way, but just as factual way. 6 So in fact, we don't consensus. And I'm just 7 -- I don't want to see that directive there to come 8 back and haunt us at some later time. If it is 9 only in the GPA's EIS, and you and GPA are in 10 effect saying, we don't have to worry about that, 11 it is not of consequence anymore, that statement, 12 then that's okay with me. But I want to hear that 13 from you guys, since you're the one who wrote it. 14 MR. REES: I'm not sure I followed all that 15 -- direct something in a directive? 16 MR. BREWTON: I'd offer to repeat it, you 17 probably don't want hear it again. 18 MR. REES: No. Okay. I probably don't. 19 There are certain -- I mean, we have reached 20 consensus on a number of studies and they're 21 underway. 22 Everything that has come to the table, we have 23 reached consensus on, except for a few items that 24 are still being worked on. 25 MR. BREWTON: Exactly. 204 1 2 MR. REES: You agree with that? 3 MR. BREWTON: Yes, absolutely. 4 MR. REES: I want to make sure there's nothing 5 else hanging out. 6 MR. BREWTON: I was speaking of consensus in 7 the overall sense that we have identified all 8 studies, and agreed on the scope of all studies. I 9 would agree, the ones we've decided on, obviously, 10 we've decided on. 11 The others haven't come to the table yet. So 12 in the specific sense, I think you're right. In 13 the overall sense, we don't have an overall 14 consensus. 15 I'm just -- I would hate to think of the 16 possibility, at some point in the future, someone 17 said, well, the SEG didn't say this within six 18 months. I can't imagine that happening, but 19 nonetheless that language's hanging there. I 20 thought we ought to have some understanding of what 21 it did mean at this point in time. 22 MR. REES: I can tell you what the intent was 23 from my perspective, I think there are a few other 24 people in here that participated in working out the 25 language, that the SEG would be a much smaller and 205 1 2 more focused group than we have come to know and 3 love. And so the six months was related to the 4 original concept of the group. 5 MR. BREWTON: So at this point in time, from 6 the GPA's perspective, that statement has -- can 7 you tell me that statement basically has no real 8 meaning at this point in time? 9 MR. REES: I can say we're not worried about 10 it one way or another. The objective is to come to 11 a consensus. 12 MR. BREWTON: Does that go for the boss there? 13 MR. SCHALLER: Uh-huh. 14 MR. DYSART: Let the record show no one claims 15 a consensus has been reached on everything, and has 16 not been represented. Okay. Yes. 17 MR. ROBINETTE: I have a question on different 18 a subject. Chuck Watson had presented a model that 19 he put together to show the relationship between 20 deepening and flooding. 21 We were going to look at that one time. I had 22 contacted Paul Conrad, and he was going to look at 23 that model for us, for Fish and Wildlife Service, 24 but nothing's ever come of that meeting. Where are 25 we? Where do we need to go from here? 206 1 2 MR. KEEGAN: You asking me? 3 MR. ROBINETTE: I think so. Wasn't it you 4 that was talking to Chuck. 5 MR. KEEGAN: I tried to and hurricane season 6 got in the way. 7 MR. ROBINETTE: Right. 8 MR. KEEGAN: Turns out all of the people who 9 are knowledgeable about surge modeling and all 10 that we know of are involved in hurricane season. 11 Trying to get a day when all of them have time 12 available is fruitless. I've been completely 13 unsuccessful so far, John. 14 MR. ROBINETTE: Okay. Just wondering. 15 MR. DYSART: Teri. Then Neff. 16 MS. LEFFEK: I was going to ask if we have 17 concluded the discussion we previously started? 18 Did we decide to answer the question if we want a 19 report or nor or are we going to defer that? 20 MR. McINTOSH: Defer. 21 MS. LEFFEK: Going to defer or to decide 22 whether or not we want one -- I want to get an 23 answer. 24 MR. DYSART: A report next time from Bill, are 25 you talking about a report at the end of the 207 1 2 process, whenever that might be? 3 MS. LEFFEK: Has the SEG decided if we want to 4 do some sort of final wrap-up report at the -- 5 whenever that may be. Have we decided that's a 6 good idea, or are we not going to deal with that 7 today? 8 MR. DYSART: I got the impression that -- 9 MS. LEFFEK: Seems like there are people -- 10 MR. DYSART: -- there was not unanimity about 11 that today; therefore, not a consensus; therefore, 12 we will have no action. Okay. Neff. 13 MR. McINTOSH: Yes. Several meetings ago I 14 made a request of GPA et al for a comprehensive 15 list, spreadsheet will suffice, for dollars spent 16 on projects recommended by the SEG, and dollars 17 expected to be spent on projects recommended by the 18 SEG. And my recollection was that Morgan promised 19 me some sort of private e-mail. I haven't seen it. 20 MR. REES: I did? 21 MR. McINTOSH: You did. 22 MR. REES: I'm sorry. I don't remember that. 23 MR. McINTOSH: She can't read it back, it's 24 a couple of months ago. I make the request again. 25 MR. REES: Excuse me. What's the request. 208 1 2 Let me make sure I get it right. 3 MR. McINTOSH: What has GPA spent so far on 4 SEG recommended scientific projects? 5 MR. REES: Okay. 6 MR. McINTOSH: I know there are projects that 7 have been approved. GPA has accepted the 8 responsibility and not yet expended the funds. 9 I'm curious about what the potential 10 expenditures are by project. I mean, there was a 11 point in time where we went two meetings in a row, 12 all we did was say yes, yes, yes. 13 There was a lot of money on the table. I was 14 just curious. A couple of meetings after that, 15 projects are underway, I mean, the egg sample thing 16 happened. 17 I'm just curious, where we are, what we said 18 you're going to do, you paid for, where we are on 19 would you said you would do. You said okay. It 20 hasn't happened yet. 21 MR. REES: I remember that. I'm sorry. 22 MR. McINTOSH: Let the record state he 23 remembered that. 24 MR. DYSART: Colonel Schmitt. Ben Brewton. 25 MR. McINTOSH: One other thing. This goes 209 1 2 almost a year, goes back to the flooding issue 3 which just came up again. 4 I went to an MTRG meeting, and then for the 5 two meetings after that, made specific requests to 6 Bo, and MTRG, and ATM, I think USGS was involved in 7 one of the responses, if I'm not mistaken, about 8 the tide data. 9 I've not seen anything on that. I'm sure 10 eight or nine months has gone by. I would repeat 11 that request. I would like a response. It was a 12 two part response. Some guy was going to check Ft. 13 Pulaski tide data. There was something else. The 14 guy had maps or models -- you recall that, Bo? 15 MR. ELLIS: The guy from USGS was there and 16 said he had a lot data that could be used when 17 the study was underway. 18 MR. McINTOSH: They were going to give me that 19 100 year tide line thing on the Ft. Pulaski gauge. 20 He has access to that. 21 MR. ELLIS: USGS has all that data. 22 MR. McINTOSH: Is he still involved in the 23 group? Can I request -- he's on the committee? 24 MR. ELLIS: Sure. What kind of format? It's 25 a lot of data. 210 1 2 MR. BREWTON: Excel. 3 MR. McINTOSH: Excel-- CD would be perfect, 4 Excel spreadsheet, e-mail. 5 MR. ELLIS: I remember you did make the 6 request. 7 MR. McINTOSH: We didn't stay focused on the 8 flood issue very long. Larry talked about it a 9 moment ago. It got wrapped up. The model would 10 address certain aspects of the flood. 11 You had parameters the model wasn't going to 12 address. We were trying to get more data. That 13 was my original and initial inquiry in that 14 respect, so -- 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. Colonel Schmitt. 16 COLONEL SCHMITT: Last meeting two months ago 17 I mentioned I would bring a statement discussing, 18 in laymen's terms, the process of the Corps of 19 Engineers we're involved in; reference Section 203, 20 204 authorized language. 21 I have those statements here. If anybody 22 would like to come up get those, either I or Doug 23 will hand these out during the break for your 24 enjoyment and for you're reading. Thanks. 25 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 211 1 2 MR. BREWTON: I have already been the 3 recipient of one of Colonel Schmitt's statements. 4 I appreciate him doing that. Hopefully, this will 5 clear up questions, some of the ones I wanted to 6 follow-up on. 7 A couple of other things mentioned here, we 8 were talking sort of about unfinished business. 9 There's several issue, maybe we need to go back and 10 do some searches of the transcripts, but there's 11 several issues that I had asked about I haven't 12 seen any follow-up on. 13 I was looking the other day. In May, I sent a 14 request to the facilitator, which he forwarded to 15 GPA, about the possibility of a presentation that 16 encompassed several things that a lot of us had 17 asked about different aspects of. 18 I titled that something like potential and 19 projected land side and infrastructure impacts of 20 the proposed deepening, which would involve 21 transportation, actual facility expansions, other 22 things, so we might get some idea of what the 23 associated impacts were. 24 I think Ben wrote me back, after sending it to 25 Morgan, you, Larry, and Dave, and suggested that 212 1 2 maybe it was a little short notice for May, maybe 3 we could do it in June. 4 There were a couple of e-mail exchanges. Then 5 I never heard more about it. Then, I guess, there 6 were other, hotter topics that took precedence. 7 I would like to ask that be readdressed. If 8 you can find -- can't locate that e-mail anymore, 9 let me know. I'll see if I can find a copy and 10 send it back to you. 11 That was the general topic, because so far 12 all the impact that we're talking about is 13 impacting the river. Certainly there will be some 14 other impacts. 15 Related to that, I'm sorry, Trish is not here 16 today, perhaps Hope or Dave can take this back to 17 Trish, during the GPA facility tours back in April, 18 I posed the question presently for the projected 19 expansion, what happened to the storm water runoff, 20 and what sort of treatment filtering did it 21 receive? 22 There's acres and acres, I guess hundreds of 23 acres of pavement and buildings out there. Trish 24 made some phone calls, while we in the van that 25 day, and could not get an answer. She said she 213 1 2 would sent it shortly. 3 Since that time, she and I corresponded a 4 couple of times. A month, month and a half ago, 5 she told me she had not finished pursuing that, and 6 it had gotten on the back burner. She would get 7 back to me pretty shortly. 8 I still haven't heard anything. I would like 9 to turn that into part of this agenda request for 10 GPA to include that in a presentation which could 11 be made to the whole group, about what those sort 12 of impacts there might be. 13 I do particularly want that specific question 14 answered about where all that runoff goes, where it 15 might go in the future, with expansion of the 16 facilities. 17 There are a few other topics, as I went 18 through the transcripts just briefly last night, 19 things such as Neff mentioned, and John Robinette 20 mentioned, and Patty mentioned, that are things we 21 talked about and said we'll get to them in future 22 month. 23 We just really haven't had a good process of 24 keeping track of those. So I don't know how 25 collectively we could go back and identify those 214 1 2 things, but there are a lot of them that were very 3 good things that we do need address and discuss and 4 see if further work is warranted. 5 I think one of the other ones that was 6 mentioned, Morgan, you said at some point, you were 7 going to have another follow-up on the ballast 8 water issue. 9 We agreed it wasn't time sensitive. I'm not 10 pressing. I'm saying that's an example of some of 11 the things we've left hanging around. 12 I guess in response to -- response to a 13 discussion earlier about a wrap-up report, until we 14 have a good feel that we've gone back and captured 15 and covered all those, plus identified other things 16 that have not come up, I'm a little bit resistant 17 to thinking premature about reporting anything 18 there. 19 I don't if anyone has any suggestions on how 20 to go back and figure out what these things are. 21 We've got pretty good records for the last year 22 anyway. 23 And I guess one other follow-up to that, I 24 don't know if GPA takes it as their responsibility, 25 when we ask for something, you say that you can do 215 1 2 that or will do that to remember it, or whether 3 it's our responsibility to remember it and remind 4 you. 5 MR. REES: Shall we say it's a shared 6 responsibility. 7 MS. GAY: Consensus. 8 MR. DYSART: I would also state that there is 9 -- it is the wrap-up of the SEG process is not so 10 imminent that we need -- the second coming is not 11 going to be in the next month or so. So we don't 12 have to worry about that too much too soon. 13 Are there other -- what are we in, old 14 business, new business? 15 MR. BREWTON: Ben, when you speak of the 16 second coming, I would remind everyone the real end 17 of the millennium is coming up. All those things 18 people were projecting for last year could still 19 happen. 20 COLONEL SCHMITT: Okay. With that -- 21 MR. DYSART: Are there additional substantive 22 matters that need to come before this body before 23 we pick a meeting time? 24 MS. JENNINGS: Can I make an announcement of 25 sorts? 216 1 2 MR. DYSART: Sure. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Doug Plachy brought this to my 4 attention. September 28, 10:00 to 2:00, GPA Ocean 5 Terminal Facility, National Marine Fisheries is 6 convening a meeting on right whale and implications 7 for shipping industry. 8 MR. GREENWOOD: Also the League of Women 9 Voters in Hilton Head has been honored by David 10 Schaller, Sam Drake, Charlie Sutlive, Bill Mottell 11 to do a program for us September 15, Town Hall, 12 Hilton Head, 7:00 to 9:30 p.m. You're welcome to 13 attend. 14 MR. DYSART: When do you want to meet again. 15 We've got dates reserved for the next three months 16 here. We can circle one of them and move on. What 17 is the pleasure of the membership of this body? 18 MS. LEFFEK: If no one has an opinion, I'll 19 throw out November. Skip October and go with 20 November, unless someone has another opinion, since 21 no one else is speaking up. 22 MR. McINTOSH: Why November 14th? 23 MR. DYSART: That Tuesday is Election Day. 24 MR. McINTOSH: Most people don't vote anyway. 25 MR. BERSON: Veterans Day is the 11th of 217 1 2 November. 3 MR. BREWTON: Is this all day or half day 4 format proposed that for that day? 5 MR. DYSART: Depends on how long people want 6 to talk, how much we roll around the table. Do you 7 like a half day, how have enjoyed today? 8 MR. TOLLISON: Half day -- just an idea. 9 MR. DYSART: At the risk of being corrected, 10 I'd say there's probably a consensus with you, sir. 11 I see a lot of heads nodding. Is there anybody who 12 couldn't live with a half day meeting, anyone who 13 just insists that this body come together sunrise 14 to sunset. 15 MS. LEFFEK: Have we decided on November then? 16 MR. TOLLISON: What day in November? 17 MR. DYSART: November 14th is when Cathy has 18 the facility reserved. That's the closest to the 19 first Tuesday, staying away from Election Day. 20 Okay. Is there a consensus for November 14th? 21 Anyone who cannot live with November 14th? 22 Anyone who cannot live with the November 14th? 23 Declare a consensus, November 14th. Is there 24 anyone who would not like to see a half day 25 meeting, go to 1:00 o'clock. I see no objections. 218 1 2 Consensus is declared. November 14th at 9:00 to 3 1:00. Thank you. We are an adjourned at 2:50 p.m. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C E R T I F I C A T E 219 1 2 G E O R G I A : 3 CHATHAM COUNTY: 4 I hereby certify that the foregoing 5 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 6 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 7 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 8 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 218 represent 9 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 10 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 11 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 12 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 13 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 14 anywise interested in the result of said case. 15 This, the 30th day of September, 2000. 16 17 18 ________________________ 19 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court Reporter, B-2041 20 21 22 23 24 25