1 2 3 4 5 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6 7 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 8 9 July 13, 2004 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 INTRODUCTIONS ------------------------------- 3 8 MODELLING STATUS REPORT --------------------- 8 9 DISCUSSION ---------------------------------- 35 10 GENERAL REEVALUATION STATUS ----------------- 63 11 ECONOMICS WORKING GROUP --------------------- 65 12 GENERAL DISCUSSION -------------------------- 68 13 WATER BALLAST UPDATE ------------------------ 74 14 MEETING SCHEDULE ---------------------------- 77 15 CERTIFICATE --------------------------------- 80 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. If you'll find a seat, 3 we'll get started. Okay. I'd like to call the 4 meeting of the SEG to order, and the first thing 5 I'd like to do is for us to introduce ourselves. 6 It's been a long time. We might have forgotten who 7 we are. So why don't we start with Carl. 8 MR. HALL: I'm Carl Hall. I'm with the 9 Georgia Wildlife Federation, the First District 10 Representative, formerly with Georgia DNR. 11 MR. DRAKE: Sam Drake. I'm representing the 12 owners of the Clydesdale and Fife Plantations. 13 MR. PRUSA: I'm Tom Prusa and I'm Refuge 14 Manager at the Savannah Coastal Refuge. 15 MR. STAFFORD: John Stafford, Ogeechee 16 Audubon Society. 17 MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of Savannah 18 and also the Savannah Harbor Committee. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: Chris Schuberth, the Chatham 20 Environmental Forum and Armstrong Atlantic State 21 University. 22 MR. DYSART: I'm Ben Dysart, SEG Facilitator. 23 MR. FLEMING: Joel Fleming, Georgia DNR 24 Fisheries Management. 25 MR. KYLER: David Kyler, Center for a 4 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 Sustainable Coast. 3 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, citizen. 4 MS. MOORE: Kelie Moore, DNR, Coastal 5 Resources. 6 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 7 Authority. 8 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller with the Georgia 9 Ports Authority. 10 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, Lockwood Greene 11 Engineers. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia Sierra. 13 MS. LEFFEK: Teri Leffek, Marine Terminals 14 Corporation. 15 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers 16 MR. DERICKSON: Ken Derickson, Corps of 17 Engineers, and I'd just like to alert everybody, 18 we're going to have to skip out of here at 11:00 19 o'clock. We've got people coming in for the 20 Economic Work Group meeting, so I just wanted to 21 alert everybody. 22 MS. RAHN: Lucille Collins Rahn, Sierra Club. 23 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, the Georgia 24 Conservancy. 25 MS. LANDERS: Mary Landers with the Savannah 5 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 Morning News. 3 MR. GRIFFIN: David Griffin, the Georgia 4 Department of Transportation. 5 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. You all should have a copy 7 of the draft agenda before you. Is there anything 8 that you would like to add, or change, or anything 9 that needs to be rearranged, in time, to 10 accommodate anyone who might have to leave or 11 whatever? Bill Farmer. 12 MR. FARMER: I would like to have the Beach 13 Erosion Committee report moved up early. It's a 14 four word report. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. Okay. You want to do it 16 now? 17 MR. FARMER: I can -- no meeting, no report. 18 MR. DYSART: Thank you for the update. We try 19 to accommodate such requests. Okay. Then seeing 20 no -- Sam? 21 MR. DRAKE: Well, I just had a question and 22 I'm not sure, I might have missed something on the 23 e-mail. 24 At one point, I thought the status of the 25 model, and maybe EPA and ATM's models were going to 6 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 be discussed today. I didn't see them on the 3 agenda. Is there going to be an update or anything 4 on where we stand on that? 5 MR. DERICKSON: Under new business. 6 MR. DYSART: Under new business is the item 7 on hydrodynamic and salinity model, status of 8 vertical mixing and so forth. 9 I would, if you want to make sure -- request 10 that somebody here speak to that or whatever, I'm 11 sure that could be accommodated. I mean, somebody 12 can say something. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Well, actually -- sorry. Since 14 the Corps has indicated they have a time 15 constraint, and certainly it's important, maybe we 16 should. 17 I don't have my glasses on yet, so I'm not 18 sure where it is on the agenda, but maybe we need 19 to catch that before 11:00 o'clock. 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: Yes. I do want to make sure 21 that there's adequate time given to this. I see 22 it's the last item before we decide when our next 23 meeting is. We've reached that point sometime 24 usually between 11:30 and 20 to 12:00. 25 So, if that can be moved up so it can be 7 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 adequately discussed in the framework of the need 3 to discuss it. 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. Why don't let's move that 5 up right toward the front. Who is going to be 6 speaking on that? Will requested that there be a 7 discussion on modelling. I was never advised who 8 was going to be talking or presenting. 9 MR. SCHALLER: Corps of Engineers. 10 MR. DYSART: Corps of Engineers. Okay. I'll 11 tell you what, Ken, we'll put the Corps and 12 modelling, whatever you are going to be sharing on 13 that, we'll put you right out of the box early. 14 MR. DERICKSON: Okay. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. Good point. Thank you for 16 bringing that up, Sam. Okay. With that 17 understanding that the Corps discussion of the 18 modelling situation will be done very early, to 19 accommodate their need to be out of here by 11:00, 20 and those who wish to discuss that, is it 21 acceptable then to accept the agenda -- the draft 22 agenda? 23 As modified that is accepted. What about 24 action on the April transcript, any corrections or 25 adjustments that need to be mentioned here to be 8 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 a part of the record. 3 Seeing no requests for such action, I would 4 presume that this body would view the April 5 transcript, as posted, to be a reasonable 6 representation of what happened then. Okay. 7 Ken, what all are y'all going to cover? Are 8 y'all going to cover the fleet projections, as well 9 as modelling? 10 MR. DERICKSON: No. I thought that actually 11 was supposed to come off the agenda, because that 12 will be discussed in the Economics Working Group 13 this afternoon at 1:00. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. 15 MR. DERICKSON: I can give a little, you know, 16 sort of status report, but I can't get into the 17 technical aspects of it, not being an economist. I 18 can kind of tell you where we are and what's going 19 on this afternoon. 20 MR. DYSART: Why don't you just give us a 21 little brief recap or whatever would be 22 appropriate? 23 MR. DERICKSON: Okay. We have -- we have GEC 24 out of Baton Rouge under contract to do the 25 economic analysis, and the initial work that 9 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 they're doing right now has to do with the world 3 fleet projections, the existing fleet, and the 4 prospective fleet. 5 They have looked forward into the future for a 6 few years to see what orders there are, all that 7 sort of thing, and broken it down by different 8 categories. 9 So they have submitted their report on that to 10 us. It has been reviewed internally, and it's 11 been finalized. And now it is out on the -- it's 12 out on our extra night site, and I provided Judy 13 the copy because she was going away. Cathy, I 14 think, has put it out for everybody else, for the 15 Economic Working Group -- right? 16 So they have a copy of that report. This 17 afternoon, the GEC people, Kevin Horn and Richard 18 Hill, will be making a presentation, to the 19 Economics Work Group, on the overall work plan for 20 the economic analysis, what the different phases 21 are. 22 There is the commodities. There is the fleet 23 projections. There is the multi port analysis, 24 regional analysis, and then there's also the 25 benefit calculations. 10 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 They will be talking to that. They will be 3 specifically highlighting the information in the 4 fleet, world fleet report. So that will be this 5 afternoon at 1:00 o'clock at GPA Trade Center. 6 MS. VAUGHN: Conference Room second floor. 7 MR. DYSART: Thank you. While you're 8 preparing for your next presentation, we'll let 9 the distinguished person introduce himself. 10 Morgan. 11 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for GPA. 12 MR. DYSART: Welcome. Okay. Ken, are you 13 ready for your second presentation? 14 MR. DERICKSON: Sure. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. 16 MR. DERICKSON: As y'all recall, at the last 17 SEG meeting, there was discussion on the modelling, 18 and specifically the April 7th executive management 19 group meeting. 20 At that meeting, the federal agencies had 21 submitted their position letters on the Plan A 22 model, and they had concerns about technical 23 defensibility of the Plan A model, and felt it was 24 not technically defensible. 25 At the same time, a calibration report -- 11 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 preliminary or initial calibration report had been 3 prepared on the Plan B model, which is the EPA 4 model that was being developed for TMDLs for 5 dissolved oxygen. 6 The Corps had commissioned or contracted with 7 Tetra Tech to produce the initial calibration 8 report. There had been some initial scan through 9 the document, but no in depth evaluation or review 10 had been done. 11 So at that meeting it was decided that before 12 final decision could be made on the two models, I 13 mean, the initial cut was it looked like the Plan B 14 might be technically defensible, they needed the 15 full review on that report, and looking at some 16 costing issues and everything to see if they could 17 make a decision on the two models, at the next 18 executive management group meeting, which was 19 scheduled for the 21st of May. 20 In the interim, the review of the Plan B model 21 was completed around the end of April, early May. 22 We got the comments in from the technical 23 reviewers, and basically the model -- they thought 24 that the model was technically defensible. 25 This was kind of the first step in their 12 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 evaluation process, basically, was to look at the 3 hydrodynamic model and determine if it was 4 technically defensible. 5 If it was, then they would go on to look at 6 the rest of the model. Plan A, in their mind, did 7 not meet that criteria. Plan B did. 8 So then a meeting was held. And a decision 9 was made, by the federal agencies, to proceed 10 forward with Plan B for further development, and 11 to, for now, put Plan A on the shelf, you know, for 12 a potential looking at it in the future. 13 And the reason for this is there were, even 14 though the issue of technical defensibility had 15 been satisfied, at least in the minds of the 16 federal agencies, there were still some questions, 17 by the reviewers, about the grid resolution which 18 is basically how you partition up the river 19 horizontally vertically. 20 Basically, the Plan B model looked at two grid 21 resolutions. It looked at one that had about -- a 22 little bit less than 4,000 cells, and another one 23 that had just a little bit less than 11,000 cells. 24 The bulk of the work had been done on the 25 coarser grid, which is the 4,000 cells. They had 13 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 done some preliminary work on the 11,000 cell, but 3 not the detail. 4 So there are a lot of questions about the grid 5 resolution, about the tidal marsh interactions, and 6 also the boundary conditions. 7 So it was felt, you know, we could not, you 8 know, categorically, rule out, Plan A at this point 9 in time. So the agreement was given, you know, 10 schedule considerations, resources, that probably 11 the most prudent approach was to move forward with 12 Plan B. 13 When we have the final calibration report, 14 which we're looking somewhere in the December to 15 January time frame, when we have the final 16 calibration report for the hydrodynamic and 17 dissolved oxygen model, we'll review it. 18 Then if everything is okay, fine. If there 19 are problems with Plan B, then we can go back and 20 revisit Plan A. 21 In the meantime, it was felt that the -- a lot 22 of the information, the data, the learning 23 experience that went into Plan A was very useful 24 and helped, you know, it was very beneficial to 25 Plan B. 14 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 So it was agreed that, you know, the cost that 3 went into that Plan A development should be 4 considered part of the project costs, of course, 5 subject to our normal auditing procedures and that 6 sort of thing. 7 So right now we are proceeding forward with 8 Plan B -- we'll probably -- we're looking at trying 9 to formulate a modelling team, a more integrated 10 modelling team, rather than having, you know, 11 separate groups. 12 I think the water quality group will probably 13 remain separate, but the SMART group, that will 14 probably be integrated into an overall modelling 15 team. We have added the -- the Corps, since we're 16 now taking the lead on this thing with support from 17 GPA, we have put a full-time modeller on the team, 18 on the PDT team, project development team, Mr. Joe 19 Hoke, from a hydrology group. 20 So we have a full-time person on that. We're 21 preparing a scope of work for work for Tetra Tech 22 to take the models to the next levels. So that's 23 kind of where we are at this point in time. 24 We'll have to coordinate that, you know, with 25 GPA and everything. But basically now we're trying 15 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 to figure out exactly what needs to be done. 3 It seems the first order of business will be, 4 probably, to take the fine grid version that 5 Tetra Tech word did for EPA's model, and flush that 6 out to the same level of detail as the coarse grid, 7 so we can make some comparisons between the two 8 models. 9 That probably won't involve a lot of effort, 10 at this point in time, and may give us some pretty 11 good indications of how much further we need to 12 look as far as the grid resolution. 13 Additionally, we've been talking to Chuck 14 Watson. Chuck had a lot -- as y'all recall at the 15 last meeting, Chuck had a lot of good ideas 16 relating to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. 17 We talked about that. He's met with the USGS, 18 Fish and Wildlife Service, GPA, the SMART team 19 basically, and they like a lot of things -- they 20 think he can bring a lot of additional expertise to 21 the table. 22 He looks at things a little bit different than 23 we normally look at things in our modelling. So 24 we're looking at trying to integrate him into the 25 team as well, you know, to help with this 16 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. 3 So that's kind of where we are and, you know, 4 Plan B is on the table. We'll be working with 5 EPA to kind of flush that out and move it forward. 6 MR. DYSART: Could you, just for the record, 7 indicate what SMART team -- what that means? That 8 implies there might be a team that's not smart. 9 MR. DERICKSON: It's the Savannah Multi-Agency 10 Review Team. That was the federal agencies, 11 technical reviewers of the models. 12 MR. DYSART: Thank you. 13 MR. DERICKSON: There has been some concern 14 about sort of a separation there, and so, you know, 15 for the future we think, rather than having that 16 appearance of separation and everything, it might 17 be better to integrate them into the team. 18 MR. DYSART: Questions, discussion. Bill 19 Farmer. 20 MR. FARMER: The model would obviously 21 evaluate the probable impact of the project. Will 22 it also evaluate the impact of any mitigation 23 alternative that might be selected also? 24 MR. DERICKSON: I think that's kind of going 25 -- Bill can probably address that more -- more 17 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 appropriately. I think it's going to be kind of an 3 interative -- interative process. I think the 4 outputs from the model, from the hydrodynamic 5 models will feed into these other models, the 6 downstream model, you know, the striped bass, the 7 sturgeon, and the wetland. 8 What we want to try to do is get a pretty good 9 idea, you know, of what variables are really 10 important. That's kind of where the sensitivity 11 analysis comes in and uncertainty. 12 And knowing what are important and then know 13 what the confidence interval of those data are, 14 inputs are, you know, are how they going to be 15 manifested through the model. 16 You know, it looks like a lot of error and 17 everything, it may have to go back, and you may 18 have to adjust your inputs. I'm sure there will be 19 a lot of run it through, see what you get. 20 You know, if it's way out of the ball park, 21 then go back and reevaluate everything, then adjust 22 your inputs again. Bill can tell you more about 23 how all that's going to work together, I think. 24 MR. BAILEY: Basically, the Plan B models were 25 going to be used the same way the Plan A's were 18 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 going to be used. 3 MR. FARMER: Will they evaluate mitigation 4 choices? 5 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 6 MR. FARMER: Great. You're never going to get 7 to see the final result of whether your model is 8 accurate, because you're going to mitigate at the 9 same time you're doing the project, I would assume. 10 MR. DERICKSON: Well, I mean, I think part of 11 the point of the model is to try to have as much 12 confidence, as possible, in your outputs so you 13 only mitigate as necessary. 14 You know, obviously, if you have -- if your 15 outputs are pretty good, then that maybe one level 16 of mitigation. If there's a lot of slop in your 17 output, in terms of the variation, then you may 18 have to look at a higher level of mitigation. So 19 it's critical to determine the level of mitigation. 20 MR. FARMER: Right. Okay. 21 MR. DYSART: Chris and then Sam. 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: Since Plan A now had been four 23 years in the making, it's now on the shelf, what 24 you just described as steps that are being taken to 25 produce a satisfactory, defensible model will take 19 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 now about how long, roughly? 3 MR. DERICKSON: Well, the game, you know, 4 we're looking at having a calibration report which 5 would be in a comparable level -- well, how do I 6 say? 7 The calibration work that was done for Plan B 8 was just specific to the hydrodynamic portion. It 9 only looked at the coarse grid in detail. We need 10 to get a calibration report for grid resolution 11 that's acceptable. 12 Then once we have that calibration report, 13 then they can do their final evaluation and 14 everything. That's, right now, scheduled for the 15 December/January time frame. Runs, the actual runs 16 on the model, would come after that. 17 MR. SCHUBERTH: Thank you. 18 MR. DYSART: Sam, please. 19 MR. DRAKE: How's this going to impact the 20 time line for the draft EIS? 21 MR. DERICKSON: The current -- oh, for the 22 draft EIS is September or January 8th. Do you 23 remember, Larry, how far? It would probably be six 24 months. 25 MR. KEEGAN: What we've got projected right 20 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 now is close to two years. 3 MR. DERICKSON: Two years out. 4 MR. DRAKE: When -- what do you have projected 5 right now? 6 MR. KEEGAN: What we have projected is close 7 to a two year additional time needed now. 8 MR. DYSART: Two years from now or two years 9 later than -- 10 MR. DERICKSON: I think the schedule has been 11 pushed out about two years. 12 MR. DYSART: Further discussion. Chris. 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: I have said this before and it 14 might be again, I still don't understand, and I 15 know 20 different people have tried to explain it 16 to me, as to how we could move along, in a very 17 conscientious manner, involving the best of the 18 best people, and come up with a realty that places 19 a document, a model, out of service four years down 20 the road, and resulting in an additional two years 21 having to be added to the completion process. 22 I'll just use the term completion. Larry said 23 two years out, so we're two years further. So if 24 the document was to be completed in '07, now it's 25 going to be completed in '09. 21 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 And I don't ask anybody to answer this 3 question because it's rhetorical. But I'm just 4 stunned. It's like a Phd candidate, with all of 5 his or her mentors, asked to do a research project 6 as dissertation which takes three, four, five 7 years, gets the guidance, produces the document, 8 four years later, five years later, six years 9 later, seven years later, and the person then says 10 or the team then says this is unacceptable. 11 I just have a problem with the sequence of 12 events, the process that led us to this particular 13 juncture. 14 I don't expect anybody to answer, but I just 15 want to say, at least for the record, I'm 16 expressing this particular concern. 17 MR. DYSART: Will and then Judy. 18 MR. BERSON: Switching to sort of the internal 19 parts of Plan B, has Plan B ever been used or 20 applied before at the greater grid resolution 21 scale, the 11,000 as opposed to the 4, or is this a 22 new application? 23 MR. DERICKSON: I'll try to answer that. 24 There are two models that are being looked at here. 25 There's the hydrodynamic model, which is the EFDC 22 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 model, which has been around a long time. That's 3 Environmental Fluid Dynamics Computer Code. 4 Okay. That model has been developed by EPA. 5 They have a contractor that maintains that model 6 and keeps it updated. It has been out there for a 7 long time. It has been applied to a lot of 8 different types of projects. So there's a lot of 9 peer review. It's stood the test of time. 10 The other portion is the WQASP model, which is 11 the Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program, or 12 something like that. That's the water quality 13 portion. 14 That has also been out there for a long time. 15 It gets continually updated. There are new 16 versions that come out. Those models are out 17 there. 18 They are part of the public domain. They 19 are maintained. Anybody can go out there and use 20 them. There's a lot of history with the model. 21 Now, with this particular grid resolution, as 22 you take those models, those off-the-shelf models 23 and apply them, you have to make adjustments to 24 them for the particular situation that you're 25 applying them to. 23 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 And so that's kind of what we're going through 3 right now with the Plan B. We're trying to figure 4 out what is the appropriate grid resolution, to 5 capture the things we need to capture, in order to 6 do our impact assessment. 7 So two parts; yes, the model is very 8 well-established, but the grid resolution, that's 9 yet to be finalized. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy and then David 11 Schaller. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Of course, I appreciate your 13 rhetorical question. I'm not going to ask for any 14 better response either. I think the value of the 15 question is that it be instructive to the point 16 that we don't let any other element, of the 17 process, go down the same path. 18 I'm wondering if there might not -- if there 19 might be some Operating Guideline's function of the 20 SEG or something, because I've been asked this 21 question by people who I think I should know the 22 answer. 23 They didn't ask me rhetorically. They really 24 thought I should understand why we got here and why 25 we're here. And I can't answer it very well. I 24 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 felt terribly stupid and culpable about that. 3 While you ask it rhetorically, I wonder if it 4 might not have an instructive lesson for the SEG. 5 I don't see an easy answer to that. It may sound 6 rhetorical, but I don't mean it that way. 7 MR. DYSART: David. 8 MR. SCHALLER: If there is a score card being 9 kept as to those stunned, you can count GPA among 10 them. It is frankly unthinkable that we could have 11 this work underway, for this length of time, and 12 not have one of the federal agencies say stop the 13 press -- stop the press. This isn't going to work 14 at the end. 15 Instead of taking all this time to get to this 16 juncture and say, that's not defensible in our 17 opinion. So we're one of the parties stunned. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Then David can you and I -- I 19 think maybe our comments are going together, in 20 that I don't want to be here a year -- 21 MR. SCHALLER: Yes, Judy -- 22 MS. JENNINGS: -- or two from now trying to 23 defend something else I can't explain. 24 MR. SCHALLER: I. Agree there is a lesson to 25 be learned. I hope it's been learned. 25 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 MS. JENNINGS: But I don't know the lesson, in 3 the sense I don't know the -- I'm not an engineer 4 so I don't know how to fix it. But I, like you, am 5 stunned and don't understand it and feel culpable. 6 MR. SCHALLER: That's a question that only the 7 federal agencies can answer. I can't answer it. 8 MS. JENNINGS: Is then there a process, that 9 the SEG could recommend, that would involve the 10 federal agencies? I'm trying to fix it. I just 11 don't know how to fix it. 12 MR. SCHALLER: There was a process, that I 13 certainly believed, included the federal agencies 14 throughout the development of this model. And 15 unfortunately, regretably, it was at the end of 16 that process that the declaration was made that it 17 wouldn't work. It should have been made long ago. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Right. I'm sorry. We're 19 facing other major pieces of work, like the 20 economic analysis. And you know, I can imagine a 21 similar scenario if we don't interject some other 22 mechanism. 23 I feel like it's this body's job to suggest a 24 mechanism so that we don't repeat the same mistake. 25 Not to beat that dead horse -- I don't know who 26 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 shot it, but let's just admit he's died. 3 So here we have it, and just so that the wagon 4 keeps rolling with appropriate momentum at all 5 times. So, I don't know. We've been meeting once 6 every two months. Maybe that's not enough ground 7 trooping from this body. I'm not sure what the 8 mechanism is. I just would like to avoid a similar 9 situation. 10 MR. DYSART: Hope, would you introduce 11 yourself. 12 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 13 Authority. 14 MR. DYSART: Welcome. David Kyler, please. 15 MR. KYLER: Yeah. Judy raised the point I was 16 about to raise myself. I'm glad she did. It seems 17 to me that given the pivotal importance of the 18 model, there should have been and now should be 19 some sort of very structured, explicitly outlined 20 decision procedure, and self-monitoring procedure 21 for the work. 22 That same or similar procedure should be 23 adopted for all committee analysis and 24 recommendations. So I would suggest, as Judy 25 alluded to, there should be something more 27 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 aggressive and definitively pursued, through the 3 Operating Guidelines Committee, that sets forth 4 some sort of assurance, in the way of procedure, 5 that we have better control over what comes out of 6 the second go-around, and the other committee 7 activities that serve the SEG. 8 MS. JENNINGS: Then that's a suggestion for 9 how to handle it. Should we schedule an Operating 10 Guidelines Committee meeting with that as a goal? 11 I mean with -- 12 MR. KYLER: Seems to me -- 13 MS. JENNINGS: We've asked for reports. We 14 get reports. We sit here and listen to them like 15 they're movies. 16 MR. KYLER: It seems to me, given all the work 17 the Corps has done on technical analysis and 18 reporting and management devices for controlling 19 the outcomes, or controlling the reliability of the 20 outcome, that there must be something we could 21 start with, that we could, you know, edit and 22 augment and change as need be, to develop something 23 for the SEG. 24 But it's just an idea. There may be others at 25 the table that have similar experiences. I don't 28 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 know. 3 MR. DYSART: Chris and then Teri. 4 MR. SCHUBERTH: Over the years, I think I've 5 been to every SEG meeting from the first one that 6 was held at that funny little place up in Garden 7 City -- missed one or two. But on and off I have 8 commented about "failure", not total failure, but 9 failure of this process to allow expert, 10 knowledgeable outsiders. I railed about peer 11 review. 12 I said, for example, with Beach Erosion 13 Committee, on the Beach Erosion Committee I spoke 14 up and said how can a study, an original study that 15 was challenged, in terms of some its conclusions, 16 go back to the same organization that wrote the 17 first study? But it went back to them. 18 I said this isn't good. It needs someone from 19 New Jersey. Rutgers has a major program on coastal 20 processes. Scripps, La Jolla, get someone else to 21 see, is this good, are the critics wrong, just say 22 you're doing good. 23 I've said this several times, you're doing 24 fine. Keep up the good work. That's all. Someone 25 else says this. 29 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 Chuck Watson was here in April of 2000. I 3 went through the transcript. I even printed it 4 out, like 85 pages, just his commentary at the 5 time. 6 There was some testy exchanges between Chuck 7 and Bo Ellis where he said, a couple times, I 8 brought it along with me in case someone wants to 9 see it. You're wrong. This isn't going to work. 10 Well, who are you? Well, as Ken said, a 11 person who thinks a little bit differently but 12 knows their stuff. 13 Never brought into the equation. He walked 14 away. So he should. I didn't because, you know, 15 this is an exercise -- it's an interesting exercise 16 these last -- this process. 17 I think Judy makes a good point. We've got 18 the aquifer studies going on. There was some 19 points that wanted to be raised that were left out, 20 because an agency said this is not what we want to 21 do. 22 Okay. That agency has the absolute authority 23 to say no, then we all shrink back. It's not 24 really open. It's not really fully honest. So 25 when Judy asked the question what's to not allow 30 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 this to happen in other studies, there are other 3 studies that a study by the people who were 4 criticized in the original study are doing the 5 study. 6 It goes on and on and on like that. We sit 7 here and dutifully listen and pay our respect. I 8 say again, and I say again, and I say again, I have 9 no quarrel with any other scholars who are doing 10 the work. 11 It's just that you can add two and three and 12 get five or you can add three and two and get five. 13 Both are right. 14 And by the way, I want to thank -- I'm sorry. 15 I want to thank David for standing up, going to 16 bat and hitting the ball out of the park in the 17 comment that he just made a few moments ago. 18 I really appreciate that, because sometimes I 19 feel that I'm a lone voice in the wilderness. I 20 appreciate that very much. 21 MR. DYSART: For the record, which David? 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: Schaller. 23 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Okay. Teri. 24 MS. LEFFEK: I am more than happy for the 25 Operating Guidelines Committee to look at this 31 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 question, if that's what this body wants to do. 3 I just want us to all keep in mind that we are 4 an advisory group. I don't see how we can go to a 5 federal agency and say pony up, guys. This is how 6 we're going to do it. 7 I just think that's something we need to keep 8 in mind, we are an advisory group. I'm sure 9 there's some way to -- some mechanism we can come 10 up with to maybe get more information, get a more 11 current flow of information, open up the exchanges. 12 But I just don't want us to loose sight of the 13 fact that we are an advisory group. We can't tell 14 a federal agency what to do. 15 MR. DYSART: Ken. 16 MR. DERICKSON: Well, the way you can do it, 17 you are an advisory group to GPA. You can present 18 it to GPA. GPA can present to us for 19 consideration, so there is a mechanism there. 20 There is no direct path here, you're correct. 21 It has to do with FACA (phonetic) -- you've all 22 heard this before about the Federal Advisory, I 23 forgot what that stands for. Anyway, there is a 24 mechanism. 25 The other thing I would just like to say, I 32 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 don't want sit here, you know, be mute on issues 3 raised by David. 4 GPA had some legitimate concerns. They have 5 expressed those concerns. The federal agencies had 6 some legitimate concerns. They have expressed 7 those concerns. All this information is being 8 finalized and will come out. 9 It's part of the public record in the very 10 near future. Y'all will be able to look at it and 11 formulate your own opinions about, you know, the 12 respective concerns. 13 So it will all come out in the record in a 14 very detailed fashion. GPA has expressed their 15 concerns in writing. Those concerns have been 16 addressed. 17 You know, as I said, the federal agencies have 18 too. So the record -- the record will have a lot 19 of information. Obviously, there are disagreements 20 between GPA and the federal agencies, but they 21 both, you know, made their positions known. 22 It's up to the public and y'all to look at it 23 and form your own opinions. Certainly, ask 24 questions when you see the information. That 25 information should be coming out. 33 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 We're still waiting. You know, it takes time 3 to get things through the other federal agencies, 4 in terms of concurrence and everything. 5 We want to make sure they agree with 6 everything we've said. So that is working its way 7 through the system. It should be available in the 8 very near future. 9 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Bob Scanlon. 10 MR. SCANLON: I'm hesitant to say anything, at 11 the risk of prolonging this discussion. I think we 12 could also look at this as a process that worked; 13 albeit very slow. 14 But I think we did have a process that worked 15 here. There was a technical review committee, and 16 the Harbor Committee did have participation on that 17 committee, which we paid a consultant, a 18 knowledgeable consultant, to deal with our issues. 19 I'm not qualified to speak to the technical 20 details of the modelling, but there were a lot of 21 questions that had been raised. What we're sitting 22 here talking about is really debating science and 23 the outcome of science. 24 This is very much -- modelling, it may not be 25 rocket science, but it's not real far away from it 34 1 MODELLING STATUS REPORT 2 either. 3 When you get into the mathematical complexity 4 of some of the things involved here, this is always 5 room for discussion, when you have as many 6 technical people together. 7 There were questions raised. There were 8 suggestions made. There were a lot of attempts 9 made to change things and to try to improve on the 10 model. And it got to a point, about a year ago, 11 that it started looking like those things were not 12 going to work. 13 That's when Plan B actually started to take 14 hold as being something that ought to be looked at. 15 So yeah, it was painfully slow, but at the same 16 time, we are dealing with a science that's not an 17 exact science. 18 Trying to model something, as complex as this 19 harbor, with all the different inputs into it, and 20 the target that was out there and the goal of what 21 was to be the best state of the art model is what 22 kept driving everybody saying, will this be better? 23 At the same time, EPA was looking at their 24 model and making refinements to it. So I think we 25 may be at very close to the same point we would 35 1 DISCUSSION 2 have been at. 3 We have a model people are confident in, the 4 federal agencies have experience with. True, it 5 still needs some additional refinement to get to 6 the finer grid levels. 7 Yeah, I think we've lost time, but in reality, 8 a process has worked. It was a painfully slow 9 process. I think we do have now a better result, 10 in the long run, than we would have had before. 11 Sorry for being long. 12 MR. DYSART: Thank you. David Kyler. 13 MR. KYLER: I'm a little bit confused here as 14 to what Bob just said. It's my impression that the 15 process worked to the extent that a model that was 16 unacceptable was ultimately rejected. 17 But the question is, was that rejection timely 18 enough to be able to say the procedure for making 19 that decision could not be improved upon? 20 I think that it can. My impression is that it 21 can, but this is a lot of gray area here. But I 22 gather that the slowness of that decision is really 23 what's in question, as well as the procedure 24 itself, not the science so much as everybody admits 25 it's complex. 36 1 DISCUSSION 2 The question is, how can -- what kind of 3 feedback and monitoring mechanisms are in place, in 4 the development of that model, to have made this 5 conclusion earlier? Could that have been done 6 earlier, and if so how? 7 The question, which to me logically follows 8 that tirade, is asking Ken; is the report the Corps 9 is going to be doing just a descriptive report of 10 what happened, or is the Corps going to go beyond 11 that, to prescribe how future actions might be 12 improved, to avoid some of the pitfalls that were 13 incurred in this instance? 14 MR. DERICKSON: You mean the information 15 that's coming out on the concerns, respective 16 concerns? 17 MR. KYLER: Right. 18 MR. DERICKSON: Those will not address the 19 specific issues you raised, however, you know it is 20 -- this is a discussion for the PDT, the Project 21 Development Team, also, the project management 22 advisory group. 23 We've already discussed this thing in two 24 sessions, and so we are trying to figure out how to 25 improve the coordination, how to monitor things, 37 1 DISCUSSION 2 get feedback into the system in a more timely 3 manner, get it out for review, that sort of thing. 4 So, we're in the process of developing that 5 procedure right now. One of the things, as I've 6 mentioned, is we're looking at a more integrated 7 modelling team, instead of having two or three 8 disparate groups providing input. 9 That's one of the initial considerations. 10 But, you know, we have not got that -- I think once 11 we work that out, you know, with the project 12 management advisory group and get bio from the 13 Project Development Team, then we can, you know, 14 that can be put forth for further comment. 15 MR. KYLER: Roughly when will that be, do you 16 have any idea? 17 MR. DERICKSON: That's a good question. I 18 would hope that we would have something developed, 19 you know, if we're going to proceed with the 20 contracting effort and everything, as soon as 21 possible on the Plan B. 22 I think we need to have a process in place, 23 you know, within the next -- I hate to put a time 24 because things happen. I'd say within the next 60 25 days, 90 days, I would hope that would be in place. 38 1 DISCUSSION 2 MR. KYLER: And is there any potential for 3 that report, it will come in 60 to 90 days, to have 4 some kind of general findings that would help in 5 establishing procedures for all the other 6 committees that support the SEG? 7 MR. DERICKSON: Findings of kind of lessons 8 learned=type thing? 9 MR. KYLER: Procedures to be used to ensure 10 more accuracy and timeliness of outcomes. 11 MR. DERICKSON: I'm not sure. Larry, what do 12 you think? 13 MR. KEEGAN: Well, it's a difficult question 14 to answer because, in my mind, much of what's 15 involved is related to how the federal agencies 16 want to do business, but what we're talking about 17 is how the SEG should change what they do. 18 Those are two different things. I'm not sure 19 how they will fit together here. I just don't know 20 at this point. 21 MR. KYLER: Of course, they are related. 22 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah, well certainly they're 23 related, but they're related through a fairly 24 complex and bureaucratic relationship. 25 MR. KYLER: Which few of us understand. 39 1 DISCUSSION 2 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I'm sorry, Ben. 3 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy, Will, and Chris. 4 MS. JENNINGS: I agree with Bob in that the 5 process worked. It did it. It was great, but I 6 think it was timely and expensive. I think that, 7 as we look to the future, we might try to be aware 8 of time and expense. 9 Because as an environmental advocate, you 10 know, the Sierra Club certainly doesn't expect me 11 to sit here and rush through harbor deepening, but 12 as a public advocate, which I also am, I don't 13 appreciate spending -- wasting time and money. 14 We are the spending time and money everytime 15 we get together, so what Larry just said is very 16 true and Teri. 17 We're not in control of federal agencies, but 18 they're actively engaged through the Corps. We are 19 an advisory body to GPA. So I mean, my goodness, 20 of all the bureaucracies in the world, it seems 21 like we ought to be able to borrow enough tools, 22 from some of them, to improve this process just a 23 little bit. 24 Cut to the chase and say, I don't mean to dump 25 it on Teri but, you know, she wears the Operating 40 1 DISCUSSION 2 Guidelines hat, so anyway she is best friend. 3 So if I'm dumping, then I'll have to hear 4 about it later anyway. So could we just decide on 5 a mechanism for determining how to improve the 6 process? It can't be that difficult. It just 7 can't. I mean, for instance the economic analysis; 8 this is just -- actually, I sat and read this 9 yesterday. 10 I can name three port projects that had cranes 11 sitting on their docks waiting on lawsuits, and 12 this just doesn't need to happen. The problems can 13 be solved before you get that far. 14 Whatever cost in time and money, and realizing 15 we can't dictate to agencies, can we just kick it 16 over to Teri and agree on a time for a meeting? I 17 don't know how else to move forward. 18 We all agree we need a better mechanism for 19 the process, some questions to be asked in terms of 20 interaction with federal agencies. So -- 21 MR. DYSART: I hear a request here for looking 22 at SEG's operating procedures to somehow ensure 23 quality advice to GPA coming from this. Why don't 24 let's put that on a nail here, come back to it and 25 see how you want to do that, after we have the 41 1 DISCUSSION 2 discussion. I hear some kind of consensus on that. 3 Will and then Chris. 4 MR. BERSON: Actually, I'm going to defer for 5 a moment. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Chris then Will. 7 MR. SCHUBERTH: Very, very simple question. 8 We're in our 40th meeting in our 67th month, and 9 try to not be cute, are we charting new waters 10 here? 11 Are we doing things that no one else has done 12 anywhere in the country, involving a project like 13 this, that gives us maybe some kind of guidelines? 14 I mean, are we really charting new waters? I 15 know the SEG is a new concept, came down from 16 Congress to bypass -- I mean, all of this stuff 17 doesn't make too much sense to me. 18 Are we discovering the wheel in trying to 19 resolve what is, apparently, a very difficult 20 question? 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. Morgan. 22 MR. REES: I have another point to make. Let 23 me just respond to Chris' comment about are we 24 inventing the wheel here, no, we're not, there were 25 some predecessor examples that, in fact, we used 42 1 DISCUSSION 2 when we formulated the SEG in the first place. 3 One of them was called BUG, B-U-G, Beneficial 4 Uses Group, which had to do with the Houston ship 5 channel dredging and disposal of dredge material 6 there. There were several others not quite so 7 formal. 8 When we were discussions the provisions of the 9 SEG, I spent quite a bit of time talking to a guy 10 who headed up this Beneficial Uses Group. They had 11 been in existence four or five years before we even 12 started. 13 Like I say, there are several other examples 14 that we use to formulate this SEG plan. So no, 15 we're not starting new. And that really is a good 16 segue into the comment I wanted to make responding 17 to Judy and Teri, with respect to consideration of 18 the process issues in the Operating Guidelines 19 Committee. 20 My personal view, and I think it's shared by 21 folks sitting nearby, anything we do in the 22 Operating Guidelines Committee with respect process 23 and so forth, it's my feeling that we really have 24 to have the other agencies at the table or else 25 we're wasting our time. 43 1 DISCUSSION 2 MS. JENNINGS: Morgan, if I can respond to 3 that, if we would explore that then we can find out 4 whether or not we can change the process or whether 5 we can't. It's a good question. 6 Do you guys want to come out and play or not 7 or how do you want to play or what? I think it's 8 worth exploring. Then we know what kind of ground 9 we're standing on. 10 MR. DYSART: David Kyler. 11 MR. KYLER: Minor point of what might be 12 obvious. There must be people, perhaps at the 13 table that know this foggy bureaucratic process or 14 processes that Larry referred to that, could advise 15 and sit at the table, in lieu of multiple 16 representatives of federal agencies sitting at that 17 table, and give us some general guidance about how 18 they anticipate, or most likely would foresee the 19 respective federal agencies fitting into this 20 procedure we're trying to come up with, is that 21 right? 22 MR. REES: Is that a question? 23 MR. KYLER: Is that not a viable alternative? 24 MR. REES: I don't know how far to push this, 25 I've got to tell you, I totally share David's 44 1 DISCUSSION 2 comment from earlier about shocked and so forth. 3 I'm at the point where I wouldn't want to 4 predict. I think I know the process, but there 5 are, obviously, folks who don't see it the same 6 way. We'd really be risky trying to predict what 7 the agencies might do, if they were to become 8 involved. They would have to be at the table 9 themselves. 10 MR. KYLER: Sounds like none of them would 11 have to advise us, but they have to give some 12 degree of commitment to adhering to that procedure. 13 MR. REES: That as well as some rationale for 14 why they think that's the procedure. 15 MR. DYSART: Let's -- Will -- Will has been 16 waiting here to make a comment, I think. 17 MR. BERSON: Like a chicken about to produce 18 an egg of some sort. It seems to me, without 19 recriminations or looking backwards, it seems to me 20 where we find ourselves today requires confidence 21 building measures in whatever model is produced. 22 And it seems to me that I'm hearing y'all 23 saying public agencies, spending public money on a 24 public project, might have a problem if the public 25 sits in on their meetings. 45 1 DISCUSSION 2 And I've got a problem with that, especially 3 where we are now, I have a real problem with that. 4 So I'm going to turn the question back on the GPA 5 and the Corps; how is it that we bring the SEG, in 6 lieu of the public along, you know? 7 Do all the meetings of the reconstituted MTRG 8 happen down here, so that we can attend them and 9 they're open to the public. I'm open to lots of 10 ideas, but I don't think that this business, as it 11 has been conducted regarding the model, is going to 12 cut it moving forward. 13 MR. DYSART: Judy. 14 MS. JENNINGS: In response to Will's question, 15 you know, maybe instead of us having meetings we 16 need to go to other meetings. But still, until we 17 figure out the lay of the land, and the 18 willingness, the ability of the other players to 19 work with us, I think we've lost some sense of our 20 mission, and who our partners are, and what our 21 relationship with those partners are. 22 I don't know how we're going to find those 23 answers without asking some questions. It could be 24 that we don't like the answers we get. 25 Again, I'm losing -- I don't see a map right 46 1 DISCUSSION 2 now. I don't see the map, so I think the Operating 3 Guidelines is -- I don't know where else to put it, 4 or in order to involve more people, it could be the 5 subject of an SEG meeting. 6 However, I will say this, the federal agencies 7 have their job to do, and the Corps has their job 8 to do, and I think they have, generally, been very 9 forthcoming with the SEG. We have federal agencies 10 here today. 11 However, the body of the SEG is advisory to 12 GPA. That fact doesn't change. I think if we can 13 just reevaluate the lay of the land, then we might 14 be better advisors. I think right now we don't 15 know who wants to come out and play or not. 16 You know, I think we've lost the lay of the 17 land just a little bit, but it doesn't absolve our 18 responsibility to and relationship with GPA. 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. Chris and then Will. 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: Since we're mapless and 21 compassless at this point, let me just say again 22 how much I appreciate Dave Schaller saying what he 23 said, reinforced, subsequently, by Larry -- Morgan 24 Rees saying and confirming that -- I'm sorry, 25 Morgan, after all these years -- 47 1 DISCUSSION 2 MR. REES: Well, I was referred to one time as 3 good old what's his name -- don't worry about it. 4 MR. SCHUBERTH: -- for confirming, for echoing 5 what David Schaller had said, and for Ken for 6 bringing this whole problem in a historical 7 perspective on to the table, in the manner that he 8 brought it on to the table, for us to look at it in 9 the sunlight. 10 And I think that's very, very, very important, 11 and for this I am truly, truly appreciative that 12 we've come, at least, come to this juncture, even 13 though we don't have a map and we don't have a 14 compass. 15 MR. DYSART: Will. 16 MR. BERSON: I actually was asking the 17 question but not rhetorically. I really would like 18 to hear how GPA and the Corps would address 19 confidence building in the next model, you know, 20 how ever the model process proceeds, because it's 21 -- it's difficult forcing your way into a party to 22 which you're not invited. I want to know exactly 23 the degree to which I'm invited to this party. 24 MR. SCHALLER: I'll be happy to try to answer 25 that question. 48 1 DISCUSSION 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. 3 MR. SCHALLER: You're going to have ask the 4 Corps to answer that question. You have always 5 been invited to our party everytime. With respect 6 to confidence building on the model, that's a 7 question for the Corps to answer. 8 The Corps is the lead federal agency on this 9 project. The GPA is not the lead federal agency. 10 We don't make the decisions, they do. 11 MR. BERSON: Well, I did ask it of both of 12 you. 13 MR. SCHALLER: Very good, and I took the 14 opportunity to go first. 15 MR. DYSART: I now recognize Ken. 16 MR. DERICKSON: I think the Corps has 17 operated, and will continue to operate, in the 18 spirit of cooperation and passing on information 19 and keeping people informed. Okay. 20 One of the difficulties that the Corps has 21 with this project is, first off, we are the lead 22 agency for the production of the EIS. 23 Okay. Let's make that clear for the record. 24 Having said that, because of FACA considerations, 25 we have to be very careful of the level of 49 1 DISCUSSION 2 interaction -- our role here, primarily is to -- 3 and this is the guidance I have to operate under, 4 okay, is to provide information to answer questions 5 and to discuss what our oversight responsibilities 6 are. 7 You know, our job on here is our federal 8 oversight on this project, particularly as it 9 relates to the EIS. So anything that goes into 10 that, you know, we feel responsibility, and we do 11 inform the public what the appropriate mechanism is 12 -- the MTRGs, y'all had those. 13 Everybody sat down discussed things, but my 14 understanding, there was still a lot of concerns 15 with that mechanism. 16 You know, how to involve the public in 17 technical meetings, you know, where people are 18 discussion technical issues, I haven't really 19 thought about that yet. You know, we can discuss 20 -- I'm open. 21 Basically, this is all about information, and 22 I think the Corps is willing to explore any way to 23 improve information flow, but there are -- there 24 have been constraints. 25 Just by the very nature of the project,. This 50 1 DISCUSSION 2 project is very, very unique. There's one other 3 project out there like it, and even it is a bit 4 different than this one. It's out in California. 5 And it's a very difficult situation where, you 6 know, the project is started out. GPA took the 7 initiative on the project, under section 203, and 8 then, you know, got a conditional authorization of 9 the project under the 204. 10 So there's no cost sharing agreements or 11 anything between the Corps or GPA at this point in 12 time. The primary focus right now is meeting the 13 conditions of the conditional authorization. 14 And that's production of the reevaluation 15 report and Tier II EIS. That complicates that 16 whole process. There's just -- it ain't the way we 17 normally do business. There's no other way to put 18 it. 19 So, you know, there's a lot of feeling, you 20 know, feeling our way along; what's appropriate, 21 what isn't appropriate. We have obligations to, 22 you know, look at the federal -- protect the 23 federal interest, the public interest. GPA has 24 similar responsibilities in terms of state and 25 everything. 51 1 DISCUSSION 2 The roles and responsibilities get a little 3 bit confusing sometimes, and that contributes to 4 it. So I think now, on this modelling, that the 5 federal agencies have made the decision, they have 6 stepped up to the plate, and now the burden is upon 7 us. 8 No longer do we point the finger at GPA. The 9 burden is upon the federal agencies, you know, to 10 make this work, and to get the information out, and 11 to build the confidence. We will do that. The 12 first step was to, you know, listen to what Chuck 13 Watson has said. He has a lot of good points. 14 There's a lot of things he can bring to the 15 table to help us make sure we develop a better 16 model, and that we understand what the outputs are 17 from the model, and how we can use them. 18 Chuck is kind of independent from the process, 19 so he brings a sort of outside perspective on 20 things, which I think will be very beneficial to 21 moving forward. So some of this stuff is going to 22 have evolve as we -- since we have now taken the 23 lead role federal agency, particularly the Corps 24 has taken the lead on trying to figure out what's 25 the best process to do that. 52 1 DISCUSSION 2 I don't have all the answers today. It's an 3 evolving process. Believe me, we are discussing 4 it. This is something we are very concerned about. 5 You know, the difficulties in communication in the 6 past, GPA is concerned about it, and we don't -- 7 we want to try to avoid those issues in the future. 8 So we're talking about it. We're trying to 9 get our thoughts together. And then, at some point 10 in time, I think we can come before the SEG, 11 present it to GPA, they can present it to you, we 12 can discuss it. 13 So I think, you know, we have a right to say 14 where we're going to go from here and to let y'all 15 know and let y'all have the appropriate input. 16 Long-winded answer, but there's no short answer. 17 MR. DYSART: Will, did you have a question, 18 comment, or are you holding back? Okay. Judy then 19 Chris, please. 20 MS. JENNINGS: I appreciate all of what Ken 21 said. I don't know, I hope y'all, back in July of 22 2001, read the memorandum of understanding. It's 23 been on the website ever since Colonel Schmitt, 24 two colonels ago signed it with Doug Marchand. 25 It's been there that long. 53 1 DISCUSSION 2 A lot of what Ken says, as the relationship 3 with the Corps, the SEG, the GPA come from that 4 document. It's not a very long document. It's not 5 very complicated, but it sets out just what Ken 6 said. 7 At the time I had a lot of grief with it. I 8 would've never signed it, but it wasn't my job to 9 say or do, but it is the document under which we 10 operate now. 11 However, having said that, in all of that 12 time, I've never ever called the Corps, asked the 13 Corps, done anything with the Corps without 14 completely satisfactory interaction and results. 15 So I think that the working pieces are on the 16 table. 17 They're on the table. So Ben, after 18 additional discussion, I'll ask again we take the 19 nail off the board and bring this to some 20 conclusion. Clearly, I think we all feel a void. 21 I'm going to plead with y'all, if you didn't 22 read that document in July of 2001, three years 23 ago, please refresh your memory. 24 It is exactly as Ken described. It is our 25 relationship with the Corps. It is our 54 1 DISCUSSION 2 relationship with GPA. It's spelled out. It's 3 what we got. 4 So all of these things are spelled out. 5 They're all there, about five or six pages of 6 paper. 7 You know what, I think maybe one of our 8 mistakes back then, we never ever, as a body, 9 addressed the implications of what the MOU of July 10 2001 meant to all of us. So after further 11 discussion, I'll ask to take that nail back off and 12 decide where to go from here. I think we all feel 13 we need to do something. 14 MR. DYSART: Recognize Chris, and after that 15 let's have about a 10 minute break. I think 16 probably you would like to chit chat. 17 MR. SCHUBERTH: I took my card down and put it 18 back up. From what Ken has said then, I guess we 19 are in uncharted waters, I guess, to some degree 20 as the SEG without a navigational map, and without 21 a compass. 22 I think, at this point, I agree 100% with 23 Judy to take the nail off the table, but to try to 24 turn the wheel away from foundering rocks, and 25 banks, and sail it forward towards Tahiti, in which 55 1 DISCUSSION 2 we have something that all of us can feel we 3 contributed to. 4 And like consensus building, we don't like the 5 total but we can live with it. So I agree 100% 6 with everything that's been said so far. 7 MR. DYSART: We want to put on the nail Chris' 8 suggestion for the next location for the next SEG 9 meeting -- Tahiti. Let's take about a 10 minute 10 break. 11 (Short Break) 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. If everybody will find 13 a way to their seats, we will reconvene. We'll 14 reconvene now, and I would suggest that if the 15 Corps folks are going to be leaving, in the very 16 near future, does anyone have anything they would 17 like to address to either Bill or Ken? 18 MS. KNIGHT: I want to make a request for 19 interviews. 20 MR. DYSART: Okay. Think about any comment or 21 what not. I would like to invite -- we have 22 someone else who joined us. I didn't notice her 23 coming in, and I would like for her to introduce 24 herself on the record, please. 25 MS. KNIGHT: For those of you that don't 56 1 DISCUSSION 2 remember me, my name is Laura Knight, and I'm a Phd 3 student at the University of Georgia. I'm working 4 on my dissertation, hopefully to finish in the next 5 nine months, but as part of my dissertation 6 research, I'm doing cultural surveys for the 7 participants of the Stakeholders Evaluation Group 8 meetings. 9 And so far I've interviewed some of you, in 10 this room, but I'm hopeful that I can get a good 11 representative sample. I'm trying for 35 of you, 12 in fact, because it equals 30 for statistical 13 significance, since some of you are bound to drop 14 out. 15 So if you don't mind, if I could have your 16 cooperation in getting a time slot to interview 17 you, I have copies in advance for questions. 18 They're non-controversial. They may have nothing 19 to do with what you do for a living, but the fact 20 that you are in these meetings still gives it a 21 cultural background for me. It puts everybody on 22 the same page. 23 For example, some of the questions might ask, 24 do you know the difference between short-nose 25 sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon? Well, obviously, 57 1 DISCUSSION 2 not everybody around this table is going to know 3 the answer to that question. That doesn't matter. 4 I'm just putting it in a cultural context so I 5 know where everybody is coming from. If you could 6 participate, I would really, really appreciate it 7 if after the meeting you could talk with me, give 8 me your e-mail or contact information, so I could, 9 perhaps, interview you. 10 You have total control of the data, unlike the 11 reporter. Since I have to report to a bigger 12 authority at UGA, human subjects requirements 13 require me to get your consent. You have total 14 control. So thank very much. I hope I can talk to 15 some of you after the meeting. 16 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Welcome. Not only do 17 we have peer review as being a regular issue, we 18 also get into the matter of informed consent and 19 all this kind of stuff. That's interesting. 20 Welcome. We appreciated your presentation 21 earlier and are happy to have you back. Okay. 22 Will Berson, or does anybody have any questions 23 directed to the Corps before they disappear in a 24 few minutes, including perhaps Will Berson? 25 MR. BERSON: If I heard Ken correctly, I think 58 1 DISCUSSION 2 that the answer to my question that I asked earlier 3 about where from here is something that y'all are 4 discussing. 5 I think it would be an absolutely important 6 agenda topic for our next meeting. I don't know 7 quite what the Operating Guidelines Committee 8 should do in the interim. 9 I'll leave that open to other discussions, but 10 I would certainly like to see this as an agenda 11 item for our next meeting. 12 MR. DYSART: This being what specifically? 13 MR. BERSON: Confidence building measures. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy Jennings. 15 MS. JENNINGS: I'm coming off a broken record 16 here, can we schedule -- is there a more 17 appropriate forum than the Operating Guidelines 18 Committee -- which of course can include any SEG 19 member, anybody interested in that process should 20 be included? So I have some other comments when 21 talking about scheduling the next SEG meeting. 22 MR. DYSART: It's been my understanding that, 23 in general, the committees were pretty well open to 24 anyone who had an interest in them. I just mention 25 that, that's my understanding, just for anyone who 59 1 DISCUSSION 2 has not been here since early on. 3 MS. JENNINGS: But still, it has to start 4 somewhere. If we could request of Teri to arrange 5 logistics and notification and be done with it. 6 MR. DYSART: You are requesting or suggesting 7 that the Operating Guideline's chair convene a 8 meeting, expedited manner, to discuss this, deal 9 with it, bring things back to the next meeting? 10 Okay. 11 MR. DYSART: Chris. 12 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think it's a great idea. 13 The only problem is that while it's open -- it's 14 Ben points out it's open to anybody, everybody 15 doesn't know. 16 If a meeting date and location and time is 17 being selected, how does everyone get to know this 18 meeting date and time and location is being 19 selected for them to consider attending that 20 meeting or not? 21 I mean, the Operating Guidelines Committee 22 consists of what, Teri, eight people, something 23 like that. 24 MS. LEFFEK: Close to that. 25 MR. SCHUBERTH: Eight, 10 people, they would 60 1 DISCUSSION 2 probably be maybe the decision-makers, but then if 3 John Doe wants to go or Sally Jane wants to go, how 4 will she know that this is being held? 5 MS. LEFFEK: It's usually posted on the 6 website. 7 MR. SCHUBERTH: It's posted on the website? 8 MS. LEFFEK: I mean up on updates listed on 9 the website and then they're flagged -- 10 MR. KEEGAN: A meeting announcement like -- 11 MS. LEFFEK: Right, a meeting announcement. 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. Considering the seeming 13 importance of this, is it possible to have -- 14 MS. MOORER: That's what I was going to offer. 15 As has been sent out, the last couple of messages 16 about the modelling meeting, Cathy and I can -- 17 primarily Cathy can send out, just forward up the 18 meeting announcement and we'll get it out to 19 everybody. 20 MS. VAUGHN: That we have correct e-mail 21 address for on. 22 MS. MOORER: If you see anybody on there or 23 you notice somebody is missing, forward it on to 24 them too. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. That would be 61 1 DISCUSSION 2 helpful. 3 MS. JENNINGS: That's a pretty good copy. I 4 replied off to it and only about 10 came back, so 5 it's a good copy list. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Ken. 7 MR. DERICKSON: I just want to thank everybody 8 for the experiences that I've had, the information 9 I've shared with you and everything. 10 I will probably -- this may be my last SEG 11 meeting, depending on have your next one next month 12 or September. Doug Plachy is scheduled to be 13 leaving Iraq on July 26th, will probably be back in 14 the office around mid August, and will assume, you 15 know, control of the reins. 16 When he comes back, there will be a transition 17 period. I'd just like to say this is a very, very 18 interesting project. It is very complex. Y'all 19 have a lot of issues you've got to deal with here. 20 However, having said all that, I think that, 21 as people have said, the process -- there is a 22 process. It is a good process and it does work. 23 There are bumps in the road. There are going 24 to be disagreements, but at the end of the day, you 25 know, we all put our heads together and we move 62 1 DISCUSSION 2 forward. So, you know, I'm very pleased to have 3 been part of this process, although it's been 4 temporary. 5 I've met a lot of interesting people. I've 6 learned a lot. There aren't many projects around 7 like this. To be involved with a project like this 8 is really, really a great thing. 9 I encourage y'all to keep up the good work, 10 and all. Y'all will get there. It may take a 11 little bit longer than you want but, you know, I 12 really enjoyed being part of the process. So if I 13 don't get to see again, you know, Godspeed and 14 thanks a lot. 15 MR. DYSART: Thank you, Ken. Any other 16 comments, questions of the Corps? Any other 17 comments, questions in general? Judy. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Just I appreciate the learning 19 curve Ken Derickson has gone through. I found a 20 great deal of sincerity and interest in it. I 21 appreciate it. 22 MR. DYSART: Other discussion, other -- 23 anything else concerning this matter, before we 24 move on? We'll be coming back to -- okay. We've 25 got -- we have a consensus to refer this to the 63 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT 2 Operating Guidelines Committee for them to have an 3 expedited meeting to discuss this, and GPA will 4 provide notification to all SEG members for whom 5 they have a good e-mail address. 6 Okay. Now, the next thing I see is Larry 7 Keegan talking about the general reevaluation 8 study status. 9 MR. KEEGAN: Well, there's not a lot more to 10 talk about than what we've been talking about. Let 11 me run through the other items other than the 12 model. 13 Coordination meetings, with the exception of 14 the meeting of the regional agency heads on the 15 21st on modelling, there were no other coordination 16 meetings that occurred in the last month. 17 Economics, you've heard the Economics Working 18 Group will be meeting this afternoon with GEC and 19 talking about world fleet projections. That's the 20 first step. There's nothing else to report on on 21 economics. 22 Aquifer work continues. I don't know if 23 anyone took advantage of the announcement about 24 being able to join them while they were doing some 25 landside borings. That's continuing. 64 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT 2 I think they're getting close to having one or 3 more test wells instrumented down, but I have to 4 talk to Card Smith. I haven't talked to him for a 5 couple of weeks. I'm not sure exactly where he is. 6 With those few exceptions, really, everyone 7 else's focus and time was taken up with trying to 8 deal with modelling. So I have nothing else really 9 to report. 10 I do apologize that the status report is not 11 on the website yet. I have it. I got into town 12 over the weekend, and I didn't get to post it. I 13 will fix this afternoon. 14 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Chris. 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: Larry, who are the 16 hydrogeology people on that project? 17 MR. KEEGAN: Pardon me? 18 MR. SCHUBERTH: The borings and the analysis 19 of everything, who are the hydrogeology people; 20 John Clark, and Jim Landmeyer and Camille Ransom -- 21 any of those folks? 22 MR. KEEGAN: They're all involved. 23 MR. SCHUBERTH: All of them -- anyone else? 24 MR. KEEGAN: Off the top of my head, I don't 25 recall. Chris, there's a report of a groundwater 65 1 ECONOMICS WORKING GROUP REPORT 2 coordination group meeting that has a whole list of 3 the people involved. 4 It's on the website. If you take a look, I 5 think it will give you, virtually, all the people 6 who are routinely involved. 7 MR. SCHUBERTH: And their affiliations? 8 MR. KEEGAN: I'm sure you'll recognize them 9 all. I don't think there's any surprise names, but 10 yeah, they should have affiliations with them. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. That seems to get us to 12 committee reports. Chris, Aquifer. 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: No report. 14 MR. DYSART: So that's twice as good a report 15 as Bill Farmer. 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: Yes, reduced the verbiage by 17 50%. 18 MR. DYSART: Beach Erosion's taken care of, 19 Fred. 20 MR. BEASON: No report. 21 MR. DYSART: Economics Working Group, Judy. 22 MS. JENNINGS: Larry mentioned it, I don't 23 know that I can add anything to it. Meeting 24 this afternoon at 1:00 p.m. at GPA Administration 25 Building. I'd love for y'all to come. 66 1 ECONOMICS WORKING GROUP REPORT 2 Ken Derickson provided me with the existing 3 world fleet and the prospective world fleet. 4 Honest to goodness I read this. The tables are 5 fascinating. 6 I know I must be boring as hell to love this, 7 but it is really interesting. Also, other things 8 we'll be talking about today are other economic 9 study tasks, commodity projections, the vessel 10 fleet projections, benefit calculation, methodology 11 and model, multiport analysis and regional port 12 analysis. 13 I don't think those will all be talked about 14 in equal depth, but Larry helped me get -- Larry 15 put all this on the website, and Larry also helped 16 me get the minutes from the January Economic 17 Working Group meeting posted. 18 And so I'll never be so deficient in that 19 again, even though I don't know quite how to do it 20 better, but promise to do better. I'd love for 21 y'all to come to the 1:00 o'clock meeting if you 22 can. 23 The thing is, there's lots of port projects 24 around the country that are criticized for their 25 economics analysis. Here we are, and you know 67 1 ECONOMICS WORKING GROUP REPORT 2 what, that's thing about this, where is the 3 modelling? It may seem close to rocket science. 4 You may have to read some of these paragraphs 5 twice, but anybody in here can understand this 6 stuff. It's not rocket science. 7 MR. SCHUBERTH: Where is the meeting being 8 held? 9 MS. JENNINGS: GPA Administration Building. 10 Just come sign in with the security guard, Cathy 11 will come -- 12 MS. VAUGHN: The trade development conference 13 room, right before you get to the new conference 14 center training room, it will be the room on the 15 left. It is somewhat small. We're going to see 16 how many we can get in there. 17 MS. JENNINGS: The Corps has a variety of work 18 products. There are other work products in the 19 stream. They haven't gone through all the internal 20 Corps reviews, so there will be other stuff for us 21 to look at. 22 I really beg y'all to pay this some serious 23 attention. This project has some tender spots, 24 the water quality and the aquifer, those are very 25 tenders spots, but this one in port development 68 1 DISCUSSION 2 projects, the economic analysis is seriously looked 3 at. 4 So it's being made available to us as 5 regularly as possible, and there are consultants 6 here today to answer questions and provide 7 additional information. I know this may look 8 boring, but it is really super cool. 9 MR. DYSART: Glowing review like that, 10 probably have to get copies made for everybody. 11 Okay. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Will 12 Berson. 13 MR. BERSON: We have not met, however, I have 14 had some folks on the Fisheries Committee suggest 15 it is time to meet. I'm going to be in the process 16 of setting up a meeting. Joel, I'd like to get 17 your e-mail, Mr. Prusa, yours as well, to make sure 18 you're included. 19 Anyone else that wants to be included, you 20 think I might not have your e-mail, please let me 21 know. I would love to do this before the next SEG 22 meeting, whenever that ends up being. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. Larry, do we have anything 24 else from MTRG or any additional -- 25 MR. KEEGAN: No, we don't. That group has 69 1 DISCUSSION 2 sort of been overcome by the federal agencies and 3 all of the things that have gone on about 4 modelling, so there's nothing to report. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Chris. 6 MR. SCHUBERTH: If, for what Larry says, this 7 MTRG has been overcome by federal agencies, what 8 does that mean for six months down the road? 9 MR. KEEGAN: I honestly don't know, Chris. 10 The -- I guess it was now almost last summer, in 11 the last MTRG meeting, the federal agencies talked 12 to the rest of the members of the MTRG. 13 I think there was an agreement consensus 14 reached that the decisions, many decisions would 15 have to be made by the federal agencies, who would 16 then come back to the MTRG and tell me what was 17 going on and what was happening. 18 Help me out, Bob, if you can -- you were 19 there, I think. So much of the work about 20 modelling and technical development was being 21 looked at reviewed by the federal agencies, and the 22 MTRG periodic meetings were sort of put on hold for 23 a while. 24 Now, what's going to happen in the future, as 25 we're now trying to move on with EFDC and WQASP 70 1 DISCUSSION 2 calibration, is what we're all trying to figure 3 out. 4 How do we encompass not just federal agencies, 5 but federal agencies, state agencies, 6 municipalities, other organizations? 7 We're trying to figure that out, because what 8 we had was a very difficult set of groups working 9 on this thing, all trying to do it at the same 10 time. It made the process much more difficult -- 11 fair description? 12 MR. SCANLON: I would say that's a fair 13 statement. I think one of the driving issues was 14 the TMDL issue, the water quality standard issue in 15 the harbor was a kind of tag-along issue, 16 initially, on the project. 17 The model that was being developed was going 18 to be used for both purposes with the TMDL being 19 secondary. However, due to some deadlines, EPA has 20 basically been the federal agency that took the 21 lead on the model development. 22 They are under deadlines on TMDLs so that the 23 TMDL issue, in the model development, has actually 24 come to the forefront and is now the driving issue, 25 which is part of the reason, I believe, for the 71 1 DISCUSSION 2 delay in getting the final report for the 3 hydrodynamic model, for the deepening, is because 4 the efforts are, right now, on modelling are being 5 focused on TMDLs in the EPA shop. 6 So that has become kind of the driving force 7 right now. Their deadline is August. My 8 discussions with Jim Greenfield is they will meet 9 those deadlines. They will be back probably 10 September, October. They will be back full-time 11 back into this side of the project. 12 MR. KEEGAN: Does that answer your question? 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: Well then as a group, like the 14 other groups, Fisheries and Aquatics, it stays on 15 the agenda with Bo Ellis serving as committee 16 chair. 17 It's activity is suspended for -- I'm just 18 trying to, you know, in terms of being consistent 19 with committees and so forth. 20 MR. KEEGAN: My opinion, this is only my 21 opinion because we haven't reached any kind of 22 agreement, I think the MTRG will likely sort of 23 remain inactive for a while, until we can figure 24 out if there's a viable way to make it work better, 25 be more integrated. We'll come back then with a 72 1 DISCUSSION 2 suggestion for how to do that. 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: With a spokesperson? 4 MR. KEEGAN: We'll certainly try to get 5 someone to be a spokesperson. There aren't many 6 volunteers for that position, but yes. 7 MR. SCHUBERTH: A report has to made, 8 theoretically, even if it's two words like no 9 report. 10 MR. KEEGAN: Yes. We'll have somebody 11 responsible for that I'm sure. 12 MR. DYSART: Are you saying to continue that 13 item in the agenda or suspend it? 14 MR. KEEGAN: I think for right now it can be 15 considered roughly the same as the Aquifer 16 Committee. They're not active. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. That's helpful to me. 18 Judy. 19 MS. JENNINGS: In consultation with the 20 chairman of the Operating Guidelines Committee, I'd 21 like to say that I realize that the model has 22 changed, but I think part of what we need to talk 23 about in Operating Guidelines is Plan A, Plan B, 24 Plan C. Who cares? 25 It's still an issue that we all need to be 73 1 DISCUSSION 2 informed about and reorganization of different 3 spokesman, I don't really care. 4 I think, you know, we may be setting ourselves 5 up for another piece of how did this happen, if the 6 MTRG, whatever we want to call it -- X Y Z -- 7 disappears as an entity. 8 MR. KEEGAN: I'm not suggesting it does. 9 MS. JENNINGS: I know you didn't, however-- 10 MR. KEEGAN: It's just inactive. 11 MS. JENNINGS: -- whatever its activity is, 12 it's still an SEG function. 13 MR. KEEGAN: Absolutely. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Operating Guidelines. 15 Teri. 16 MS. LEFFEK: I have no report, but I will at a 17 future time. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. We'll look forward to 19 that. Thank you. How about Striped Bass 20 Committee? 21 MR. FLEMING: Nothing to report at this time. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. And new business, I 23 presume have we talked enough about modelling? My 24 presumption would be that we have. 25 Next item would appear to be when we wish to 74 1 BALLAST WATER UPDATE 2 meet next. Morgan. 3 MR. REES: I do have one other quick update, 4 ballast water. Again, this is just an update. 5 Anybody can read this from the Federal Register of 6 June 14th. A rule that the Coast Guard published 7 on penalties for violating the requirement to 8 report ballast water discharges. You may recall 9 that all the reporting used to be voluntary. It is 10 now mandatory. 11 There are some penalties for non-compliance, 12 $27,500 per incident, and if it's done 13 intentionally it's a felony, whatever that means. 14 But in that regulation, and publication of that 15 regulation, the Coast Guard also noted the status 16 of a couple of other proposed regulations, several 17 of which have already had drafts published. 18 One was to propose mandatory ballast water 19 management practices. Another was to encourage the 20 installation and testing of ballast water treatment 21 techniques. 22 And then the third was establishing water 23 quality standards for ballast water discharges, and 24 I notice they have also started a problematic 25 environmental impact statement. 75 1 BALLAST WATER UPDATE 2 So anybody, specifically interested in that 3 issue, there's a lot of good stuff in this June 4 14th publication. You might want to look at it, 5 and it's an opportunity to participate in the Coast 6 Guard establishing these rules. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Will Berson. 8 MR. BERSON: I was just curious, would GPA 9 comment on these sort of things? Is this an 10 operational issue for y'all, or is that normally 11 just a concern of the shippers? I was just 12 curious. 13 MR. REES: I didn't catch all the question. 14 MR. BERSON: I was asking would GPA, 15 typically, comment on ballast water regs or do you 16 consider that to be the products of shippers? 17 MR. REES: David hasn't read this. I would 18 say that typically GPA is a member of the American 19 Association of Port Authorities. They have 20 endorsed this process and support it. The ports 21 generally get together and, through the American 22 Association of Port Authorities, play in this 23 process. 24 And their fundamental positions, which is also 25 on the American Association of Port Authorities' 76 1 BALLAST WATER UPDATE 2 own website, if you're interested in looking at 3 that, is strongly in favor of this stuff. 4 MR. BERSON: I was just curious. I didn't 5 know what the involvement usually is. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Actually, I'll mention -- what 7 is the deadline for comment? 8 MR. REES: Pardon me. 9 MS. JENNINGS: What is the deadline for 10 comment? 11 MR. REES: This is the final rule for 12 penalties. The others tell you -- let's see. Some 13 of these have been published. One was a year ago, 14 July 30th, 2003. Another one was May 22nd, 2001. 15 So, you know, the Coast Guard is moving at 16 glacial speed on these things. And frankly, it's 17 been my experience in doing rule makings, even 18 though you publish a deadline, if somebody comments 19 after the deadline the comment counts. 20 Until they have actually published the final 21 rule -- yeah, we're just talking here. Larry is 22 going to scan this and post it on the website. 23 MS. JENNINGS: I thought that was interesting 24 because there were a variety of options that could 25 be used. 77 1 MEETING SCHEDULE 2 MR. DYSART: Hope, did you have a comment? 3 MS. MOORER: I was going to say the same thing 4 about having it posted to the website. There was 5 one, if you go and look where the final rule at the 6 DOT website, you can enter the docket number and 7 actually see all the comments that were made on it 8 as well. 9 It's pretty amazing how they have that set up. 10 If anybody is interested in that website address, 11 you can talk to me afterwards. I'll give it to 12 you. 13 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Next meeting date, 14 suggestions. 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: September. 16 MS. JENNINGS: I'll make a comment about that. 17 I think possibly one of the reasons that we find 18 ourselves in a -- in a bit of a drift is that it's 19 been three months since we met. I realize that was 20 because of the G8. 21 MR. DYSART: Yes. 22 MS. JENNINGS: But with -- I think we need to 23 reevaluate the frequency of the SEG meetings, 24 because the Corps is the lead agency, GPA is not 25 even a participating federal agency. You know, 78 1 MEETING SCHEDULE 2 this might be a very useful forum, not just for the 3 NGOs and the cities, but it might be a -- we could 4 make it a more useful forum. I'm suggesting we 5 consider meeting more frequently. 6 MR. DYSART: Let me suggest that we separate 7 this and focus, initially, on kind of the next 8 meeting. I think that's an issue later, perhaps, 9 we can talk about general frequency. So what's the 10 view about the next meeting? September is 11 mentioned. Do you have specific recommendation. 12 MS. JENNINGS: I think it needs to be after 13 the Operating Guidelines meeting. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. I presume that's -- Teri. 15 MS. LEFFEK: If we do September, I would 16 rather do a recommendation of the 14th that's in 17 parentheses there. I mean, September has been 18 mentioned. That would be better than the 7th. 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. September has been 20 mentioned, two months. 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: I agree with Judy. I've been 22 one of the advocates for continuing to meeting on 23 a regular basis. The only reason I didn't suggest 24 August the first go-around, that's still the 25 summer, and it may not be attractive to other 79 1 MEETING SCHEDULE 2 folks. The 14th also, because it's a Tuesday after 3 the Tuesday of Labor Day, so that makes sense. But 4 then I do think to follow-up on what Judy said, 5 after this, for this to go into the minutes, after 6 this we meet monthly again, so that the next 7 meeting would be October and there on in. 8 MS. JENNINGS: I agree with Chris. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. So September is on the 10 table -- September 14th. Consensus on that. Okay. 11 Next meeting will be September the 14th, same time 12 same place. Anything else for the benefit of the 13 cause? If not, we stand convened. Thank you. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 80 1 2 3 4 C E R T I F I C A T E 5 G E O R G I A : 6 CHATHAM COUNTY: 7 I hereby certify that the foregoing 8 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 9 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 10 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 11 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 79 represent 12 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 13 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 14 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 15 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 16 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 17 anywise interested in the result of said case. 18 This, the 5th day of August, 2004. 19 20 21 ________________________ 22 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court Reporter, B-2041 23 24 25