1 2 3 4 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP 5 6 MEETING 7 OF 8 NOVEMER 13, 2007 9 10 11 12 MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE MUSEUM 13 POOLER, GEORGIA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 I N D E X 4 5 6 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3 7 8 ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION 9 BEACH EROSION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ---- 6 10 11 Milestones Update - Hope Moorer ----------- 134 12 Economic Analysis Update - Alan Garrett --- 139 13 Air Quality - Bill Bailey ----------------- 144 14 Next Meeting Date ------------------------- 162 15 16 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 164 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 (THE REPORTER: I am appearing here today 3 on behalf of my employer, Tom Crites & 4 Associates. My office was requested by Georgia 5 Ports Authority's office to provide a court 6 reporter today at 9:00 a.m. at this address. 7 Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well 8 as the instructions of my employer, I wish to 9 disclose that, other than accepting to serve as 10 your reporter, we have not entered into any 11 other contractual agreement with any party 12 involved in this case.) 13 MR. DYSART: Good morning. I'd like to 14 call the meeting of the Stakeholders Evaluation 15 Group to order. You have a draft agenda in 16 front of you, and if you have not looked at 17 that, take a look at it while we're introducing 18 ourselves. And Bill Bailey, why don't you 19 start? Speak up nice and loud, say who you are 20 and who you're representing, and we'll come 21 around this way 22 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of 23 Engineers. 24 MR. GARRETT: Alan Garrett, also with the 25 Corps of Engineers. 4 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, myself. 3 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Island. 4 MR. PARSONS: Keith Parsons, Georgia DNR 5 EPD. 6 MS. COLVIN: Elizabeth Colvin, Georgia 7 DNR. 8 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia Wildlife 9 Federation. 10 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, US Fish 11 and Wildlife Service. 12 MS. GRIESS: Jane Griess, US Fish and 13 Wildlife Service. 14 MR. WOOLF: Wesley Woolf, Center for 15 a Sustainable Coast. 16 MR. WILLIS: Steve Willis, Center for a 17 Sustainable Coast. 18 MR. KYLER: Dave Kyler, Center for a 19 Sustainable Coast. 20 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 21 Authority. 22 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for 23 Georgia Ports. 24 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia 25 Ports Authority. 5 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant for 3 Georgia Ports. 4 MS. MALLOY: Andrea Malloy, Coastal 5 Conservation League, South Carolina. 6 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 7 Authority. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Leon Tomlinson, Savannah 9 Sierra Club. 10 MS. GRAINEY: Karen Grainey, Savannah 11 Riverkeepers. 12 MR. DYSART: Ben Dysart, SEG Facilitator. 13 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, The Georgia 14 Conservancy. 15 MR. DAVY: Kay Davy, NOAA Fisheries. 16 MR. WRIGHT: And Tom Wright, local 17 citizen. 18 MR. DYSART: Thank you. We have a nice 19 nice group here. David Kyler is ganging up us. 20 He has got his gang of three over there. We'll 21 see what additional wisdom that brings to the 22 group this morning. 23 MR. KYLER: May interject here? I'd like 24 to kind of call a prayer vigil paralleling the 25 governor, instead of praying for water praying 6 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 for better leadership. 3 MR. DYSART: Better leadership where? 4 MR. KYLER: In Georgia. 5 MR. DYSART: On the part of the 6 facilitator, I knew I could depend on your 7 prayers, David. Okay, thank you. It's nice to 8 see Wes Woolf. 9 I think Wes has been here before and 10 there's been a bit of an absence. Nice to see 11 you here again, Wes. 12 Okay. You've had an opportunity to look 13 briefly, at least, at the agenda for today. 14 Are there any additions or changes or what not? 15 I think Bill Farmer indicated that he 16 wanted some additional discussion, and I 17 suggested -- I'm not speaking for him -- I 18 suggested to him if it related to -- related to 19 or was similar to, or in some way related to 20 what Will will be presenting, I suggested that 21 perhaps we see what was covered there, and then 22 Bill would reserve the right to carry on some 23 discussion, on topics that were not covered, to 24 his satisfaction. 25 That would be better than trying to guess 7 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 what was going to be covered and so forth. Is 3 that acceptable to you, Bill? 4 MR. FARMER: Absolutely. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. With that 6 caveat, is there any further changes or 7 comments about the proposed agenda for us to 8 operate under this morning? 9 Seeing none, we will consider the draft 10 agenda now to be accepted for our meeting. 11 You've had an opportunity to look at the 12 September transcript of the meeting online. 13 Are there any changes or errors that need 14 to be put on the record for clarification? 15 Seeing none, we will consider that the 16 September 2007 transcript, as posted, is 17 adopted and accepted by this group. 18 Okay. Moving on to old business, cruising 19 forward here, right out of the box we have Will 20 Berson, operating guidelines discussion and 21 I'll turn it over to you, Will. Any kind of 22 background or introduction, what not, you care 23 to present, please do so. 24 MR. BERSON: Okay. I think everybody at 25 their chair has a copy of a memo from me dated 8 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 October 3rd, and it discussed, in part, the 3 last SEG meeting where we discussed the Beach 4 Erosion Committee's report. 5 And the purpose of this memo is to bring 6 to your attention the number of other reports 7 that we have not, as a group, addressed. And 8 the thought was because we addressed the Beach 9 Erosion Committee's report, that in order to be 10 consistent, we should be looking at these other 11 reports. 12 I tried to explain in the beginning of 13 this memo what that kind of means. We 14 appreciate that not everyone has the expertise 15 to address these reports and say that they are 16 completely valid, and that you agree with the 17 conclusions. The question is somewhat broader, 18 which is; have these reports addressed the 19 topic that the SEG or regulatory requirements 20 have asked that they address? 21 And just to back up a step the reason, of 22 course, is that many folks from agencies are 23 not in a position to speak for their agencies, 24 and many of us will be discussing things that I 25 certainly will admit are beyond my technical 9 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 comprehension. 3 So we're not actually asking for 4 agreement, in the sense that you agree with the 5 conclusions, and that you agree with everything 6 that's in the report. We're asking if the 7 reports reflect the assignment, in a sense. 8 I would be happy for other folks, on the 9 Operating Guidelines, to fill in if they feel 10 like I haven't expressed this assignment 11 accurately. Anybody? 12 MR. DYSART: Dave Kyler. 13 MR. KYLER: I apologize for not making it 14 to the meeting. I would have made it if I 15 could have. I sympathize with the difficulty 16 of approaching this issue. 17 It seems to me the words properly address 18 implies some sort of an assessment of the 19 report is being -- covering the issue 20 sufficiently. 21 And I -- I don't know whether that's what 22 you intend to say by that. Because until you 23 are able to evaluate it, because of technical 24 requirements in order to do that and to 25 endorse that it does, at least, cover the 10 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 issue, even if you don't agree with the 3 recommendations, I would hesitate to use the 4 words properly address. 5 To use that phrase, I'm a bit stymied or 6 puzzled by the distinction you're making and 7 with the language you're using. You see what 8 I'm saying? 9 MR. BERSON: Uh-huh. I'm open to 10 wordsmithing. I've got no problem with that. 11 MR. KYLER: Say something like it seems to 12 address it, or at least in some aspect of -- 13 because some of these have nuances or 14 complexities that are not obvious to the 15 non-technical person. And to say that they're 16 properly addressed would be misleading without 17 having it all. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. Further guidance 19 from the guidelines group? Steve. 20 MR. WILLIS: I would think that if this 21 group gives a nod at least, the issues that we 22 brought up have been looked at, even if it's 23 only that; I think it's going to give the 24 appearance that whatever report we're talking 25 about has sort of been kind of approved. 11 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 I don't think that's escapable. I think 3 to do an authentic job of reviewing these 4 reports, I think the group is going to have to 5 come up with some kind of method to review them 6 in such a way that it can say, we don't have 7 any real challenge with that report; otherwise, 8 we'll always be going back to the starting 9 point. 10 I think what we should do is on each 11 report, we should have a group of people, from 12 the SEG look at it, decide on whether it needs 13 technical vetting, and if it does need 14 technical vetting, come up with a way to get it 15 vetted. 16 In other words, these reports being 17 developed by the Ports Authority, basically, 18 they -- they need to be critically reviewed 19 like an academic review. 20 And I think that some process for getting 21 knowledgeable people, that are known for 22 understanding these particular issues, to look 23 at them to give a third-party point of view, 24 very similar to an academic vetting process, is 25 certainly warranted in this case. 12 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 This whole project is so much more 3 important than an academic paper. We won't 4 make the state review an academic paper for 5 these reports. I think that's selling 6 ourselves short. 7 MR. DYSART: Hope and then Bill. 8 MS. MOORER: I just wanted to make a 9 clarification that these reports, or this work, 10 were not something that was come up with by the 11 Georgia Ports Authority to do. 12 These reports and studies were identified 13 by the SEG, or agencies or the Corps of 14 Engineers, as necessary for the study for the 15 work. I just wanted to make that 16 clarification. 17 MR. DYSART: Bill. 18 MR. FARMER: Okay. I think the broad 19 question what is the current function of the 20 SEG? The Operating Guidelines indicate we have 21 two functions. One is to be a public forum, 22 and we have been doing that. 23 The second function is to be an advisory 24 group to the GPA. So I think the basic 25 question is when do we provide this advice? Do 13 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 we provide it as we go along, or is there some 3 final document, at the tail-end, where we all 4 put our advice together and give it to GPA, or 5 whether or not we really want to do that 6 anymore? 7 So I think that's my concern. And I 8 think it should be our concern as to, you know, 9 why would we want to look at these reports at 10 all, if we are not going to do anything other 11 than just accept them? 12 We can accept them. There's no commitment 13 there. There's no decision there. There's 14 some doubt as to what accepting means. Should 15 they be reviewed by somebody or whatever? 16 So I guess the basic question is, how do 17 we provide advice to the GPA, and how do you 18 see that happening? 19 MR. DYSART: It seems like -- I think we 20 have more discussion here, but it seems like 21 we've got a couple of views. One is that we 22 want to be careful not to say any more than 23 is fully justified, sort in the spirit of 24 noting and accepting and, you know, this is 25 relating to topics. 14 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 And then we're talking about independent, 3 third-party peer review, so forth. Another 4 layer of that -- another layer is not used in a 5 pejorative sense -- I think that's two very 6 different things. 7 I would hope and I would like to get a 8 sense, from around the table, of sort of which 9 direction the body would like to go on this? 10 MR. KYLER: Point of clarification, I 11 don't see it as mutually exclusive. I think 12 one adds to the other. 13 Steve's comment about a peer review, 14 technical review, and technical counterpart to 15 that is not done instead of the other thing. 16 As the SEG receives these reports, they would 17 say something about on the nature of the path 18 that Will and the guidelines committee was 19 on -- 20 MR. DYSART: I realize there's a continuum 21 there. I was trying to point out there was the 22 polar positions. One is simply noting and 23 accepting as information. Yes, this dealt with 24 whatever caveats, so forth, versus a Good 25 Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Morgan. 15 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 MR. REES: I'll defer to Tom, if he wants. 3 He's got his card up as well. 4 MR. WRIGHT: In my view, this is a public 5 project. It's a public project that's led by 6 the Army of Corps of Engineers as the principle 7 agency, and there is a significant number of 8 other government agencies that have 9 participating functions in it. 10 And they're the ones that put together the 11 final framework and reports and submit them up 12 the line. The Stakeholders Evaluation Group 13 was formed, at the beginning of project, 14 partially by statements in public law to 15 include the local community, and all the 16 stakeholders, and give them the opportunity to 17 consider the scope and applicability of the 18 different reports, and also to work on the 19 mitigation plan. 20 That's a significant part of it, but the 21 results, of this Stakeholders Evaluation Group, 22 and the information contained therein, are 23 provided to the principle and all of the 24 supporting agencies through the minutes of this 25 meeting. 16 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 And that's the basic mechanism that we've 3 been using for quite some time, with everyone 4 given the opportunity to make comments, and the 5 agencies dealing with those as part of their 6 process in finishing the reports that are 7 necessary for this Savannah Harbor Expansion. 8 MR. REES: To put a little bit more 9 context around the discussion, this issue was 10 brought up several times in the past. And 11 those of you who have better memories than I 12 probably recall, through some of the 13 transcripts, but there seemed to be a consensus 14 for all the technical issues involved, this 15 group would not have the specific technical 16 expertise to deal with them in a substantive 17 way, and that was recognized. 18 The Corps of Engineers has an external 19 technical review requirement on all of the 20 studies, and I defer to the Corps guys to 21 describe that as best they can. But it is -- I 22 just want to make a point that there is an 23 external technical review that, you know, you 24 could argue whether it meets the standard of 25 academic peer review or not, but there is a 17 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 requirement for that. 3 There's also, at least, I infer from 4 Tom's comments, there is technical expertise 5 among the other agencies that are involved in 6 this. 7 As Hope said a minute ago, these weren't 8 studies developed by GPA. They were studies 9 requested by this group and others and they 10 weren't done by GPA. 11 They were done by people, again I'll defer 12 to the Corps, mostly under contract with the 13 Corps, who have the appropriate expertise, and 14 that work is subjected to an internal review. 15 I don't want to put the Corps guys on the 16 spot, but can you explain the external review 17 process? 18 MR. GARRETT: We have both internal 19 technical review and what's called peer review 20 external. All of the studies, when they go to 21 internal technical review, they also undergo 22 the peer review external. We have the 23 Mobile District that serves as the navigation 24 center. 25 We've got a huge matrix of the studies, 18 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 who does the technical reviews, either internal 3 or external. Card Smith's aquifer report is a 4 good example of that. 5 It was peer reviewed by ex-USGS employees 6 and academia, a retired professor, and the same 7 thing is going to happen to economics in the 8 full report. 9 The model was also peer reviewed by the 10 Waterways Experimentation Station, ERDC, the 11 Engineering Research and Design Center, and 12 others. 13 So all of these reports are being reviewed 14 internally and externally. It's part of the 15 Corps' requirement. Anything to add, Bill? 16 MR. BAILEY: The internal reviews and some 17 of the external reviews are being conducted as 18 we go along. There will also be an external 19 review of the entire general reevaluation 20 report and the EIS. When the public's reviewed 21 those, they will also be sent to this external 22 review team. 23 MR. DYSART: Bill. 24 MR. FARMER: When we first started as an 25 SEG group it appeared that, at some point, this 19 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 would work its way up to some final 3 decision maker as to whether the project 4 proceeds or does not proceed. 5 And that whoever that group is that makes 6 that decision, it was assumed that they would 7 ask a question; well, what do all the 8 stakeholders have to say about the project? 9 Now, maybe that's the wrong assumption. 10 Maybe that question will never get asked. But 11 assuming that it would be asked, what would be 12 our reply? 13 Well, the stakeholders accepted reports 14 and they heard reports and so forth. And the 15 question then would say well, what does that 16 mean? Does that mean that the stakeholders 17 approve it or not approve it or they just don't 18 want to say? 19 It seems like an awkward position, so I 20 would think we would want to know that and act 21 accordingly, whatever that is. If they're not 22 going to ask the question, I don't think 23 there's an issue. If that question does get 24 asked, I think there ought to be a good answer. 25 MR. DYSART: Would you differentiate 20 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 between the question by the -- I think there 3 are what, three or four senior government 4 decision makers, federal agencies? They're 5 asking the question what did people think 6 versus are they -- is the mitigation program 7 acceptable to the group? Is that what you kind 8 of tease out; what's the question that you 9 think is most important? 10 MR. FARMER: Okay. I guess there would be 11 two questions. One is does everyone agree that 12 the projected impact is as stated, and then the 13 second question would be does the mitigation 14 plan adequately address the expected impacts? 15 The stakeholders, each one has in their 16 perception how that impacts them. So they 17 should each say that they agree or disagree 18 with those two findings somehow. 19 MR. DYSART: I might ask Morgan, or Judy, 20 or people -- Morgan has said he's -- doesn't 21 have a perfect memory, but what is the nature 22 of the, you know, the information that the 23 senior federal decision makers are wanting? 24 Can you shed light on this, either or both 25 of you? Judy, why don't you go first -- how's 21 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 your memory this morning? 3 MS. JENNINGS: I was late, I apologize. 4 Let me understand your question. The senior 5 decision makers, what do they want from the SEG 6 or what do they want from individual studies? 7 MR. DYSART: From the SEG. 8 MS. JENNINGS: From the SEG. Well, I've 9 from day one, and y'all know how far that goes 10 back, I've never been clear, in my mind, about 11 how we would separate NGOs, interested 12 citizens, from agencies within the SEG. 13 Because in front of the major 14 decision makers, they're going to have 15 documents, letters, you know, Fisheries, 16 Marine, EPA and the Corps, they're going to 17 have those letters, and I think they may look 18 for a similar letter from the SEG, but I've 19 always known they may not get it. 20 So I don't know. I can see some 21 situations where you would have all four of 22 those federal agencies, some with zeal, some 23 possibly with reluctance, but still signing one 24 paper; whereas you might have a lot of the 25 other faces, I see at the table today, not 22 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 being happy with that letter -- that decision. 3 So consensus, from this extremely diverse 4 group, has also been a bit of a conundrum to 5 me. 6 MR. DYSART: I want to focus on the 7 committee wording of whatever. Bill has 8 brought up an interesting point, an important 9 point here, impacts and mitigation. Now, what 10 is the focus? Morgan, do you -- can you -- I 11 think can we take that back to where this came 12 from? 13 MR. REES: Well, the best I can do is go 14 back to the origin of the concept of an SEG, 15 and the language that was worked out in an 16 interagency way. 17 Let's see where we are, maybe nine years 18 ago, and the language is on the website. It's 19 in the Tier I Feasibility Report, pages 129 to 20 131, or something like that. I've referred to 21 them so many times -- 130 to 132. 22 I think it says, essentially, that this 23 group would try to reach a consensus, as Bill 24 pointed out, on the studies necessary. 25 MR. DYSART: Uh-huh. 23 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 MR. REES: I think the transcripts of the 3 activities of the SEG show, in several places, 4 that you asked the question, Mr. Facilitator, 5 are there anymore studies that anybody knows of 6 that are needed? And there was at least head 7 nodding that there weren't any further studies 8 that people thought were required. 9 And so we, at that -- at several instances 10 there, thought we had got to that point of the 11 SEG process that all the studies had been 12 identified. 13 MR. DYSART: Uh-huh. 14 MR. REES: And those studies are going on. 15 Then the next step would be to develop a 16 mitigation plan, based on those studies and 17 other information, and see if we could reach 18 consensus on what the mitigation plan ought to 19 be, and then to report that, you know, come to 20 a conclusion as a group. 21 But there is also a provision in there 22 that, if we were unable to reach a consensus, 23 an individual member of the SEG, could state 24 their view so that there wasn't a requirement 25 for consensus. 24 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 There was certainly -- my understanding, 3 when we developed the terms of the SEG, there 4 was a strong intention to work hard for a 5 consensus, but always recognizing that the 6 possible outcome was we may not reach a 7 consensus, but we did provide for an 8 opportunity for -- I don't want to call it a 9 minority report because, you know, it depends 10 on how many people agree with the mitigation 11 plan or not whether it's a minority. 12 At least there's an opportunity, for any 13 of the participants in the SEG, to dissent to 14 whatever conclusion others in the SEG may 15 reach, or if we don't reach a consensus on what 16 the ultimate plan is that's recommended. 17 I want to stress a couple of other things 18 too, while we're on the subject. The terms of 19 operation of the SEG -- and this is ancient 20 history that some of you may not know -- were 21 developed jointly. 22 These were not developed by GPA. In fact, 23 the SEG was not even the original idea of GPA. 24 The idea came from, I believe, Georgia EPD. 25 Wallace Barrett had suggested at a meeting we 25 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 try to head in that direction. 3 We thought okay, that's a good idea. But 4 the terms, that appear in the final Tier I 5 Feasibility Report, were developed through a 6 series of interagency meetings that actually 7 took place in Atlanta. I don't remember if it 8 was at Fish and Wildlife Service or EPA -- one 9 of those two. 10 This is a consensus approach to 11 problem-solving that was hammered out, among 12 the federal and state agencies, nine years ago. 13 Now, where that leads in terms of what the 14 individual agencies expect, at the end of the 15 process, I just have to defer to the individual 16 agencies in terms of what their expectations 17 were at that time and what they are now. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. Just -- just for 19 information, by my count we've got seven state 20 -- state and federal agencies representatives 21 sitting here. We've got 14 NGOs or interested 22 citizens and we've got five people from GPA. 23 So it would appear that the majority of 24 people in here today are citizens and NGOs, and 25 let's make sure we hear from -- I have, from a 26 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 sense of history, gathered that the agencies 3 are, perhaps, guarded about making statements 4 because they're reserving rights to say -- to 5 make decision. 6 But we particularly, I think, need to hear 7 from the NGOs and the individual citizen. I 8 would also acknowledge that we get clarifying 9 insights, and insightful comments from agency 10 people, from time to time. That is very 11 helpful. 12 So this is not just a discussion between 13 Bill and Will and so forth. This is, you know, 14 we've got a lot of oars in the water here. I 15 appreciate Morgan's giving a little background 16 there, as I wrote down, identify the areas and 17 the studies that were needed. 18 And my recollection is that we did get to 19 the point where there were not any burning 20 desires for additional studies. We pretty well 21 got past that. 22 Studies are coming in. A mitigation plan 23 will be developed. And then we will -- we, 24 y'all, this body will be invited to comment on 25 whether the mitigation plan proposed is 27 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 acceptable. It seems to be get the job done or 3 not. 4 I think perhaps Bill is bringing up, 5 perhaps, an intermediate step, you know. Do we 6 approve of the plans of the scientific studies? 7 Is that important, or do we fold that into 8 the mitigation plan? Is that adequate to deal 9 with the issues? And y'all are going to have 10 decide that, whether you want to form official 11 opinions, on both the studies that come in as 12 well as the mitigation plan. Steve. 13 MR. WILLIS: I just want to clarify what I 14 said earlier a little bit. It relates to what 15 you just said, I think very much. 16 First I think if this group is 17 amorphous and as big as it is, is it likely to 18 do a real analysis of any particular report? I 19 think, just by sheer practicality, it would 20 have to be done by some kind of a subcommittee. 21 It seems absolutely necessary if you are 22 going to have any kind of -- of real approving, 23 or even recognizing that these are complete 24 reports, you're going to have to have some 25 smaller group of people that specifically 28 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 focuses and works on taking a hard look at it. 3 The other thing I want to say is I wasn't 4 suggesting we form groups that review every 5 single report, and have every single report 6 shunted off to the University of Georgia for 7 months. I wasn't suggesting that. 8 What I was suggesting is that these 9 subcommittees could, during the process of 10 reviewing reports, determine they had -- they 11 wanted a third-party review of it, and on those 12 particular issues they would have those put out 13 for vetting and confirmation. That's what I 14 meant to say. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. Good. My recollection 16 has been that, all of the studies, the 17 scientific studies have generally sort of 18 fallen under the umbrella of some committee, 19 more or less. 20 And as we've said, I think in previous 21 meetings, different committees got involved at 22 differing levels and depth and detail, you 23 know, in following, in commenting, and in 24 reviewing studies. 25 I think the Beach Erosion Committee has 29 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 been very active. The Aquifer Committee was 3 very active. Some have not been and have 4 chosen to operate in different ways. 5 So I think, to some extent, we have 6 assumed that some committee was -- had the 7 lead. Now you know, Steve, would you suggest 8 that the committees that were sort of -- sort 9 of lead, or had the main interest in that area, 10 that they would do this, or are you saying an 11 additional subcommittee or something? 12 For example, we've got a Fisheries 13 Committee. We've got a Striped Bass Committee, 14 so forth. Would they -- would you look to them 15 to go on the record about the adequacies, the 16 completeness of the studies, or is this 17 something with an additional group? 18 MR. WILLIS: I think just for the sake of 19 organization in the process for each report to 20 be reviewed, and each group reviewing each 21 report makes a recommendation of their findings 22 to the group as a whole. 23 And specifically, go on record as having 24 made some kind of recommendation, and this 25 would be a part of the process that this be 30 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 done sometimes, and not done sometimes, but 3 just done always. 4 If there's certain reports that really 5 there isn't any kind of subcommittee in 6 existence that's appropriate, I guess, maybe 7 another group should be formed. 8 MS. MOORER: I think that's funny because 9 that's what got us to here, to this discussion, 10 the recommendation from the Beach Erosion 11 Committee. 12 We accepted it, and it was almost as an 13 endorsement of the study that the Corps did, 14 and the group had problems with that. So we've 15 kind of come full circle, because the group 16 didn't want to accept their recommendation. 17 And that's why it got generated, all of 18 this discussion, initially. So I don't know 19 what to do about it. But -- but that's what we 20 asked them to do was take a look at the work, 21 and they looked at the work, and gave us a 22 recommendation. 23 And then the SEG didn't buy the 24 recommendation. So I don't know if somebody 25 has any suggestions -- 31 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 MR. DYSART: It's possible we keep 3 journeying around the mobius strip. David 4 Kyler. 5 MR. KYLER: I think the statement's 6 overwhelmingly obvious, but what it seems to me 7 what is lacking is a standard of review that's 8 accepted, which would be the basis of 9 determination of whether the report, done by 10 the committee, is legitimate or valid or some 11 basis for determining its quality. 12 MR. DYSART: How hard would that be for 13 this body to come up with? 14 MR. KYLER: Probably pretty hard. 15 MR. DYSART: Karen. 16 MS. GRAINEY: I think we're discussing 17 something that's impossible for this group of 18 people to do. 19 MR. DYSART: Having been in academia and 20 reviewed lots of things, I know that the 21 majority of the people around the table are 22 volunteers. And I think, I'm just pointing 23 this out, this is a considerable effort to do 24 this. I think talking about practicality, it 25 would be nice if all kinds of things. 32 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 I think you have to figure out who is 3 going to do this, who has the time to do it, 4 and what kind of body would be acceptable to 5 the whole body to do the evaluation and put 6 the imprint of the body on it. So where do you 7 think we are? Bill Farmer. 8 MR. FARMER: Okay. You asked the question 9 whether we should reach a consensus on the 10 impact or the impacts as well as the 11 mitigation. Let me address that first. 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. 13 MR. FARMER: If -- take any area like fish 14 or whatever, we can say that the current 15 condition is number 3 out of 10 or something 16 like that, and that the project might make it 17 worse -- up to number 5. 18 And in order to overcome that, we're going 19 to mitigate and bring it back to three or 20 whatever. 21 If the fisheries people believe that the 22 impact is not from four to five, or really it 23 goes from three to eight, they should have a 24 voice to say we disagree with the impact 25 analysis. 33 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 And also, if they believe that the 3 mitigation won't bring it from five back to 4 three, they should have an opportunity to agree 5 or disagree also. I think each area of concern 6 should look at the impact as well as the 7 proposed mitigation of it. 8 Then secondly, we talked about -- Morgan 9 brought this up -- consensus. We are a 10 consensus group. And the way, in the past, we 11 have reached consensus is you have asked the 12 question; is there anyone in the room that 13 can't live with that. 14 Now, whether that means we approve it or 15 disapprove it or whatever, that's a second 16 question, but that seems to be a way to reach 17 consensus. 18 So if, for instance, the economic group 19 has studied all the reports and so forth, and 20 they conclude yes, the impact would be so much 21 but the mitigation takes it back to where it 22 should be and they say that; then I think you 23 should ask the question well, can anyone not 24 live with that. And if anyone can't, then 25 we go from there. 34 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 But I would say that we would probably 3 rely upon that committee, that has focused on 4 that issue, and we would just say we can live 5 with it because we don't have any basis to not 6 live with it. 7 So I think that's a way to proceed, and it 8 seems logical and consistent, because if we're 9 going to reach consensus, that means we have to 10 decide something to have a consensus on. 11 MR. DYSART: David Kyler. 12 MR. KYLER: I brought my notes from last 13 time. I assume it's in the minutes from last 14 time, but there are a couple -- I would say 3, 15 at least 3, probably 7 or 10 dimensions of 16 criteria for standards of acceptable, that I 17 can think of off the top of my head. 18 There may be many subcategories of these, 19 but I would say degree of risk and uncertainty 20 of the implications of the study, sort of what 21 the Corps calls sensitivity analysis -- in 22 other words, if you change the assumption, how 23 much did that change the assumption about the 24 accuracy of the findings? How much did that 25 change the outcome of the implications of the 35 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 report? 3 The systemic and interactive implications, 4 for other study issues and mitigation measures 5 for this and other issues, and the method 6 to arrive at the impacts evaluation, if 7 recommendations are accepted and applied; in 8 other words, how are you going to monitor the 9 effects of the project consistent with the 10 recommendations of this report, if they're 11 accepted and the project goes forward 12 consistent with those recommendations? 13 That would provide a level -- answers to 14 those questions would provide a level of 15 comfort which would, I think, enable more 16 people to make a determination as to 17 acceptability of recommendations from these 18 reports. 19 MR. DYSART: Will. 20 MR. BERSON: Okay. How do we do that? 21 MR. KYLER: You mean the ability to write 22 the technical report would seem to be 23 consistent with the ability to answer these 24 questions, and if it isn't we need to get more 25 technical ability behind the report. 36 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 MR. BERSON: Okay. In some cases, these 3 are reports from 2004, 2003. We're not only 4 potentially reinventing the wheel here, we're 5 reinventing when the wheel was invented. 6 So I'm a little -- I guess I'm a little -- 7 I'm open to all kinds of ideas of how to go 8 forward, but you need to tell me how it is 9 that's actually going to get accomplished with 10 the resources that we have? 11 MR. KYLER: I wouldn't say we're 12 reinventing the wheel. We're going from an 13 iron-belted wagon to the steel-belted radial, 14 in terms of complexity perhaps. 15 It seems to me those questions need to be 16 answered somehow, to be responsible in making 17 recommendations about the project. 18 MR. DYSART: Judy and Hope. 19 MS. JENNINGS: I think a question, if you 20 take any one of these studies, and some of them 21 more than others, some of more than others, but 22 just for instance, the model -- the two models. 23 As we went along in that process, a 10 24 year process at any given, you know, just pick 25 a point. 37 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 There was a point at which there were 3 disagreements among people who really were 4 qualified to disagree, and who really were 5 qualified to make the judgments on those 6 scientific issues. 7 And a lot of times, they would come to a 8 point where they would go, well, it's not worth 9 it to pursue it anymore in terms of money. 10 It's not worth it in terms of pursuing it with 11 time. There were lots of those decision 12 points, especially with the model, where we 13 just let it go. 14 And so, you know, to me a decision might 15 be it was the very best science used here. I 16 think we can find experts -- I'm just using 17 that as an example -- who can say no, it was 18 not. 19 But then you would have to ask is it going 20 to make any difference in terms of harbor 21 deepening; does it really make any difference? 22 I mean if we had satisfied every sniglet, every 23 question on just, for instance, that one study; 24 would it have made any difference? 25 And I think we could, you know, pick this 38 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 apart and come up with other studies and not 3 recreate it, but find, in the record, where we 4 have legitimate scientific people, accepted in 5 their fields, with some difference of opinion. 6 And yet, after interagency meetings, and 7 consultations, and all of that, they decided 8 well hell. And so -- 9 MR. DYSART: That sounds like a consensus 10 to me. I can live with well hell. 11 MS. JENNINGS: And so, you know, I think 12 there is a difference in saying was the 13 absolute best science brought to this? 14 I think you could probably find a 15 naysayer, with credentials, on lots of these 16 things. Does that mean that is it going to 17 make any difference? 18 And a lot of times, I think, their 19 general assumption was that is it going to make 20 it significantly, measurably, incrementally 21 worse? Well, maybe not. 22 So I think there is a difference here, 23 when we make decisions, as to whether we say 24 was it the absolute best we could have done? 25 Did we ask, did we answer the best we could 39 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 all the questions? 3 Are we simply saying we can study it till 4 hell freezes over, and we're probably not going 5 to come any closer to having everybody on the 6 same page? 7 MR. DYSART: Just a quick comment. Judy 8 is talking about going back through the record, 9 what not. Is there a sense of all these 10 reports that Will listed, was there some 11 comment from some committee as these were 12 presented, and after that that the committee 13 came in and said something, or how often did 14 that take place where there was some kind of 15 opinion? 16 MR. KEEGAN: Yes and no, I think, was the 17 answer to that. 18 MR. DYSART: Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. 19 MR. REES: I think the Aquifer Committee 20 was pretty clear. The Beach Erosion Committee 21 was pretty clear. 22 Frankly, I don't recall any of the others, 23 particularly in the fisheries area, going to 24 that next step. 25 MS. JENNINGS: Just to say that, I can 40 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 probably find you a sturgeon person who isn't 3 happy with the work on the table. And I know 4 I'm just saying, you know, is the question is 5 the science on each and every one of these the 6 absolute best, in the sense that did everybody 7 get all their questions answered? 8 I agree with Morgan. In some cases, yes. 9 I hear a great big chorus on the aquifer. I'm 10 not aware of naysayers saying anything about 11 that. Lots of question, but good agreement on 12 the conclusions, but not true on each and 13 every one of them. 14 But -- but I think even the ones with 15 credible question marks were just left laying, 16 and the majority said it's good enough. 17 MR. DYSART: Hope and Carl. 18 MS. MOORER: You mentioned three items, 19 Dave, that should be considered with any of 20 these reports. As Will pointed out, in sort of 21 those cases, it wasn't a requirement when the 22 scope was written and the study was done. So 23 it may not have been assessed as part of the 24 study, or part of the data collection effort, 25 and the monitoring plan wouldn't necessarily 41 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 include that. 3 I do know that in the final report, as a 4 part of the final mitigation plan, monitoring 5 will have to be addressed, and how monitoring 6 takes place, and how often. 7 All that will have to be scoped out in the 8 final mitigation plan, as well the Corps has 9 had -- has gone through lots of changes 10 recently. 11 And one of the items I think I hear 12 consistently from the Corps' leadership, in 13 terms of providing the information that the 14 decision makers need, is the amount of risk and 15 uncertainty in conclusion. 16 And that's something I've heard in 17 meetings. That has to be addressed in this 18 final report, the risk and uncertainty 19 associated with various aspects of this 20 project. And it will have to be, you know, 21 written in there and shown. 22 So I think that a couple of those items 23 you raised will have to be addressed, as part 24 of the final report anyway. So certainly 25 monitoring is part of the final mitigation 42 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 plan. 3 Then from a review component, external 4 review, another one of the changes that the 5 Corps is going through, which we already had 6 built into the project, was an external review 7 of the final documents and an independent panel 8 from, who even knows where, that will have to 9 look at the document and say, does that make 10 sense? Point back to some science in the final 11 document. 12 And that's something the Corps is going to 13 have to do too. So I don't know if that helps 14 any. I think a couple of those points of the 15 three that you raised, the Corps will have to 16 address. 17 It's not necessarily addressed in each 18 individual study so far, but in a final report 19 it's going to have to be there. And that's 20 what the Corps is looking for. When we make 21 this decision, we're looking at the 22 information, what is the risk associated with 23 your results that you put forward? And that's 24 what I've heard recently as part of the 25 discussion from headquarters. So -- 43 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 MR. DYSART: Carl, Will and David. 3 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia Wildlife 4 Federation. Just -- this is not exactly 5 specific to solving the problem, just to remind 6 everybody, fisheries, striped bass, there are 7 many, many striped bass studies from the '70s 8 and 80s and 90s, before this project was ever 9 started. 10 One built on the other built on the 11 other -- it goes back documenting the original 12 populations, the decline, the effects of the 13 tide gate, increased salinities, the 14 remediations, salinities with the tide gate 15 removal, and then the '92 deepening thrown in. 16 A lot of studies are built -- a lot more 17 studies than just the fisheries or striped bass 18 studies listed in this report, and really, the 19 ones listed here have been the ultimate ones 20 built on the all previous studies that I 21 conducted, or I supervised when I was the 22 regional supervisor of DNR. 23 But most of the information, you know, a 24 lot of these studies, the information is going 25 to be okay. It's there. It's using the other 44 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 study, you know, deciding what to do, what the 3 impacts are going to be, and then the 4 mitigation process of the Corps they have just 5 been going through. 6 It's like a lot of the studies, the 7 information is there. How are you going to 8 apply it and use it with the other studies to 9 make sure they're okay? 10 That's what Judy was talking about with 11 the model. You accept or reject. You've got 12 to move forward. Then you look at what the 13 model tells you in relation to putting it on -- 14 running the model, putting it on the screen, 15 applying it. 16 Then once you get that information, 17 looking at the mitigation, then what's going to 18 be the final decision? What outweighs -- what 19 outweighs everything? The actual information, 20 what the impacts are going to be, whether or 21 not you mitigate them, how much pressure is 22 there to build the project? 23 That's the biggest challenge ahead of us. 24 We've really got the big one still ahead of us 25 in the mitigation aspects, and finalizing that, 45 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 and having consensus on that. 3 I just want to point out on a lot of the 4 studies the information is there. It's what 5 you do with the information. And that's going 6 to be based on what some of the other studies 7 are going to show, the model studies. 8 MR. DYSART: Will. 9 MR. BERSON: Just interested to hear what 10 everybody's thinking. 11 MR. DYSART: David, Bill and Judy. 12 MR. KYLER: I was responding to Hope. I 13 was encouraged by what she had to say. It 14 seems to me to maybe the approach, given the 15 problems Will had brought up in the 16 retroactive, is trying to do some of these 17 things retroactively would be to, essentially, 18 suspend judgment on the acceptability of 19 individual reports and wait to see how the 20 final analysis is incorporating some of the 21 things we were talking about; uncertainty, 22 mitigation, monitoring. 23 An assessment will be written up on the 24 credibility and thoroughness of tying in each 25 of those recommendations, in the final report, 46 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 back to the studies we're talking about, but 3 supporting studies on individual issues. 4 I assume that the report you're talking 5 about would address each of them in the 6 individual studies issues. 7 MS. MOORER: I think it goes back to what 8 Carl says. Some of this is data that's 9 collected, and how it's applied to determine 10 what the impact is -- 11 MR. HALL: Yeah, I mean -- 12 MS. MOORER: -- rather than -- 13 MR. HALL: -- how are we going to apply 14 the models and what's going to happen, under 15 certain scenarios, to the information that we 16 have? 17 And a lot of these studies, you know, the 18 information is ready to go. But then you get 19 down to how are you going to apply reality to 20 the information, in terms of mitigation, or -- 21 or split the difference? Maybe you go this far 22 and can't go any further -- blah blah blah. 23 That's one of the real challenges. 24 MR. DYSART: Bill. 25 MR. FARMER: Just to try to project where 47 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 we go from here, you had made some remark 3 earlier, Ben, most of the concerns were within 4 the purview of various established committees. 5 Would it be an acceptable idea to ask each 6 of the committees to bring back to the SEG, at 7 the next meeting, where they stand? Basically, 8 to say that they have looked at all the 9 applicable reports that are available in their 10 particular area, they have looked at them and 11 they have concluded this and this and this, or 12 that there is one or two studies yet to be 13 done? 14 They can't make a decision until those 15 are done, whatever. Basically, reenergize the 16 committees to do what we had hoped they would 17 do, namely to come back to the SEG with their 18 findings. 19 MR. DYSART: Somehow this seems to be a 20 thread that kind of runs through some things 21 here. 22 Judy was saying there's a lot of stuff 23 in the record that kind of a standard has 24 changed, that early on it was kind of vague, 25 that it's gotten -- the standard has increased. 48 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 And it could be we could ask people, you 3 reviewed this back a year or two ago. What was 4 it you said? What can you say now circa 2007 5 on this? It seems like that would be a 6 reasonable thing to do. 7 And instead of, perhaps, this body trying 8 to figure out everything for all the 9 committees, let them come back and say here's 10 -- here's where we got to. Here's how we feel. 11 Then this body can say okay, where does this 12 get us? Is this adequate or not? Judy and 13 Will. 14 MR. FARMER: I make a move we take a five 15 minute break. 16 (Short Break) 17 MR. DYSART: Bill, I hope that we're 18 getting closer. You may have something there 19 pointing in a good direction. Judy, Will and 20 Larry. 21 MR. BERSON: I don't want to -- after 22 seven years of working on this, I don't want to 23 belittle our role, but I think it's important 24 to keep in mind that the folks that are 25 reviewing these materials, with the Corps and 49 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 with GPA, are the resource agencies that are 3 the ones who make the decisions about whether 4 or not this project goes forward. 5 And whether or not y'all choose to review, 6 not review, do any of these in terms of these 7 reports, you know, that's what's on the record, 8 and that's what's been used for years in this 9 process. 10 So I think you need to have a sort of 11 sense of where you are in the process. If 12 there's a problem with something that they have 13 been using for five years, we're in an awkward 14 situation to point it out now. 15 That doesn't mean we shouldn't, but I also 16 would be interested to know how it is that 17 we're going to reconstruct what people thought 18 five years ago, when they first looked at this, 19 if they looked at this. 20 You know, we sat -- a lot of you sat in 21 this room and looked at all of these 22 presentations that people gave, and no one did 23 anything other than, you know, make some 24 comments about some of the presentations or 25 otherwise. 50 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 There never was at the conclusion of a 3 presentation well, what do you think; thumbs 4 up, thumbs down? 5 That point never ever happened, and that's 6 why we are where we are here today. Now, if 7 you want to go into another whole round of 8 looking at these studies to see whether or not 9 -- again, I would question -- our charge was to 10 list the studies that ought to be looked at, or 11 the issues that ought to be looked at, not 12 necessarily because we don't have the 13 technical expertise to do so -- to say that 14 they were correct. 15 And in many instances -- the folks in the 16 Fisheries Committee, for example, that might 17 have the expertise to say that might also not 18 be able to say that, as a matter of course, 19 because they're one staff person being 20 represented on a committee, as opposed to their 21 agency head that's going to make a decision on 22 this project. 23 So again, even if we broke out into 24 committees, it's not exactly clear we would be 25 able to answer -- address the question that 51 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 everyone seems to want to address. Now, I 3 don't want to squelch that idea. I just want 4 to say it seems to me there are some practical 5 problems with that. 6 And again, I want you to look at, you 7 know, if the SEG -- if the resource agencies 8 accept it and the SEG doesn't, what's the 9 practical meaning of that? 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy, Larry and Steve 11 and Morgan. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Ben, when you -- before I 13 was collected actually and you asked me the 14 question, I think I was trying to say the last 15 sentence that Will just said. 16 If all the agencies have signed on or not, 17 then what difference -- what weight does the 18 SEG, as a body, have? But I wanted to go back 19 to a point Hope made about the analysis of 20 risk. 21 I wasn't sure you said you're hearing 22 this ubiquitously, and I'm not sure exactly 23 from whom for what purpose. My point, and I do 24 like the answer to your question, but where I'm 25 going is, you know, you may find any one of 52 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 these -- I don't -- I think that the science 3 for all of the studies should have been created 4 equal, and that is do it perfectly, or at least 5 to the extent practical. 6 But in terms of decision making for harbor 7 deepening, they're not all created equal. The 8 studies are not all created equal, in terms of 9 decision making for harbor deepening. 10 For instance, the people who are 11 interested in the risk to, you know, what is 12 the degree of probability that this is going to 13 be right or wrong; is there any way, rather 14 than us trying to figure out, rather than this 15 body going back and looking at it, is there a 16 group of these decision makers, maybe even the 17 Corps, who will say you know, when you start 18 building something, you've got legs, load 19 bearers. 20 If one of those load bearing things has a 21 high degree of risk associated with it, isn't 22 there some way that, you know, we could 23 recommend, you know, that that risk analysis 24 assessment would be done? 25 And you can go back and find somewhere 53 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 that you can't find even the most knowledgeable 3 Phd on earth that disagreed with it. You're 4 going find some that are knowledgeable, 5 credible, well-educated people who did agree 6 with it. 7 So I'm just wondering if in terms of 8 rather than saying we bless them all, is 9 there some systematic scientific way to look 10 at them and say okay, you know what, if this 11 is wrong, the whole thing's going to fall? I 12 mean, is anybody going to look at it that way? 13 MR. DYSART: Larry. 14 MS. JENNINGS: And I guess the reason I 15 mention that, there's rarely been a decision 16 point, over the model, that there wasn't some 17 body who walked off going I just can't buy it, 18 but ultimately the agency signature showed up. 19 MS. MOORER: Can I answer Judy one thing 20 about risk that -- 21 MR. DYSART: Sure, sure. 22 MS. MOORER: There's no prescribed way of 23 how to address risk, that I've heard within the 24 Corps, but it's something they're asking from 25 headquarters. 54 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 Now, when we make the decision what is 3 the degree of risk associated with like the 4 aquifer, that's something everybody is very 5 concerned about. What is the degree of risk 6 associated with that? How uncertain is it? 7 Well, with the movement through the -- the 8 little cracks -- 9 MR. GARRETT: The fissures. 10 MS. MOORER: -- the fissures in the 11 paleochannel, the movement of the salinity 12 through the paleochannels, it's been studied. 13 It's been pretty much accepted. 14 The way -- the methodology the Corps used, 15 USGS, and South Carolina DHEC; they're all 16 pretty comfortable with the movement through 17 it, how it was measured. They're all pretty 18 comfortable with that. 19 So the degree of risk associated with that 20 study, everybody's pretty comfortable with how 21 that's looked at with the model. It's the EPA 22 model. It's the basis of that. It's one 23 that's been vetted on other projects. 24 Everybody's pretty comfortable with that. 25 The degree of risk is lower on those two items 55 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 than maybe on something like the chloride 3 that's difficult to measure. 4 It's a very, very low, low level. So your 5 uncertainty and risk is maybe higher with the 6 chloride. And then something -- I don't think 7 there's any prescribed, scientific method that 8 the Corps is saying we have to do it this way, 9 look at every one like this and check check 10 check. 11 I think it's in the final report, when the 12 decision makers get it, and not only the Corps, 13 Fish and Wildlife, EPA and National Marine 14 Fisheries, they're going to look at that 15 report. 16 The decision makers, who have been very 17 removed from sitting us around this table and 18 seeing the studies up on the wall, want to know 19 the degree of risk and uncertainty with these 20 components of the project. 21 The final report is supposed to do that. 22 That's what's been directed by headquarters, 23 what do the decision makers need to know? 24 MS. JENNINGS: I think besides that risk 25 and uncertainty, might there be an element of 56 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 relative importance to the project, and I'm not 3 sure that I've completely agreed with your 4 statement about the model, because just months 5 ago there was a good deal of discussion about 6 the way the marsh secession model dealt with 7 being fed mitigation scenarios from the larger 8 model. So I know there was a good deal of 9 discussion about that among the agencies. 10 MS. MOORER: I think that was on the 11 mitigation using the marsh secession model for 12 mitigation. I don't think it was input into 13 it. I think it was the way it processed the 14 information with mitigation. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Right. 16 MS. MOORER: It couldn't predict, because 17 it didn't have any data on which to base a 18 prediction, but what information was fed into 19 it. I may be wrong, but I think the model -- 20 the basis of that model, the information that 21 was fed into it was good. It was how it 22 processed it is what I understand. 23 The marsh secession model is not being 24 used for mitigation prediction, and you're 25 right. It was vetted through this process and 57 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 determined it wouldn't be used for mitigation. 3 So you're right. There's no way of 4 knowing which -- you know, is there a way of 5 knowing which is the most important to the 6 project. 7 MR. DYSART: I've got four people who want 8 to speak. We're going to listen to them, and 9 we're going to see whether there is some kind 10 of consensus, or whether we have a consensus. 11 There has been a good discussion and we 12 will continue it to the next time. This 13 probably could go on for three or four hours, 14 unless somebody has something -- I'm not 15 hearing there is any rightness here. Larry has 16 been very patient. 17 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. 18 MR. DYSART: Larry, Steve, Morgan and 19 John. 20 MR. KEEGAN: I just want to offer two 21 observations, relative to the practicality of 22 going back to sub or committees to get some 23 feedback from them. 24 One observation is that you need to 25 energize, reenergize the committees and the 58 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 people who did the work, so there can be some 3 intercourse between the two should any 4 questions come up. 5 That may be very difficult to do. In some 6 cases, the people have retired. In some cases 7 they have moved out of the area, some as far as 8 Africa. So that's a difficult prospect. 9 It's not easy. It's not just picking up 10 the phone and you call all the members, because 11 you're going to find, in some cases, the 12 members are scattered. 13 My second observation for you is, if the 14 decision is to go back to committees and say we 15 want you to tell us something, I think it 16 behooves this body to be very clear in what you 17 want the committee to tell you. 18 One of the reasons we're having this 19 discussion now is that there were no guidelines 20 set that all committees had to meet in their 21 review, and vetting, and reporting out of work. 22 It was left to the individual committee 23 chairs, and I think we can find that 24 substantiated in the minutes meeting of these 25 meetings. So if we want to go back to 59 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 subcommittees, and we can reenergize them and 3 the people who did the work, we owe them this 4 is what we expect you to come back and tell us. 5 Don't leave that open or you'll get, 6 again, a range of responses that will probably 7 not meet your expectations. End of speech. 8 MR. DYSART: I think some people with 9 military backgrounds -- who was it that talked 10 about, you know, you got a basket of fog? 11 Sometimes we did get some baskets of fog 12 or what not. In some cases, as has been 13 pointed out, for example, with beach erosion 14 and aquifer, we got a very, very thorough 15 review that, I think, a lot of confidence -- 16 that would engender a lot of confidence around 17 the table. Okay. Steve -- Steve, Morgan and 18 John. 19 MR. WILLIS: Okay. Just first of all, a 20 couple of ideas that are, I think, related. I 21 think it's understood that whatever the 22 committees come up with is subject to review by 23 the overall group. And it's very likely that 24 sometimes the overall group is going to say, 25 even though the subcommittee recommends 60 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 something, we don't really -- we disagree, or 3 we can't quite go along with it. We don't 4 think it's complete. 5 I think it's incumbent, on the group as a 6 whole, to extend whatever reports come back 7 that way with specific recommendations on what 8 needs to be looked at more, found out, what 9 questions need to be answered. 10 If that can't be done, I guess some 11 reports just have to be disapproved, because 12 that seems to me to be like the only 13 alternative. You're going to say -- these are 14 -- we can't approve this because of this this 15 and this. 16 So we need to do it, okay, that's one 17 thing. If it's just something that people are 18 uncomfortable with, they can't approve at all, 19 well then that can be noted. But the point is 20 that, I think, we do need to make some kind of 21 process where the subcommittees recommend 22 action, findings on reports, and that the 23 overall group doesn't necessarily approve all 24 of those. 25 But if it doesn't approve them, it should 61 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 give some kind of guidance as to what needs to 3 be done to make them approvable, if that's 4 possible. 5 The other thing is risk analysis. I think 6 between California burning down, South Georgia 7 burning down, Atlanta running out of water, all 8 these little things going on everyday, it's 9 incumbent upon us to take risk analysis 10 seriously. 11 And I think the risk analysis is not just 12 talking about risk in a report. Risk analysis 13 is a discipline, and there's great, huge 14 associations of risk analysis in the United 15 States. 16 I'm suggesting that all of these reports 17 that have possible -- the subject of the report 18 has possible consequences on the Savannah River 19 basin, and Savannah, the population and nature, 20 that all of these things be looked at by 21 professional risk analysis people. 22 If that can be supplied by the Corps of 23 Engineers, fine. I'd like to hear how they do 24 that? If that's not something they're going to 25 do, as a specific discipline, I think that's 62 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 one thing the SEG really should be authorized 3 to ask. 4 Yes, we need to take these reports of 5 people who, professionally, understand how to 6 quantify and analyze risk, so we can take an 7 honest look at what really is or is not the 8 threat to this whole area, and that's the 9 region. And that's what I think, ultimately, 10 we're looking at. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. Morgan 12 MR. REES: Again, this is just in the 13 context of an observation and a reaction on my 14 part. 15 It seems to me the discussion is, is 16 there enough -- is there sufficient technical 17 review of the studies that have been done? And 18 you know, whether there is or isn't is probably 19 open to judgment. 20 Having said that, if we send these back to 21 the committees, and the committee has to deal 22 with whether the report is okay or whether it 23 needs more review, I would urge the committees 24 to inform themselves of a couple of things. 25 We had a lot of discussion, several years 63 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 ago, about peer review. Some of you 3 participated in that. I think it was the 4 Operating Guidelines, or one of those 5 committees, that spent a lot of time wrestling 6 with the subject of peer review. 7 We didn't necessarily come up with any 8 specific conclusions, at that time, but there 9 were things that, I think, would help inform 10 the committees when they're wrestling with this 11 issue in individual committee activities. 12 There are several peer review documents 13 that I think are available. If not, we can 14 make them available. One comes out of the 15 Corps' headquarters about the Corps philosophy 16 about peer review. There was another one, from 17 the Office of Management and Budget, directing 18 federal agencies what they should do in terms 19 of peer review in these types of projects. 20 The Corps of Engineers, as we talked about 21 earlier, has an internal peer review and 22 external. They call it technical review. They 23 don't call it peer review, but it amounts to 24 the same thing. 25 The committees learn what is existing, in 64 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 the process, because we frankly have worked 3 very hard to make sure that the studies that 4 the project is based on are technically 5 supportable. 6 It's an important issue to us and it made 7 sure that, at least, there's a fair degree of 8 technical peer review built into the process. 9 It would be helpful, I think, for the 10 committees to make sure they know what that is. 11 MR. DYSART: John. 12 MR. ROBINETTE: I guess the first thing 13 I'd like to address is the model and the 14 agencies' acceptance of the hydrodynamic model. 15 The first model that we looked at, and I'd like 16 to say that, you know, I'm not a modeler. 17 I can't put together a mathematical model 18 that's going to tell you the impacts of this 19 project, but there are people who can. 20 Our technical expert, Paul Conrads, 21 rejected the first model. That's the reason 22 they went with the EPA model. That being 23 said, this is a mathematical model that's going 24 to make a prediction. That's where your risk 25 comes in. 65 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 The studies on striped bass, the studies 3 on the tidal fresh marsh, you know, are giving 4 us good, sound data that we have had peer 5 reviewed by people like Cecil Jennings, who is 6 a striped bass expert, and Wiley Kitchens, who 7 knows this marsh better than everybody in this 8 room telling us what is there, and what exists 9 today under these conditions, and what has 10 existed over the last several years. 11 Wiley's work goes back to the early 1980s 12 in that tidal fresh marsh. That's pretty 13 sound. Whether it is exact and there is every 14 -- he can predict to the, you know, a 10th of 15 an acre, no. You know, you're never going to 16 have that in a natural community -- in an 17 environmental community. It's something that 18 is this complex. 19 These studies here have been reviewed by 20 technical experts, by every agency at this 21 table. Some agencies take the lead for certain 22 things. We took the lead on the tidal fresh 23 marsh. We had the experts to do that. 24 Georgia DNR, South Carolina DNR, you know, 25 are looking at different things; short-nosed 66 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 sturgeon, striped bass. They have the 3 technical expertise to do that. They're the 4 ones who have been in the field for years and 5 years and years. 6 The difficulty comes just like Carl said, 7 when you take a prediction from a mathematical 8 model, even though it may be the best 9 mathematical model that you can get to predict 10 to what's going to happen in the future, there 11 is some uncertainty there. 12 When that model says okay, you're going to 13 have a reduction of 20% striped bass egg 14 habitat, 20% spawning habitat, those sorts of 15 things, if you go deeper with this river; what 16 does that mean? 17 Does that mean you're going to lose 90% of 18 your reproduction, are you going to lose all 19 of your reproduction, or that it's not going to 20 make a whole lot of difference? You're still 21 going to have a viable population. 22 Those are the questions that we've got 23 coming out that are extremely difficult for us 24 to get a handle on. 25 If the SEG wants to have each of these 67 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 studies taken out and peer reviewed, you need 3 to hire your own experts to do it. They have 4 been peer reviewed. And as far as the studies 5 go, you know, most of the agencies have either 6 said yes, this is good, this is bad, or this is 7 the best we can do. This is the best 8 information we can possibly get right now. 9 I think the difficult thing for the SEG 10 is to number one determine, you know, is this 11 an accurate prediction of what the impacts are 12 going to be? Number two, can it be mitigated, 13 you know? 14 And if it can be mitigated, is that 15 mitigation package proper for that? Also, 16 you're considering the cumulative impacts we've 17 had from this project from -- from many years. 18 So those are the decisions that I think 19 the SEG needs to be wrestling with and taking 20 a real close look at. And I do agree, risk 21 analysis is very important, and I think, you 22 know, that's going to be looked at. 23 We all need to look at that carefully and 24 determine where we go from here, and what is 25 the future of the harbor and the shipping in 68 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 this community? What's the future of the 3 environment in this community? 4 We're all going to be living here for a 5 few more years, hopefully, and we need to 6 decide what's the best thing for all of the 7 stakeholders here at this table, and not just 8 the agencies or the port. 9 MR. DYSART: Will started this off. I 10 notice his card keeps coming back up. I 11 scratch his name off and add it back, so forth. 12 What do you have for us, Will, anything? 13 MR. BERSON: Well, there are a couple of 14 things. I -- I feel like I should point out 15 that nobody was more strident, over independent 16 review, than I was over this whole process. 17 And, at some point, you're going to have 18 to concede to the framework that you live 19 under, which is the Corps is going to do what 20 its national policy directs it to do. 21 We might express the wish that it be done 22 differently, but that's about as far as it 23 goes, especially since we are an advisory 24 capacity to GPA and not the Corps. 25 So I understand that there's a gulf there 69 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 that the Corps doesn't actually have to listen 3 to us, and that's not an excuse not to do due 4 diligence. 5 My question, you know, is I think John 6 encapsulated it in the larger sense correctly; 7 either the modeling will turn out to be 8 prescient or it won't. It will either be 9 accurate, in describing what's supposed to 10 happen, or it won't. 11 You know, the best folks that can look 12 at this stuff have looked at it and said they 13 feel that the modelers have made a case for the 14 models. Now, if we want to hire rival modelers 15 to, you know, fact check this and see if they 16 come up replicable results, you know, that's 17 one way to go. 18 I think that, in some respects, that line 19 of thinking applies to these other studies as 20 well, not just the difficulty of getting the 21 same people together in a room to discuss and 22 defend why it is they found what they found 23 earlier, but more than that is the level of 24 effort that we're talking about going to. 25 I guess what I'm saying is, I have a 70 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 feeling, when you look back on these projects, 3 that you're never going to know where it was 4 you went wrong, even if you did all your due 5 diligence up front 6 So the question is, where is it that those 7 decision points are the most critical? I think 8 John did a really good job of pointing out 9 where they are. Now, if y'all are 10 uncomfortable, somehow, giving an imprimitur to 11 these reports, understand that that's just 12 fine. 13 The Corps will go on without us. That 14 will just be the net result. And that's a 15 decision you can take as a group or not. I 16 don't mean to say take it or leave it. I'm 17 just saying that the practical result is, 18 whether or not you feel comfortable with these 19 results, they're being used right now. 20 MR. DYSART: I have one comment. I am a 21 mathematical modeler, and I take no exception 22 to anything that John said. I think he brought 23 up some very nice insights, as have a lot of 24 other people. 25 We're getting very close to getting a very 71 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 frowny look from madam court reporter saying 3 it's break time and I agree. 4 I'm just going to say, I am not hearing 5 any great consensus around here. I think there 6 has been a lot of old information recast in 7 a useful way. There has been new perspectives. 8 I would have difficulty seeing a -- 9 something that we could all go forward on. I 10 think this is definitely appropriate to start 11 off the next meeting with some discussion. 12 I guess I have heard one word. I've 13 heard it in a couple of thoughts, two thoughts 14 and one is from very diverse sources. The word 15 practical, practical, practical, practical, and 16 I can imply that from a lot of what you're 17 saying. We have to be practical. Who is going 18 to do it? What needs to be done? 19 The second thing is this crying out we 20 need a process. What are the questions we're 21 trying to -- if we send things back, what would 22 we ask them to do? Do we want to make sure it 23 was the best possible science, but then we have 24 got to be practical? 25 So I would -- I would suggest, unless 72 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 there is strong feeling otherwise, that we 3 reflect upon what we've heard in this front 4 half of the meeting today, and see if we can 5 decide what is practical and what it is this 6 body wants, and what, in fact, would be helpful 7 as opposed to simply an exercise. 8 Can anybody not live with that or does 9 anybody want to march to consensus on this 10 this morning? 11 MR. KEEGAN: I have one question. 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. 13 MR. KEEGAN: What will get us any closer 14 to answering that the next meeting? What will 15 happen, in the interim, that will move us 16 forward? 17 MS. JENNINGS: Actually, I had a similar 18 comment, because I felt like when John was 19 talking, I was reading from exactly the same 20 book, but that we just didn't get to the last 21 page. 22 So do you have a recommendation, John, 23 for how to -- I mean, you laid it out so well 24 where we are. Can you answer, Larry? 25 MR. KEEGAN: I wouldn't hazard a guess. 73 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 MS. JENNINGS: I'm wondering what would 3 John's guess be at answering? It felt like 4 I was reading the same book, except I didn't 5 get to the last page. 6 MR. ROBINETTE: You know, I can't speak 7 for every agency in here, but the Fish and 8 Wildlife Service feels like, I guess from our 9 expert's perspective, we've gotten some really 10 good information from the studies that have 11 been provided. 12 We have had peer review on those studies. 13 DNR has looked over the striped bass study 14 thoroughly, you know. They have been meeting 15 with Cecil Jennings, the striped bass expert, 16 and his students, and that university has been 17 studying striped bass on this river since the 18 '60s, I guess -- yeah, when Carl was a pup. 19 I feel like we've got some good 20 information. I'm not sure what the problem is. 21 if the problem is that we need to go back 22 somehow and validate these studies, say yes, 23 they're good or no, they're bad, then I think 24 as far as Fish and Wildlife Service goes, it 25 really doesn't matter. 74 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 You can do what you want. We've accepted 3 those studies. We've accepted the hydrodynamic 4 model, understanding it's a model, you know, 5 and that it gives predictions. 6 But our person, who is a modeler, says 7 this is probably the best we can do right now. 8 I'm sure 10 years down the road we'll have one 9 that's even better. 10 So, I think, my conclusion would be that 11 you either -- you know, we say these studies 12 have given us the information that we need. 13 We've got a model we're going to use that is -- 14 as far as predicting existing data -- is a 15 pretty good model and mathematically sound. 16 We're going to take that information and 17 go from here. And the real question, what Carl 18 Hall said earlier, is taking this information 19 and saying, you know, what risk is that, as far 20 as striped bass being able to spawn in this 21 river and being able to reproduce in this 22 river? 23 There are going to be some impacts to 24 striped bass. There are going to be some 25 impacts to the tidal fresh marsh. Can they be 75 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 mitigated? You know, if they can, what's it 3 going to take? 4 If they can't be mitigated, what are the 5 losses going to be? Are we going to eliminate 6 striped bass reproduction in the Savannah 7 River? 8 You know, those are the things we're going 9 to be asking Cecil Jennings, and Carl Hall, and 10 these folks that have studied these things for 11 years. We're going to be going to them with 12 that information. We're going to be saying, 13 hey -- 14 MR. HALL: Matt Thomas. 15 MR. ROBINETTE: -- Matt Thomas -- you're 16 the old hand, but we're going to be asking the 17 experts these things, and we're going to have 18 to make a decision. From an SEG standpoint, 19 what I see is that we've got a representative 20 of the community as a whole, you know. 21 And then the SEG needs to say, this is 22 a good project or this is a bad project. 23 That's where you need to be heading, I think. 24 You represent this community. You need to be 25 able to say yes, this is a good thing or this 76 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 is a bad thing, or yes, we can go to 45 feet 3 but 48 is going to kill the fish. That's too 4 much of an impact or whatever. 5 Whatever the results show, as far as the 6 studies go and the peer reviews, I mean, we 7 feel comfortable with what we've got. 8 Every researcher is going to tell you, 9 when he finishes his project, boy, I really 10 need some more money, get more money for five 11 more years, and I understand that. 12 But as far as the tidal fresh marsh goes, 13 striped bass, things like that, you know, we've 14 got the best we can possibly get. The higher 15 risk chloride, my goodness, that's hard to 16 deal with. 17 MR. DYSART: What is it that we really 18 need, if anything? 19 MS. JENNINGS: Is it possible for the 20 group to say -- to stop the conversation about 21 approve, disapprove or anything, just make a 22 statement, just implement them and move -- 23 implement this work, and that will get us 24 towards impacts and mitigation? 25 And I think it was somebody that said, 77 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 Carl, you said the hard work is still ahead of 3 us. Can't we just say, you know, use it, let's 4 use it? 5 MR. DYSART: Hope. 6 MS. MOORER: One thing about the hard work 7 and getting to that point, the Corps and the 8 agencies have been back and forth on impacts, 9 determining impacts, looking at mitigation runs 10 and plans. It's been an iterative back and 11 forth, back and forth, back and forth. 12 At the conclusion of that, the Corps and 13 the agencies will have looked at various 14 mitigation plans at different depths. And the 15 Corps has agreed to hold a public hearing, 16 prior to the release of the draft, that talks 17 about the impacts at different depths and 18 mitigation plans. 19 So there's another opportunity in that's 20 the hard part of looking and evaluating what 21 the impacts are, what the mitigation plans are 22 to try to deal with those impacts. 23 That is part of what the milestones looks 24 at. After the New Year, February/March 25 timeframe, they're coming to conclusions. 78 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 They're still going on, still going on, but 3 it's at a time period, prior to the draft, that 4 people can look at it, give ideas, comment, 5 things like that. 6 I do appreciate the Corps doing that. 7 It's not normal in the process. It's normally 8 when the draft is dumped on the street, but you 9 will be able to see it, consider and look and 10 deal with that difficult discussion; what is 11 acceptable, and is this plan good, and is the 12 mitigation good? 13 So there is a point that we're coming to 14 to look at both of those at one time. I think 15 originally we had thought about the mitigation 16 plan first, but it helps to see the impacts and 17 mitigation together. So that's just something 18 I wanted to point out, we're trying to move 19 toward that discussion. 20 MR. DYSART: We've heard Will indicate 21 that the Corps is going to do what they have -- 22 that they have their procedure. They have 23 their tasks. They have their process. 24 We've heard the Fish and Wildlife Service, 25 perhaps, indicating what their and other 79 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 agencies feel like, they're happy with the 3 studies and so forth. 4 What additional value does it add for us 5 to re-peer review things and so forth? Who 6 wants this done? What value does it add? Bill 7 Farmer. 8 MR. FARMER: I think it might come down to 9 David over there. He's Mr. GPA, and we're 10 supposed to be advising GPA. We could ask him 11 what does he want from us? 12 We have all these approaches as to what we 13 think they should do, and should not do, how to 14 do it, when to do it. I think it comes down 15 to what does GPA want from us; so I would pose 16 the question? 17 MR. DYSART: Comment, David? 18 MR. SCHALLER: Sure. I think I've said 19 this before in here, I'll say it again. The 20 studies that have been undertaken and concluded 21 and reviewed are what they are, and they have 22 been submitted to the Corps of Engineers. 23 The Corps has the federal responsibility 24 for developing the EIS and GRR. I think this 25 group agreed, a long time ago, we wouldn't vote 80 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 on things to accept or reject things and we 3 would operate in a consensus fashion. And I 4 don't know what more to add. The studies are 5 what the studies are. 6 MR. DYSART: You have a comment? David 7 Kyler. 8 MR. KYLER: I like to put my card in for 9 the hell of it. I wanted some clarification 10 from Hope on the two reports, mitigation and 11 what? 12 MS. MOORER: Impacts. 13 MR. KYLER: It would be in the EIS? 14 MS. MOORER: Not the EIS. At that point, 15 it would be the model run that showed the 16 impacts to striped bass or fisheries or 17 wetlands or air quality, what have you. 18 MR. KYLER: A precursor to -- 19 MS. MOORER: A precursor to the EIS. 20 Basically, the basis of the EIS, the charge was 21 that the Corps -- that the studies address 22 looking at the depths and incremental depths up 23 to 48 feet. So it would be looking at the 24 impacts up to 48 feet, and mitigation up to 48 25 feet. So -- 81 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 MR. KYLER: What about the GRR? 3 MS. MOORER: The General Reevaluation 4 Report, once the Corps puts out the feasibility 5 study, once a feasibility study is done for a 6 project -- Alan can correct me if I'm wrong -- 7 I'm going to try to go for it. 8 You don't put out another feasibility 9 study. You put out the General Reevaluation 10 Report to reevaluate the report that's been 11 done. 12 MR. KYLER: Sort of what I said before, 13 make an extension. We talked about 14 uncertainty, both as to the model accuracy, 15 even assuming the model is accurate, 16 uncertainties as to impacts predicted by the -- 17 we know if we assume, make a leap of faith that 18 the model is accurate, there will be impacts 19 predicted. 20 We don't know the implications. There's 21 an uncertainty related to that as well as 22 mitigation and all those. This goes back to 23 the recommendation that I made earlier. 24 I think should the SEG simply recommend, 25 at minimum, that the Corps consider the records 82 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 as they are and then add on to that 3 recommendation that we drop some criteria, such 4 as the ones I suggested before, which Hope says 5 some of which are consistent with direction the 6 Corps is in anyway, evaluation of the risk 7 uncertainty, and the implications of the 8 project as evaluated by the age of the each of 9 the studies. 10 The systemic and interactive and 11 cumulative implications of these studies, on 12 the whole project and then the matrix and 13 method for the evaluations of impacts, if the 14 recommendations of the studies and the models 15 are accepted, and so we're passing along, as 16 Will proposed, some sort of imprimiturs of the 17 acceptability of the reports. 18 These may or may not be accurate, but 19 they're better than nothing -- Corps, please 20 use these in your further studies or reports, 21 and adding to that criteria, how the Corps 22 applies that information in that report, rather 23 than going back and applying these standards 24 retroactively, in the studies, and carrying 25 them forward with the expectations of what we 83 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 have with what the Corps produces seems 3 logical, wouldn't it? 4 MR. DYSART: Steve, do you have a comment? 5 MR. WILLIS: I think I understand that 6 everybody has done these reports and they feel 7 comfortable they did a good job on them. 8 I think we're going through a lot of time 9 on a lot of reports that are pretty old. They 10 were done before two years of severe drought. 11 Georgia's done the LNG approval on the facility 12 doubling. These were done before the Georgia 13 South Carolina agreement to build a Jasper 14 port. 15 In other words, it's been an awful lot of 16 changes, a lot happening. Right now we're 17 looking at a lot of potential changes in the 18 immediate future. So what I'm suggesting is, 19 at a minimum, it just seems like the different 20 subcommittees should go take a look. 21 Take and do a review of the reports they 22 have approved, in the past, and come forward to 23 say if there's no change, they say we don't see 24 that anything has happened. We see that these 25 reports are okay. They met --- they have met 84 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 the requirements that we asked of them. 3 If that's the case, that's fine. It seems 4 to me like it's not asking much, at this stage, 5 to get a closure on reports to say we all know 6 what we've done with these reports. 7 A lot of them are old. We took a look at 8 them, and the subcommittees have concluded 9 either A okay, B they're not. I think the -- 10 it just seems to me that that's not asking very 11 much, and that would -- that would create some 12 closure and opportunity to go forward, without 13 having to go constantly back and wonder if -- 14 if these reports really do form a sounds basis 15 for future actions. 16 MR. DYSART: Hope, you want to make a 17 comment before I declare a break? 18 MS. MOORER: Just a quick one. A lot of 19 studies were done during the drought and a lot 20 of data was collected in drought conditions. 21 Whether it's any worse than this drought, 22 I don't know. Maybe it's similar. The LNG is 23 being addressed in the benefits analysis. It 24 is being looked at, LNG and the impacts of the 25 additional ships, with and without a deeper 85 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 harbor; does it limit movement or free up 3 movement and absorb LNG vessels. 4 Additionally, Jasper County is being 5 addressed, within the analysis, so there are 6 things that are happening. But the Corps is 7 responsible for addressing all those issues as 8 they come up. 9 When the report is out, they have to be 10 addressed. I did want to clarify those things. 11 Another thing, we may want to introduce people 12 before the break. 13 MR. DYSART: We can definitely do that 14 now. That will keep us from having to do 15 introductions of people who came in after we 16 did our introductions, before we start losing 17 people. 18 Anyone who came in after we had 19 introductions? Judy Jennings over there, 20 she'll introduce herself when she comes back. 21 MS. KRONQUEST: Stacey Kronquest. I'm 22 staff for the Savannah Riverkeepers. Thank 23 you. 24 MS. BURGESS: My name is Kyle Burgess. 25 I'm just here to observe. 86 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 MR. DYSART: Okay, good. You have 3 standing, just like everybody, in here as an 4 interested person like that. 5 MR. DESDHERER: Chris Desdherer with the 6 Southern Environmental Law Center. 7 MS. DARK: Anne Dark, I'm a member of the 8 Sierra Club. I'm here to observe. 9 MR. DYSART: I'm going to declare a 10 10 minute break. If we could come up with -- if 11 somebody has got something we can find a 12 consensus about, immediately after the break, 13 we'll do it; otherwise, I'm going to say we've 14 had a great discussion and let's move on. 15 (Short Break) 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. We are now reconvening 17 the meeting. We are reconvening the meeting. 18 We are going to have a couple of people that 19 didn't introduce themselves. 20 MS. BOWERS: Gail Bowers, League of Women 21 Voters, Savannah Chapter. 22 MR. DYSART: What did you do with Judy? 23 So okay. We are continuing the meeting after 24 the productive break. Some of you are probably 25 Jerry Clower fans and are familiar with the 87 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 line about shoot up here amongst us, one of us 3 has got to have some relief. 4 I think that's what we're about to do with 5 this conundrum that we've been dealing with not 6 only this morning but before. There seems to 7 be a question about whether this is a teflon 8 bone that is being chewed on, or rather a huge 9 piece of gristle that keeps getting bigger and 10 bigger. 11 We have heard Fish and Wildlife Service 12 saying they generally don't really care what we 13 do. They have done their review and are happy 14 with their studies and are ready to use them. 15 What I would now put Bill Bailey on the 16 spot and ask him, is there anything -- what do 17 you need, from this body, in the way of review, 18 or re-review, or committee opinions, or 19 whatever that is holding the Corps up or can 20 help the Corps do a better job? Give a brief 21 answer or how ever you want to give it. 22 MR. BAILEY: We mentioned before the Corps 23 has done some independent technical reviews of 24 studies and will do -- and has done some 25 external reviews -- and will do more of those. 88 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 So we are going ahead and using the reports and 3 the products from those. We're using those, 4 either subject to those independent reviews or 5 when they're completed, we'll go ahead and 6 continue to use that information. So the SEG's 7 -- the issue before the SEG right now is not 8 holding up the Corps. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. I think we also heard 10 -- Mr. Schaller just came in. I was asking the 11 Corps what, if anything, they need from this 12 body, or its committees, so forth. 13 Bill answered that. I think David 14 Schaller seemed to indicate that the reports 15 were what they are, and life is moving on, and 16 we would determine whether the impacts have 17 been properly evaluated, and whether you're 18 happy with the mitigation plan, so forth, when 19 it is there. That's what Hope was saying, I 20 gather, that in the relatively near future 21 there will be something where this gets 22 integrated and so forth. 23 I am -- I am failing to hear any practical 24 reason to go back and -- go back to the 25 beginning, and to contract with independent 89 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 outside review groups, and to see what's -- 3 unless there are people who just have a lot of 4 time they want spend re-reviewing things. 5 I realize, as many of you sitting in here, 6 when the Corps says they have done -- they're 7 doing their own independent peer review. There 8 are probably people cheered by that. 9 There are people who would say that would 10 be different from my peer review. I understand 11 that. Same is true, I think, everybody has got 12 their own idea. 13 I am not seeing any great consensus about 14 what -- what is needed that would help make 15 things better by asking committees to go back 16 and review. We have had committees that 17 haven't, as far as I'm concerned, expressed 18 much of an opinion on anything in the last nine 19 years. And to ask them to reconstitute 20 themselves and so forth, I'm not sure reality, 21 practicality, so forth I'm not sure you get a 22 heck of a lot more out of that. 23 We've said certain committees have done 24 a very thorough job, have done a great job, and 25 we know where they stand. 90 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 Does anybody have anything that is 3 compelling, or that seems to represent a 4 constructive way forward here; otherwise, 5 Bill's already asking me which of his 6 presentations he wants to cut? 7 And I think we do want to get on ahead 8 with that. We want the best science possible. 9 It's nearing Christmas and that's appropriate, 10 we want everything. 11 What -- what serves the broad public 12 interest now, with respect to this body and 13 committees reviewing existing reports? Bill 14 Farmer. 15 MR. FARMER: Okay. That's a fairly deep 16 question. I don't know if I can address it. 17 MR. DYSART: Give it a shot. 18 MR. FARMER: I think we need to revise the 19 operating guidelines. The reason I say that is 20 this is what it says we should be doing, and it 21 looks like we don't want to. 22 The first thing it says is recommend 23 studies that will define impacts -- I'm 24 abbreviating it but I'm reading the words. 25 The second thing, evaluate such studies and 91 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 recommend adoption, and we don't want to do 3 that. Third, recommend mitigation studies -- 4 now, these are things the SEG should be doing, 5 principle functions. 6 It says recommend mitigation studies, and 7 the next one, evaluate such mitigation studies, 8 and then determine how to modify the Tier I 9 EIS, so forth. 10 But the first four, it appears like we 11 don't want to do it. Now, if we need to do it 12 we should do it. If we don't need to do it, 13 then let's change the operating guidelines so 14 that we aren't required to do it. 15 But I feel awkward where I'm in a group 16 and it says we should be doing these things and 17 we just ignore them. I would rather address 18 them or remove the requirement just personally. 19 MR. DYSART: Does the body have any view 20 on that, about either revising the operating 21 guidelines or -- David Schaller -- David Kyler. 22 MR. KYLER: Yeah. I appreciate Bill's 23 reminder of what was in there. Frankly, I'd 24 forgotten that in the guidelines. I think just 25 reacting to what Will said earlier, if we don't 92 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 make a recommendation, Will's view and it may 3 be perfectly true, the Corps could ignore or 4 not any of the reports that have been done. 5 So it seems to me, even though we may have 6 reservations of -- if nothing else -- of 7 vagueness about what those reports should have 8 in them, from the various studies committees 9 versus what is in them, we could recommend, at 10 the very least, the Corps consider the content. 11 Recognizing, as I said earlier, they may be 12 incomplete or inaccurate -- it's better than 13 nothing. 14 Then later on top of that, this may 15 require an op guidelines amendment, some sort 16 of recommendation about the standards we'd like 17 to see the Corps use in carrying the 18 application, in their assessment, forward. 19 This is an alternative to -- trying to 20 retroactively applying them ourselves. 21 MR. DYSART: So it sounds like we are 22 becoming advisory to the Corps or is this just 23 expressing opinions? 24 MR. KYLER: From what Hope said earlier, 25 maybe Hope, I thought that although we are 93 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 advisory to the ports authority. The Corps 3 would be interested in knowing the SEG's 4 position, on their approach on forthcoming 5 studies, and getting feedback once the studies 6 are out for review as a group. 7 MR. DYSART: Let me ask the body, do you 8 want to continue this discussion indefinitely 9 or do you want to get some science? I mean, 10 I just -- I think that's before we start losing 11 ground, you know, what's the preference? 12 MR. KEEGAN: Reach a conclusion and then 13 hear some science. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. 15 MS. MOORER: Tom's card is up. 16 MR. WRIGHT: I've been participating in 17 this group for quite some time. I believe that 18 we are following the basic guidelines. I 19 believe that every report that I've seen on 20 this list was presented in its inception, and 21 discussed, and people have talked about it in 22 committees, and then back to the SEG. 23 And when the results have been presented, 24 if there were questions or issues, they have 25 been addressed. On some there were very few, 94 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 on some like the aquifer, we spent a lot of 3 time on it, and every issue that was brought up 4 was addressed, based on the technical validity 5 of the issue in an open forum. 6 And everyone's now happy with the aquifer 7 report. I think we did a good job on that. We 8 may not be completely documenting the way some 9 people think we should do this, and we may not 10 have the most perfect definitions, but to this 11 point the SEG has done a good job in looking at 12 what we need to do, and what the reports are. 13 And from this point forward if a person 14 who has a concern wants to raise it, as we look 15 at the rest of the reports and the mitigation 16 plans, they're welcome to do it because that's 17 what this forum is for. 18 And we don't have to somehow limit or 19 direct each one of those people by having some 20 written definition. We need to have a meeting 21 where people can talk about their concerns, and 22 that's what we do here. 23 I'm hoping very much that we can agree 24 just to continue and discuss these things, at 25 these meetings, and get on -- get the 95 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 information I was hoping to hear today. 3 MR. DYSART: Hope or Larry, which one was 4 first? 5 MR. KEEGAN: I'll withdraw my desire to 6 speak. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. Anybody who hasn't 8 spoken or has any opinion or even Will? 9 MR. BERSON: I want to put out a 10 hypothetical. I can understand that there 11 might be a reluctance on the part -- and I feel 12 the same way. I won't tell you I've read every 13 word of these studies. I won't say I went back 14 in the transcript and matched up the study with 15 what the SEG asked to do. 16 I appreciate that that's a concern that 17 we're asking you to do that. You may not feel 18 comfortable not having dotted all the I's and 19 crossed all the T's. 20 Having said that, when the GRR and EIS 21 come out, if there is a problem and it relates 22 back to one of these studies, the fact that I 23 might have said that those studies covered what 24 they were supposed to cover would not, in any 25 way, impede my ability to criticize or make 96 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 comment on the EIS or the GRR based on the 3 study. 4 It's as David said, it is what it is. If 5 there's a flaw in it, if you think that looking 6 now is going to identify that flaw for you, in 7 what turns out to be the EIS or the GRR, and if 8 you think that's an important level of work to 9 do, then I have to tell you I kind of disagree. 10 I feel perfectly free to accept these 11 reports as the SEG, even knowing that there may 12 be points in them I'll go back and take 13 exception to later. 14 The point is we're not saying is this an A 15 paper. We're saying does it address what we 16 asked to be addressed? And I appreciate there 17 are always -- there are at least a couple 18 different ways to skin any cat. There are a 19 number of different ways that probably these 20 studies could have been gone about. 21 I'm not sure it does us any good, at this 22 point, or will change any minds to go back and 23 revisit those issues. Now, whether or not you 24 skin the cat well is something we'll deal with 25 later. Pardon the mixed metaphors. 97 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 I don't actually see the problem with 3 acting on this, but I'm hearing a lot of 4 reluctance to do that. It's not necessary 5 actually. Not anything in the project will 6 change, if we don't take the action that we 7 suggested in this memo today. 8 The world -- I mean, the studies will keep 9 coming. The EIS and GRR will continue as they 10 are. The agencies that have signed off on 11 these reports have accepted them, and there is 12 another bite at this apple, and it's called a 13 comment period for the EIS and GRR. 14 So having said that, I want to hear how we 15 move forward on this, because I really don't 16 think we should come back to this at another 17 meeting. 18 MR. DYSART: Those of who are Marcovian 19 might consider this to be the trapping stage. 20 MR. BERSON: I have no idea what you just 21 said. 22 MR. DYSART: It's not necessary that you 23 understand. Judy. 24 MS. JENNINGS: You know this is has all 25 been great discussion. I don't suppose it 98 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 really mattered when we had it. Maybe we're 3 actually just not ready. 4 If we need to take one of those actions, 5 maybe this is just not the right time to take 6 it. For instance, when I hear all economics 7 work, I might say well gee, did you think about 8 that? Can you add this in before we go 9 forward? 10 On the air quality impacts, I might say 11 could you add in this little thing? And then 12 only after we've gathered it all up, all up 13 really -- I mean, I don't mind. I think this 14 discussion has been very useful, but maybe it 15 should be done maybe saying the studies are 16 acceptable, should be done concurrently with 17 accepting a mitigation plan, because up until 18 that point in time, any one of us might go oh, 19 wait. 20 And so because there's -- like Tom said, 21 there's stuff I came here to hear about today. 22 What about next time, if I've got something to 23 say about it? 24 MR. BERSON: I'll answer that. I'm not 25 sure that up to the -- I mean, I reserve the 99 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 right to dissent at any point in this process. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah. 4 MR. BERSON: And so I don't really see 5 this as either endorsing -- I don't think that 6 we're asking you to endorse the findings of any 7 of these particular -- 8 MS. JENNINGS: Not the findings, but just 9 have we gotten them all out there? As we go 10 through some of these other things, I might 11 actually think well gee, did y'all think to 12 study -- 13 MR. BERSON: Well, okay. 14 MS. JENNINGS: -- economics, air quality, 15 Jasper port, you can always talk about the 16 multiport analysis. After what happened last 17 week, that might be a little different. We've 18 done what we've done. They are what they are, 19 but we're still moving forward. Maybe we're 20 just premature. 21 MR. BERSON: Let me ask a different 22 question. Would you expect that all of these 23 studies would be updated continuously, up to 24 the point that you issue a GRR and EIS? 25 MS. JENNINGS: I don't know when they 100 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 would stop. I'm sure they haven't stopped now. 3 MR. BERSON: Well, for example, the 1998 4 aquifer study report is the 1998 aquifer study 5 report. It's not going to be updated across 6 the years to when an actual GRR or EIS is 7 evaluated. I mean, do you expect that that 8 would happen is, I guess, my question? 9 MR. KEEGAN: That, in fact, did happen. 10 You've got the 2007. 11 MR. BERSON: Well, that was the second -- 12 but my point is a lot of these things are 13 either done and you move forward, and you base 14 the project on work that's done, or you are 15 constantly updating these studies through the 16 very end. 17 I don't quite know how you ever build -- 18 if you are constantly recasting the first 19 blocks, how is it you build any kind of 20 foundation is, I guess, my question? 21 I kind of heard the point that we didn't 22 evaluate these studies when they were first 23 presented to the SEG. Now they're kind of old 24 and maybe we should go back and look at them 25 again. There's a certain circuity to that I 101 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 can't get around. 3 Either you're going to have to base 4 studies on previous studies or you're not. It 5 seems to me every -- every project of any kind 6 is going to be based on previous studies, you 7 know, that might be updated, might not. I'm 8 just kind of wondering how it is that we hold 9 our partners, in the stakeholder group, to that 10 standard. 11 It doesn't seem possible to be constantly 12 updating, right? I mean, I'm looking for some 13 reaction here and seeing a lot of strained 14 faces. 15 MR. KEEGAN: I agree with you, Will. At 16 some point you have to stop trying to update 17 and reach a conclusion, based on the best 18 information you've been able to gather. 19 MR. BERSON: Or the supposition that there 20 must be something out there, since you did 21 this, not necessarily you know there is, but 22 you suppose there must be because time has 23 passed. 24 And I'm not sure I buy into that, but in 25 any case, going back to it, I would feel 102 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 perfectly free to point that out. If something 3 had happened in the interim, I would feel 4 perfectly free to point that out in the EIS and 5 the GRR. 6 I don't know quite how it is I would go 7 back and redo a study. At this point in the 8 process, I don't know how you would do that. 9 I'm not sure. I'd ask the Corps, if there was 10 a fatal flaw -- well actually, I don't know 11 that we're looking for fatal flaws. 12 I mean, a lot of this is iterative, so I 13 don't know how it is that you keep applying 14 updates to something that you need build, you 15 know, your model out of for example. 16 MS. JENNINGS: I don't think my comment 17 was based on anything on this piece of paper, 18 but just stuff that's still to come. I don't 19 want to continue to go back over stuff that's 20 already been blessed by the agencies even, but 21 just there is work we haven't heard, and work 22 that hasn't been done. 23 MR. DYSART: It seems that there are 24 several varied or distinct clusters here. 25 There's this sort of consensus cluster. 103 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 There's an opinion we might need to go back and 3 revise the operating guidelines. 4 And then there's an additional view that 5 needs to be extensive independent review of 6 reports, of the historic reports, and I'm 7 trying to kind of see how all that fits 8 together, whether this is kind of different 9 cluster bombs kind of. 10 I'm having difficulty finding out where -- 11 what things coalesce around. It's kind of 12 three -- three independent mountains here. 13 Steve. 14 MR. WILLIS: I don't really remember 15 anybody saying that it was a good idea to go 16 back and do extensive reviews of all the 17 reports that have been done by third parties. 18 I think there was suggested that the people, 19 whose subcommittees were overseeing these 20 reports, look at them and come back and say 21 it's been two years, four years, five years, 22 eight years since this was done, and we don't 23 see any problem. That's okay. It's the same 24 as it was. 25 I don't consider that to be extensive 104 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 anything. I think that also if there's -- if 3 there's issues about any of the past reports, 4 that the group feels uncomfortable with, that 5 could be clarified through some kind of 6 independent review, I think the subcommittee 7 groups should be authorized to come forward. 8 This is something that there's a problem 9 with, we were uncomfortable with this, this 10 needs to be looked at. So I'm not saying -- 11 I'm not saying we should go back and do that 12 like any massive, total review. 13 I just -- after all this time, it seems 14 like it wouldn't be asking much to have these 15 reports just looked at again and see if 16 anything comes out. 17 That's just my personal opinion. If 18 people just want to go forward, like Judy was 19 suggesting, I think it's not a bad idea. 20 Just say well, you know, we're really -- 21 we haven't come to closure with anything, and 22 we're never going to come to any kind of 23 closure, and we're leaving options open. If we 24 think we see a big problem, we can bring it up. 25 That's part of what this group is. We 105 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 don't need to have some way of closing out 3 reports at all right now. I think it's a 4 legitimate way to look at it. 5 But I still personally think, just because 6 of the time and changes that have happened in 7 the last 10 years, that it wouldn't be a bad 8 idea to have subcommittee heads, or 9 subcommittees, just at least just look over 10 what has come out of their groups. 11 If some subcommittees have never really 12 done anything, well does that mean that they 13 should -- that that's okay? 14 MR. DYSART: I don't know. Hope. 15 MS. MOORER: Again, I want to bring back 16 up the timeliness issue that Judy raised. Even 17 though some of the studies were done a while 18 back, and the data was collected, collected in 19 times of drought and different other times, 20 Bill's committee -- this report is even one 21 that's recent, and the committee couldn't agree 22 to accept that committee's recommendation -- 23 the SEG couldn't. 24 I don't know if the SEG was ready to, if 25 it hasn't seen the whole plan, and it was a 106 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 very specific recommendation on one of the 3 components of any final project proposal. 4 So that's -- the timeliness, that may be 5 the reason we're not coming to any sort of 6 conclusion on this is that we're not there yet. 7 Now, do we need to go ahead and be there 8 on these studies that have been done? I don't 9 know. I don't have any opinion on whether the 10 committees should meet. It might not be a bad 11 idea to pull everybody together and look at it. 12 In terms of Operating Guidelines, we have 13 tried to meet, and have had very little success 14 pulling in any additional people to talk and 15 bringing ideas back. 16 So it would be helpful, if the committees 17 meet, if the members will attend the meetings 18 as well, and do the preparation that's 19 necessary to accept these studies. That's the 20 other part. 21 It is a lot of work. Are you going to go 22 back and read these unbelievable transcripts to 23 understand how you got to that report, because 24 a lot of people are not involved anymore? 25 Then you need to read the reports. 107 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 They're out there, and you need to understand 3 there's a lot of technical information 4 certainly I can't give an opinion on. 5 MR. DYSART: How would people feel about 6 inviting the committee chairs to give us or do 7 whatever they want to do? They can reconvene 8 the committees. They can meet. They can go to 9 Africa and find them, so forth. They can read 10 all the transcripts. They can do whatever they 11 want -- simply ask them to render an 12 informational advisory. 13 Here's how we stand toward the end of 14 2007. You're going to get some extensive 15 comments from some. You're going to get 16 nothing from some, but we will have asked. 17 MS. JENNINGS: You're going to get nothing 18 from none of them -- you're going to get 19 nothing from none of them. 20 MR. DYSART: Now you're being practical 21 now. 22 MS. JENNINGS: But Hope has ardently 23 pleaded for three or four interim SEG meetings 24 in a row. We don't see any -- only the usual 25 suspects come. 108 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 MR. DYSART: As I understand, we invite 3 some of these discussions to go at these 4 meetings so that something can be brought 5 forward. Will, can you give us some kind of a 6 sense of what kind of participation you've been 7 having at these meetings? 8 MR. BERSON: As Judy said, it's the same 9 folks. 10 MR. DYSART: Give me a number, 2 people, 11 25 people -- 12 MR. BERSON: Five. 13 MS. JENNINGS: We're all here. 14 MR. DYSART: Gail. 15 MS. BOWERS: Would these people you're 16 talking about inviting, are you talking about 17 inviting them to the interim meeting or to this 18 meeting to say, okay, I have looked at my 19 committee's study? We have done everything we 20 can. We feel comfortable. 21 Like John said, they feel very comfortable 22 with all the data that has been collected over 23 the years and everything, and they're 24 comfortable with what they have done. Do all 25 the other committees, all the other studies, 109 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 are they equally as comfortable? 3 I would like to hear them say yes, I am, 4 and if they're not, why not, and go back and 5 see if there's a hole or a crack in it 6 somewhere. 7 Then when the reports are given, and do I 8 understand when the reports are given to the 9 Corps that you look at these, and then you 10 start to merge these reports with each other to 11 see how they all fit into this scenario? 12 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 13 MS. BOWERS: Okay. 14 MR. DYSART: Is there any interest in 15 inviting committee chairs to submit whatever 16 information they care to to this body? I don't 17 see any enthusiastic interest in that. Will. 18 MR. BERSON: Well again, I don't want to 19 point out the circularity of all this. As the 20 Fisheries Committee person, I would be calling 21 the DNR people, who have already approved the 22 reports that you're asking me to get them 23 together to approve. 24 I don't get it. I don't see where the 25 they're there is here. I will try to do that. 110 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 I really would rather the DNR folks spend their 3 time working on the evaluating the GRR and the 4 EIS when it comes out, if there's time to be 5 spent on this kind of stuff, but that's just 6 my -- 7 MR. DYSART: Elizabeth. 8 MS. COLVIN: To build on what Will said, 9 if he came to me as the Striped Bass Committee 10 chair and said hey, can you look over all these 11 reports, I would go back to the people who 12 conducted them, since they are the striped bass 13 experts that we initially went to and say hey, 14 we have these questions that we need to answer. 15 I just think, once again, trying to be 16 practical about our time management, you know, 17 is it really going make that big of a 18 difference, when the EIS comes out, if we 19 really accept this report, or in some instances 20 reject this report that, you know, for the most 21 part, speaking for the Fisheries report, I know 22 that the Fisheries report was accepted. 23 I presume we've made decisions on the 24 other reports that have been discussed here 25 today as well. 111 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. So apparently we've 3 heard from yet another agency that says they're 4 happy with their reports and don't need to go 5 back to the same people. Larry Keegan, please. 6 MR. KEEGAN: Observation for the group; 7 we've heard clear approval, I think, from the 8 Aquifer Committee with regard to follow on 9 aquifer study report in their endorsement and 10 that's in the record. 11 The Beach Erosion Committee, we've heard 12 from the chair and gotten the recommendation 13 from them, but a clear endorsement, in general 14 terms, that the work that was done is 15 acceptable and we should use it, Dredging and 16 Disposal Committee has not met, to my 17 knowledge, since 1999, except perhaps once. 18 They have nothing, no reports to look at, 19 which is why they haven't met. We've heard 20 from economics from Judy who knows that she 21 still has things to see yet. I think you said, 22 Judy if I'm wrong correct me, that you expect 23 you'll see them with the draft GRR EIS. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Or I'll be, I think, 25 working with Bill and Alan to arrange an 112 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 Economics Working Group meeting when the 3 material is ripe to share. 4 MR. KEEGAN: Okay. But you have no 5 studies, on the table, for your group to 6 approve. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Not -- not until Bill and 8 Alan tell me we have something to talk about. 9 MR. KEEGAN: We've heard from Fisheries 10 and Aquatic Resources Committee chair that he 11 is locked in a circle. He doesn't know what to 12 ask his people to do. 13 We've heard from the Striped Bass 14 Committee chair that she's gone back and her 15 people have approved it. So what are we asking 16 from the committee chairs? We've heard from 17 them. 18 MR. DYSART: I think we heard from John 19 they're happy. 20 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, that in support of the 21 committee chair, John has said that. We've 22 heard from Bill that the SEG is not holding up 23 the work that's going on. We've heard from 24 Tom's observation about the discussion we've 25 had, and the questions that have come up, as 113 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 the individual study conclusions have been 3 presented. 4 I think he's right on the mark, that 5 there's ample opportunity for people to 6 question and talk, and there will be further 7 opportunity, and this is the forum in which to 8 do it. 9 I would suggest to you, Mr. Facilitator, 10 we have reached a consensus, and that is we 11 forward this information to the Corps of 12 Engineers, encourage them to use it in context, 13 and move on. 14 MR. DYSART: Does that sound like a good 15 consensus? 16 MR. DYSART: David wants to draft up 17 some things about how he believes that it would 18 be good for them to use it, in an advisory 19 manner, that would be fine. Okay. Yes, we 20 have a comment from the back row. 21 MS. BURGESS: I've never read the 22 operation guidelines, so I'm not really sure 23 what needs to be done to draft this report. It 24 sounds like the reservations that people have 25 are regarding a lack of information, or maybe 114 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 some contradictory information in some of the 3 studies and the reports. 4 Can a recommendation be made that says we 5 agree with the studies and we agree with the 6 reports? However we have reservations about a 7 lack of information, maybe economics, or we 8 have reservations about some people in the 9 studies say that they don't agree with -- like 10 a small percentage of people don't agree with 11 the majority of the people? 12 So I'm just wondering what needs to be 13 done, in the report, to make the 14 recommendation? It seems like you have all the 15 information you need to move forward, but yet 16 you're not moving forward. 17 MR. DYSART: I would say -- thank you. I 18 would say that I hear the same consensus Larry 19 hears as far as teasing out the agencies. They 20 are proceeding. The people who are using it 21 have confidence in this, and let's pass this on 22 to the agencies and let them use it, and I keep 23 hearing that there's opportunity for the GRR 24 and for the EIS to look at that. 25 I think that any guidance that David Kyler 115 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 could provide, in the way of ways to use this, 3 or advice in that would be helpful. I -- can 4 we live with the spirit of what Larry 5 summarized from around the table. Lou Off. 6 MR. OFF: Maybe this needs to go in the 7 committee report, but the beach erosion report 8 has not been accepted. The last time it was 9 brought up, DNR said their questions had not 10 been answered by the Corps, and that's still 11 the case. 12 MR. DYSART: Karen. 13 MS. GRAINEY: Okay. It seems to me this 14 whole discussion started because we were asked 15 by the Beach Erosion Committee, am I correct, 16 to endorse the findings of the beach erosion 17 study. And I just can't do that. I will never 18 be able to endorse any of the findings in any 19 of the studies. I don't think that's our role, 20 so -- 21 MR. KEEGAN: I think that's exactly why 22 the guidelines' wording was what it was that 23 were put out, because people felt uncomfortable 24 with words like endorse or encourage their use 25 or support. It was just a little bit too big 116 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 of a commitment, at this point in the process. 3 MS. GRAINEY: And now I'm hearing that 4 even the state agencies, that are supposed to 5 be evaluating the report, haven't even given 6 any -- it doesn't seem to have much confidence 7 in it. 8 So I'm really confused about why we've 9 gotten so in depth into this discussion today. 10 I don't really get the point of it. 11 MR. DYSART: I think we could reach a 12 consensus on that. David Kyler. 13 MR. KYLER: Simple and may be a glib 14 answer to Karen's question, sometimes paradoxes 15 aren't as obvious at first as they are 16 eventually. Part of that has to do with the 17 differences and interpretations, in the 18 semantics of what's being expected of us, in 19 interpreting the evaluation of a report, 20 according to the language Bill Farmer 21 quoted from the op guidelines, as opposed to an 22 endorsement which some people read into 23 evaluation. 24 But I still think there is some value to 25 us forwarding these studies on, as a minimum 117 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 form of information, to GPA to consider and for 3 them to encourage the Corps to consider, 4 recognizing there are limits on the 5 comprehensive and accuracy of the studies. 6 As I said -- as was said before, it's 7 better than nothing. We should also go on to 8 state our reservations about what specifically 9 they're lacking, what accuracy or 10 comprehensiveness is or may be. 11 MR. DYSART: Would you repeat forward what 12 to whom now again? I got -- 13 MR. KYLER: I was somewhat, I think, 14 corrected before and never did get a response 15 back from the Corps, as to whether we're 16 advising -- I know we're advising GPA. 17 MR. DYSART: Yes. 18 MR. KYLER: To some extent, are we 19 affecting or indirectly advising the Corps? 20 Maybe the correct way of putting it is advising 21 GPA, who is in a better position to advise or 22 influence the procedure, and content of what 23 the Corps generates in the GRR and EIS for the 24 mitigation plan. 25 MR. DYSART: You're talking about 118 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 forwarding comments? 3 MR. KYLER: Yeah, something about having 4 to do with the procedure the Corps will use in 5 generating these reports. That would somewhat 6 patch up our reservations about the studies. 7 MR. DYSART: Is there -- is there anything 8 stopping anybody from forwarding things to the 9 GPA and having them forward them to the Corps 10 now? 11 MR. SCHALLER: Well, no. There's nothing 12 stopping anyone from doing that anytime. 13 MS. MOORER: I think a lot of agencies 14 have forwarded, or a lot of people have 15 forwarded comments directly to the Corps as 16 well. 17 MR. KYLER: Yeah, but I think there's a 18 distinction between individuals forwarding 19 things, pieces of information whatever they 20 are at will, versus the SEG taking a position 21 of recommending a block of information and 22 procedure for using it forward, hence forth 23 to the agency responsible for producing the 24 report for GPA to influence that agency. 25 MR. DYSART: David, is there some 119 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 committee or somebody here that would like to 3 draft that for consideration here, or is this 4 just kind of throwing out the idea it would be 5 good to have some procedures and 6 recommendations for the Corps to use these 7 reports? 8 MR. KYLER: I can write a one page draft. 9 It doesn't have to be very long. I'm very 10 interested in feedback from other members of 11 the SEG, especially the op guidelines. 12 MR. DYSART: I suppose you can draft that 13 and run it through the Operating Guidelines 14 Committee and see what they want to do with it. 15 MR. KYLER: Sure, be glad to. 16 MR. DYSART: David Schaller. 17 MR. SCHALLER: I hope I'm not sorry I 18 raised my card. Bill Farmer cited chapter and 19 verse of some of the operating guidelines, did 20 you not earlier? You talked about the 21 committee evaluating and recommending. 22 I don't have the operating guidelines 23 committed to memory, the rules and the regs and 24 the guidelines committed to memory, but I don't 25 remember that it compelled any SEG action. 120 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 Perhaps a way to address Bill Farmer's 3 concern, as the committee chair, is to declare 4 that he has and his committee has done what the 5 operating guidelines provided for, and move the 6 focus away from whether this body accepts or 7 rejects or endorses or implements or does 8 whatever those options may be. 9 But that instead, the committee has 10 concluded its work. They have evaluated and 11 they have recommended. You know, and that's 12 the end of that. It goes to the Corps and it 13 gets worked over the way the Corps is obligated 14 to address it. 15 MR. DYSART: This body seems to have been 16 reluctant to come up with certain words that 17 were mandated to the body for approval. David 18 Kyler. 19 MR. KYLER: Just a question. I'm confused 20 on procedure and schematic of what information 21 is being generated for what purpose through the 22 SEG. I strongly heard comments today we are 23 advising GPA. 24 I now hear David Schaller saying that 25 studies being generated through the SEG are 121 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 going directly to the Corps. I don't 3 understand. 4 MS. MOORER: The Corps actually did those 5 study, but the SEG -- I mean, they sent it to 6 us, to GPA, to give back to the Corps. But the 7 SEG is one who asked for the original beach 8 erosion study to be done. 9 We contracted for the original beach 10 erosion study, contracted with ATM. The Corps 11 actually was not satisfied with the way the 12 original beach erosion study was done. 13 The Corps said there are better ways of 14 modeling than what was utilized for the study. 15 Then the Corps did the study. So in this 16 instance, actually this is the Corps' study. 17 MR. KYLER: What about the others that are 18 not of Corps origin? 19 MS. MOORER: They have all been 20 transmitted to the Corps that have not been of 21 Corps origin. 22 MR. KYLER: So the assumption has been, 23 and the procedure would support this 24 assumption, the Corps will be using all these 25 whether or not we are recommending. 122 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 MS. MOORER: They have been. We've said 3 that already today. They have been -- 4 MR. KYLER: What's the significance of the 5 recommendation? 6 MS. MOORER: The significance was what was 7 written in the guidelines, we would accept the 8 studies, and we can't come to agreement here 9 that everybody is ready to accept the study is 10 what I see so far happening. 11 MR. KYLER: For that reason, I agree in 12 force of what I said before. I think it's more 13 important we direct how the Corps uses these 14 studies, and have some standards, procedures, 15 for analyzing that information and more, and 16 reports to the Corps will be producing. 17 MS. MOORER: I think David said he would 18 be happy to pass that along to the Corps, 19 understanding that the Corps has their own 20 policy and procedure they have to follow under 21 NEPA and with their own internal policy 22 as well, but it is developing everyday as we 23 speak it seems. 24 We will pass those along to the Corps. If 25 you want to do it through the Operating 123 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 Guidelines, I don't think anybody objected to 3 that, David, you know. I think that's fine. 4 MR. KYLER: Likewise, I didn't hear any 5 rousing support either. 6 MR. DYSART: I think it would seem to be 7 better if we had something we were looking at 8 as opposed to talking in the abstract. That's 9 an understatement, I suppose. If we are going 10 to -- if this body wishes to adopt something, 11 to submit to GPA for them to forward to the 12 Corps, it seems like it would be good if we had 13 something to actually look at that had some 14 kind of input, so forth, as opposed to dealing 15 with the abstract. It's after 12:00 o'clock 16 noon now, so -- 17 MS. MOORER: I would suggest that we hold 18 a meeting of the Operating Guidelines, and 19 David Kyler bring us a draft. We would hold it 20 like we did the last time, during the interim 21 SEG, if that's what everybody agrees to. We 22 have the interim, prior to the next one, and 23 we hold Operating Guidelines Committee meeting 24 then. 25 MR. DYSART: Judy. 124 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 MS. JENNINGS: Just a question, I have not 3 committed to memory the guidelines. Were there 4 any of those three choices that fits what are, 5 in fact, doing here? Here's the study. This 6 is what we want GPA -- is there any one of 7 those three that sounds like what we have, in 8 fact, been doing? 9 MS. MOORER: What are we talking about? 10 MS. JENNINGS: The op guidelines, Bill, is 11 there any one of those three that fits what's 12 been actually happening? I don't remember what 13 you read. 14 MR. FARMER: Well -- 15 MS. JENNINGS: Let's list them and see if 16 we can pick one of them and do it. 17 MR. FARMER: -- there might be an easy way 18 out. I try to look at things on a scale 19 sometimes. You can say absolutely reject at 20 the one end, and fully endorse at the other 21 end, and somewhere in the middle you can say I 22 can live with it, or I don't have an opinion, 23 or I accept it with reservations, or I reject 24 it with some reservations that it was good, 25 whatever. 125 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 There ought to be a scale of consensus 3 there. I would think that if you pose the 4 question, is there anyone that can't live with 5 all the studies, as of today, you might get a 6 consensus that says yeah, as far as we know 7 today we can live with what we've got because 8 we haven't objected to anything, basically, 9 recognizing it's a work in progress. 10 We're going to get the GRR and EIS later 11 on and have another look at it, but as of today 12 with all the stuff we know, all the studies 13 we've read, all the presentations we've had, is 14 there anyone who can't live with what we know 15 today? That might be the consensus that Larry 16 said we could probably reach today. 17 MR. DYSART: Why don't let's try that? 18 Knowing what we know about all the studies that 19 have been done at the request of the SEG, is 20 there anybody who can't live with them, as we 21 know them to be now? 22 MR. DYSART: Will. 23 MR. BERSON: Where, in all of this, since 24 we're traveling in one gigantic circle, where 25 does the Beach Erosion Committee's report fall 126 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 into that particular suggestion? 3 MR. DYSART: We can live with it, as far 4 as we know. 5 MS. GRAINEY: Yeah. 6 MR. BERSON: Okay. I'm not ready to go 7 there. 8 MS. GRAINEY: We're back to where we 9 started with the original question which was 10 the Beach Erosion Committee's original request, 11 which none of this discussion has gotten to 12 answering that question. 13 MR. BAILEY: Is that different, though, 14 than -- the beach committee's recommendation is 15 different than the study? 16 MS. JENNINGS: Right. 17 MR. BERSON: I asked that question just to 18 be clear. 19 MR. BAILEY: You may take a position on 20 the study -- 21 MR. BERSON: They were forwarding a 22 report, were they not -- 23 MR. BAILEY: Right. 24 MR. BERSON: -- for action by the SEG? I 25 mean, that puts it in substantially the same 127 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 category as these -- 3 MR. DYSART: They submitted a committee 4 report for us to accept. 5 MR. BERSON: Which had recommendations in 6 it vis-a-vis the project. 7 MR. FARMER: Actually, the Beach Erosion 8 Committee report didn't say anything except to 9 accept the recommendations from the studies. 10 It didn't have a separate set of 11 recommendations. 12 It just said whatever the study said, 13 whatever they concluded, the Beach Erosion 14 Committee says that's fine with them, and 15 therefore carry on. 16 If we objected, then we would have said 17 no, you didn't do this, you didn't do that, or 18 we disagree, throw it away, whatever. But we 19 didn't. We said we liked it, pass it on for 20 SEG consideration now. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. We do not have a 22 consensus on accepting everything as we know 23 them to be. 24 MR. FARMER: It turns out that the Beach 25 Erosion Committee report is just perhaps the 128 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 first of five that need to come to the SEG. So 3 we're now asking does it really need to come, 4 you know? Maybe I should withdraw the report 5 and whatever the -- 6 MR. BERSON: I was just making a 7 distinction, you know. If we wanted -- using 8 the language we just heard, can we accept, 9 knowing what we know, these reports as distinct 10 from the Beach Erosion Committee's report I'm 11 fine. 12 But the reason we are in this is that we 13 wanted address everything in a similar fashion, 14 and if that's not the right thing to do then 15 I'm fine with that as Operating Guidelines 16 chair. 17 If you want to give that kind of sign-off 18 knowing with that caveat, knowing what we know, 19 that's fine too. 20 MR. DYSART: Yes, Hope. 21 MS. MOORER: Seeing as we didn't get a 22 consensus on signing off on the plans and 23 studies, there are a couple of things on the 24 table. 25 Bill Farmer doesn't think that the 129 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 operating guidelines apply now as written, and 3 maybe need to be looked at. Honestly, those 4 operating guidelines were written when GPA was 5 the lead agency for the project. 6 So they may be out of date. Okay. The 7 Corps is the lead agency for the project now. 8 As they're written, they may not apply. 9 David Kyler has some suggestion that he's 10 brought up that need to be considered by the 11 full committee, the SEG, the full SEG, but we 12 don't have them in front of us for everybody to 13 consider. 14 It may be good, as much as I think a long 15 discussion like this at the next SEG would be 16 very painful again, it may be good to have 17 an Operating Guidelines Committee meeting to 18 discuss Bill's recommendations, and revisit -- 19 just everybody look at and revisit the 20 operating guidelines to -- to have a draft of 21 the suggestions from Dave Kyler, and to come 22 back at the next SEG meeting and consider it, 23 and continue the discussion, and hopefully be 24 able to come to some resolution. 25 Again, I'm going to beg to anyone who is 130 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 interested in this issue and has an opinion on 3 it, please attend the meeting. 4 It would be very helpful if we could get 5 the folks there. And we give a time and notice 6 about when that will happen. We'll likely set 7 it before we leave here today. 8 The other thing I would like to caution 9 everyone here about is, I'm not trying to rush 10 to a conclusion, we only have the room here 11 until 1:00 o'clock. I don't know if anybody 12 is scheduled after, but that's all we have it 13 to, so -- 14 MR. DYSART: Does that sound reasonable? 15 Will. 16 MR. BERSON: Yes, and I will say that in 17 scheduling the operating guidelines committee 18 meeting, we will consult with Bill Farmer and 19 Dave Kyler, and we won't have that meeting 20 unless you guys can be there, because we need 21 to have you in the room to do what we intend to 22 do. 23 MR. DYSART: For the duration. 24 MS. MALLOY: Ben -- 25 MR. DYSART: Yes. 131 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 MS. MALLOY: -- I would like to -- I'll be 3 very selfish. This is only my second meeting 4 and both of my meetings have been dominated by 5 this discussion. It's been very helpful for 6 the history, but if you are having difficulty 7 with people turning out to the subcommittee 8 meetings, could we relegate this discussion 9 nearly entirely to these subcommittee meetings, 10 so that if people that care about the outcome 11 of this decision, you have to show up? 12 Then we get like a 15 time limit to talk 13 about it in here. To me, I feel like we keep 14 going on without getting the reports. 15 We're losing some of the public process, 16 which is really important to me to learn about 17 these things, because we're going to continue 18 to go two months from this. 19 MR. DYSART: It has been my understanding, 20 being in the cable traffic of these meetings 21 and trying to set them, there has been a 22 continuing problem of having key players 23 attending the meetings and advocating and 24 working out things they are interested in. 25 And so, I think I would like to underline 132 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 what you have said. If we expected these to be 3 worked through, for the most part and bring 4 something to us here, it is -- it is not a good 5 use of time to simply throw this out, and kind 6 of everybody coming up with their own ideas 7 from scratch; otherwise, we spent three or four 8 hours on non-science. 9 But this is critical and we hope, at the 10 next Operating Guidelines Committee meeting, 11 there will be in attendance the parties who 12 have a lot to say on this. We will be praying 13 for you, Will. Okay. Larry Keegan. 14 MR. KEEGAN: Just a question, what is it 15 the Operating Guidelines Committee is being 16 charged to do at that meeting? 17 MR. DYSART: I think Hope was trying to 18 capture that. They are, in the spirit of Bill 19 Farmer, to talk about since GPA was the lead 20 agency when they were written, it's not been 21 changed since then, now the Corps is the lead 22 agency, perhaps the operating guidelines need 23 to be updated, and that some of verbs probably 24 need to be changed. 25 She also suggested that the sort of thing 133 1 BEACH EROSION RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION 2 that David Kyler has properly and 3 constructively suggested, that if we, if y'all 4 as a body, have ideas about how you would like 5 these reports to be used, speaking for the SEG, 6 David would put together a draft that would be 7 worked through at that meeting. 8 And we, at this next SEG meeting, would 9 have a document that had gone through the 10 committee, in the way of guidance, and we'd 11 have some recommendations for modification, if 12 necessary, on the operating guidelines. 13 Everybody has been saying we need to have 14 a process for this. We need to have a 15 procedure for that, so forth. 16 So perhaps all of those notable desires 17 could be factored into this meeting, and we 18 could have something concrete and coherent to 19 look at next time as an SEG. Is that 20 consistent with what you -- 21 MS. MOORER: That sums it up. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. I see a broad 23 consensus on that. 24 MR. REES: Just another question as a part 25 of the consensus, David, could you have that 134 1 MILESTONES - HOPE MOORER 2 document drafted and circulated at least a week 3 ahead of the meeting? 4 MR. KYLER: Yeah. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. It is now -- what time 6 does the official clock say -- 12:21; do you 7 wish to proceed with some science? 8 MR. DYSART: How do you want use this, 9 Alan was on, Bill had four items, and Hope had 10 some things. 11 MS. MOORER: Mine is very fast. I think 12 that as much as we can get through of this, it 13 would be helpful to people. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Bill, why don't you -- 15 Corps take off -- which item are we hearing? 16 MR. GARRETT: The real estate update -- 17 not real estate, economics. Hope, do you want 18 to do the milestones? 19 MS. MOORER: Sure. I'll do that real 20 quick. The ones that are posted, I went there 21 this morning, and they have changed a little 22 bit. We're still working on a procedural, what 23 we have to do to meet the Corps' procedures for 24 reports now, because there are new -- new 25 things you have to do to get the reports 135 1 MILESTONES - HOPE MOORER 2 through new check-offs. 3 It used to be you just went through the 4 AFB, the Alternative Formulation Briefing, 5 prior to the release of the draft EIS. You 6 still have to do that, but now before the final 7 EIS is released, you have to go to the Civil 8 Works Review Board. 9 It's to -- it's a board that is set up 10 within the Corps, and you have to go in front 11 of headquarters, in front of the head of Civil 12 Works. 13 They evaluate your report, your final 14 report, and look at it and make sure it's okay 15 for release. And getting there, trying to put 16 it in the schedule, and how much time, and like 17 how much time for external review, in the 18 policy it says external review, independent 19 external review will be 60 days. 20 But is that 60 days for them to get the 21 comments back to you, and then for the Corps to 22 address the comments, and back to the external 23 reviewers, there are just some questions we 24 have on the end tail of the schedule. 25 So right now, on the mitigation plan -- 136 1 MILESTONES - HOPE MOORER 2 well, let's start kind of in order. The marsh 3 secession model, the comment resolution on 4 those is now scheduled for December. So that's 5 for use for mitigation, looking at that. 6 That been submitted for comments. The 7 comments have been received and answered back. 8 It's in process of back and forth of the 9 comment resolution. That's December '07. 10 The economic analysis complete, that's now 11 December '07. So that's fallen a little bit. 12 It has to do a little bit with the economics, 13 the economic analysis of passing lanes. You 14 have to justify -- if you are going to put a 15 passing lane, it has to be economically 16 justified to do so. So there's an evaluation 17 of that going on. 18 The mitigation plan complete is now 19 February, and the public information meeting on 20 impacts and mitigation would be shortly 21 thereafter. Whether it's at the end of 22 February or March or what have you, it's after 23 that, but the mitigation plan has to be 24 completed first. 25 The draft GRR and EIS would then be about 137 1 MILESTONES - HOPE MOORER 2 -- it says April, but it's probably going to be 3 about May. We're hoping it will be April, but 4 it's probably going to be about May. And then 5 it goes out for public comment at that time. 6 So you're looking at spring for draft EIS 7 release, at this point. Like I said, from that 8 point on, because of the uncertainty with how 9 long external review will take, how long the 10 Civil Works Review Board, where it falls in the 11 process, how we get there, it gets a little 12 more uncertain after that. 13 We're still working through with 14 headquarters and the Corps and the regional 15 folks about how much time to put in for each 16 task. So, we'll update at the next SEG meeting 17 on what the milestones look like on that month. 18 Yes, Karen, did you have a question? 19 MS. GRAINEY: How long is the comment 20 period? 21 MS. MOORER: The comment period is 22 normally, under NEPA, is 45 days, but anyone 23 can request an extension of an additional l5 24 days. So we have put into the schedule 60 25 days. 138 1 MILESTONES - HOPE MOORER 2 MS. GRAINEY: Have you made the request 3 for the extension? 4 MS. MOORER: No. We're putting it in the 5 schedule there will be a request and a 60 day 6 review. I don't think we have to. We can put 7 it at 60 days anyway. 8 You have to allow 45 days, under NEPA, and 9 someone can request an additional l5 for a 60 10 day comment period, I think, is how it reads. 11 MR. DYSART: Additional comments, 12 questions? Judy. 13 MS. JENNINGS: A question, all the comment 14 periods, all the things you're talking about 15 are for work by the Civil Works Review Board? 16 MS. MOORER: No, no, no, what I was 17 talking about was the GRR and EIS, the draft 18 GRR and EIS. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Everything else was public? 20 MS. MOORER: Yes. That is all that I was 21 talking about was public. The Civil Works 22 Review Board is like now an extra step you have 23 to go through before the final. 24 MR. WILLIS: Is this on the web? 25 MS. MOORER: The milestones -- 139 1 ECONOMICS - ALAN GARRETT 2 MR. WILLIS: This -- these dates? 3 MS. MOORER: It will be. 4 MR. KEEGAN: It will reflect these dates. 5 MS. MOORER: It reflects September instead 6 of October. It's all fallen back a little bit. 7 MS. KRONQUEST: Is there a public comment 8 period for the GRR? 9 MS. MOORER: Yes. The GRR and EIS, yes. 10 It's like a feasibility report before the EIS 11 and a general reevaluation report is released. 12 MR. DYSART: Further comments? 13 MR. GARRETT: About a three minute 14 discussion on the economics analysis update. 15 That's the purpose -- Kim Otto in Mobile is 16 working on that, the economist who is working 17 on these studies for us. 18 The Mobile District has taken reports that 19 have been prepared by GEC, which is the 20 consulting economics firm, and they have 21 updated those -- are bringing those up-to-date 22 with current forecasts. 23 Right now, they're looking these five 24 items, and as Hope pointed out, by December to 25 have this economics information in. Judy, the 140 1 ECONOMICS - ALAN GARRETT 2 constrained 2041 was halting growth, six and a 3 half TEUs are forecast through the port, and 4 that's 2041. And that will be the max capacity 5 at that time. That's one scenario that they're 6 looking at. 7 The other is the unconstrained scenario 8 which is continued growth through, probably 9 through the whole project life. The 10 constrained 20 plus years is per Corps 11 guidance. We have to do that, halting growth 12 at 20 years after the project is constructed. 13 Near term growth is assuming the average 14 rate of growth experienced over the last 10 15 years continues for the next 10 years, slowing 16 to the forecast in the GEC report which is a 17 little bit less than actually what has been 18 experienced over the last few years. 19 And the last one, port specific benefits 20 is where you -- the previous scenarios have 21 been modeled to consider system benefits, in 22 that the channel deepening benefits boats 23 calling to and after in the Savannah Harbor. 24 The port specific benefit analysis is looking 25 specifically at commerce-loaded or unloading in 141 1 ECONOMICS - ALAN GARRETT 2 Savannah. So that's what she's working on now. 3 We're really all waiting for the economics 4 to come out. We've got most of the costs 5 except for the mitigation, naturally, which 6 Bill is going to talk about. We're quickly 7 coming to the point we'll have some good 8 information on economics. 9 Beyond that, I can't address any of the 10 specific questions because I'm not an 11 economist, but this is what they're telling me. 12 The other thing the economists are doing, Hope 13 alluded to a passing lane analysis, the pilots 14 have indicated there are three areas -- I'll go 15 ahead and show you the map. I don't know how 16 well you can see -- the three squares on there 17 represent areas where the pilots have indicated 18 they would like to have the ability to pass 19 vessels. One is Long Island, Ft. Jackson and 20 Marsh Island. 21 So they had to build an economics model 22 and that will -- there are a lot of different 23 permeantations in there, iterations and 24 combinations of which one of these passing 25 lanes are economically justified, justified to 142 1 ECONOMICS - ALAN GARRETT 2 build, are the benefits there to justify the 3 costs. So that fellow in Mobile is working 4 that issue as well. 5 MS. MOORER: Can I make a distinction 6 here? It's not a passing lane but a meeting 7 lane. 8 The channel, as designed, is one way 9 traffic for post-Panamax vessels. So at some 10 point, in the channel, the pilots see somewhere 11 where they can meet, two post-Panamax vessels, 12 and have enough room to meet or pass each other 13 going in opposite directions, not overtaking 14 passing which would require a much longer area. 15 MR. GARRETT: You can't build a double 16 yellow line in the middle of the channel. 17 MS. MOORER: That's the type of lane that 18 they're looking at. 19 MR. GARRETT: But that's it on economics. 20 MS. BOWERS: That includes LNG tankers? 21 MR. GARRETT: Yes. There won't be whole 22 lot of passing those anyway, there's so many 23 restrictions on LNG cargo. The question was 24 does that include LNG tankers. I don't know 25 what the current Coast Guard restrictions are, 143 1 ECONOMICS - ALAN GARRETT 2 but they don't really consider passing. 3 MR. DYSART: Wes. 4 MR. WOOLF: Do you have a table of 5 contents on that report? 6 MR. GARRETT: Which report is that? 7 MR. WOOLF: The economics. 8 MR. GARRETT: There are lots of different 9 parts and pieces of the economics report. 10 MR. WOOLF: Some of those have been made 11 public already and discussed around the table 12 here? Okay. I'll catch up. 13 MS. MOORER: Wes, if you have questions, 14 there's some of the original reports by GEC 15 that were done -- they were done prior to like 16 the world fleet and world trade were done prior 17 to the expansion of the Panama Canal, the vote 18 to expand the Panama Canal. 19 So there had to be additional work done to 20 update those reports. Some of that updating 21 work we were talking about, on the reports, is 22 underway right now by the Corps, and this is 23 what we're waiting on. 24 It's a conclusion. They're looking at 25 a scenario-based analysis with those five 144 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 scenarios. So we're hoping that soon as Kim is 3 able to finish the economics, that we'll be 4 able to get her here to discuss the results. 5 And hopefully that will be soon. We're really 6 hoping it will be soon. 7 MR. WOOLF: You're intending to complete 8 it by December? 9 MS. MOORER: It's supposed to be, and if 10 it can be completed by December with 11 scheduling, hopefully, we can get her in 12 January or February. 13 MR. DYSART: Judy. 14 MS. JENNINGS: I just wanted to clarify, 15 Wes, that the trade commodity fleets of all 16 kinds -- that kind of stuff -- has been posted 17 for quite a while. To emphasize what Hope 18 said, the analysis of those projections is what 19 we're waiting on the Corps to be able to share 20 with us. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. Bill, which one are 22 you giving us now? 23 MR. BAILEY: I think air quality, that's 24 the shortest one. Skip down through -- this is 25 a status report of the air quality analysis. 145 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 We did one version in '06, gave it to the EPA, 3 and they told us they would like us to expand 4 it. 5 We started working on that part. We first 6 looked at emissions from changes in the vessel 7 fleet, and they would like us to add air 8 toxics, and landside equipment, and add non-GPA 9 terminals. 10 So we're looking at the vessel fleets by 11 the ship type, container ships, LNG ships, 12 bulk, break bulk, those things where the ships 13 call, looking at the landside equipment that 14 would service those vessels, and then looking 15 at the different types of emissions. So, we're 16 following the EPA protocols. There's a report. 17 Larry, have you -- did you get that up? 18 MR. KEEGAN: Not yet. 19 MS. MOORER: I'm sorry. I haven't given 20 it to him. I have it here -- 21 MR. KEEGAN: I do now. 22 MR. BAILEY: That procedure will be up on 23 the website. It describes a number of ways to 24 do an air quality analysis, from a very 25 detailed analysis to a middle level and then a 146 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 more general approach. So it does give you a 3 range of options. 4 We're also using one that was conducted 5 for the port of Los Angeles and the EPA 6 suggested using that as a guide. So we're 7 looking at what's there now for emissions, 8 vessels and the landside equipment, looking at 9 the future fleets, and then the emissions out 10 in those future years. 11 We'll end up comparing future without 12 project and future with a project to identify 13 -- and the changes would be the impacts from 14 the project. And John, I'll let you describe 15 this. This is so simple, I'll let -- I'll let 16 you do this one. 17 This is the formula for calculating -- I 18 don't want to steal your thunder -- this is the 19 formula for calculating the emissions. 20 MR. ROBINETTE: Good. 21 MR. BAILEY: Basically, emissions are 22 equal to kind of the power of engine, how big 23 the engine is, load factors, how hard the 24 engine is working. Activity is how long they 25 use the engine, and then the emissions factored 147 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 is what is produced by that type of engine. 3 So that's the equation that we use for 4 each of these things. So there are different, 5 as I say, engines on the different size 6 vessels, as well as different engines on each 7 vessel, the main engine, small auxiliary 8 engine. 9 For load factors and amount of use, they 10 have different uses. They have cruising, you 11 know, full speed, then reduced speed. In 12 different parts of the harbor, they're turning 13 and may have a different -- different use of 14 engine maneuvering. 15 Hoteling is when they're sitting at the 16 dock. Each of those have a different level of 17 use of the engine and different time of use. 18 The time would be dependent on where they 19 -- how far they have to go up the harbor, if 20 it's a, you know, three hour trip, if it's just 21 two hours to something else that's closer to 22 ocean. 23 MS. MOORER: Bill, the emissions factors 24 come from the EPA? 25 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 148 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 MS. MOORER: They're rated for each type 3 of ship. At each of those different speeds, 4 there's different emissions for that, for each 5 type of ship and each of the different speeds 6 and engine loads. 7 MR. BAILEY: For the GPA landside 8 equipment, looking at the different types of 9 cargo handling equipment, if you will, they use 10 some of them -- most of the container cranes 11 are gas -- 12 MS. MOORER: Electric. 13 MR. BAILEY: Most are electric, not 14 diesel, and a number of them, the amount of use 15 also is looking at road trucks that come to 16 pick up containers, the number of those and how 17 long they spend in the area. 18 It's looking at the railroad engines for 19 those containers that go out by rail, and then 20 the bottom emissions factors are from the ones 21 that EPA has approved. 22 For the other terminals, we're looking at 23 getting the information from the harbor pilots 24 on the number and types of those vessels. So 25 the next step, basically, is to complete the 149 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 analysis, and look at the effects, and evaluate 3 them, give it to EPA and see what they say this 4 time, and put it in the draft EIS. 5 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, would these be -- 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Steve. 7 MR. WILLIS: Is there anything -- a 8 comprehensive or interactive analysis of the 9 pollution, the emissions side? I know where I 10 live downtown some days are overcast and it's 11 gotten so sugar plants and paper plants are all 12 cracking. It's getting pretty nasty now. Is 13 there anything being looked at, in the 14 comprehensive picture, or is it all being 15 looked at as isolated? 16 MR. BAILEY: Okay. We started off looking 17 at just the vessels. EPA wanted to expand that 18 to the entire harbor. In the work, we also are 19 going to -- are comparing it to what else 20 comes, what's being emitted in the county. So 21 it's a little bit broader. So we'll have a 22 number in there for comparison of how much of 23 everything is released in the county, how much 24 is coming from kind of all of the port 25 facilities. 150 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 MR. WOOLF: Which county? 3 MS. MOORER: Chatham. 4 MR. WOOLF: No analysis on the Beaufort or 5 South Carolina side? 6 MR. BAILEY: No, but if you have that 7 information, we'll put it in the report. 8 MR. WOOLF: Is there an analysis of inner 9 city expansion related to this, expanded 10 roadways that were needed as a result of the 11 port development, and then you take the air 12 quality analysis to include that? 13 MS. MOORER: Truck traffic will be 14 included, based on the cargo projections. 15 MR. WOOLF: Okay. No need for 16 infrastructure development related to the port? 17 MS. MOORER: Not in terms of terminals for 18 cargo handling equipment. 19 MR. WOOLF: Off-site? 20 MS. MOORER: I don't know what EPA has. 21 MR. DYSART: Andrea's has a question. 22 MS. MALLOY: I wanted to clarify the 23 geographic capture of the area for emissions. 24 Did you say it was all of Chatham County, or 25 going to be within a certain mile radius of 151 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 the port, depending on where the truck traffic 3 is going, where the vessels will be passing, 4 that kind of thing? 5 MR. BAILEY: We're looking at the vessels 6 coming into the harbor. We're basically 7 looking at the channel, what takes place and 8 how often, and then we're also looking at 9 landside equipment that service those vessels, 10 so GPA's facilities. We'll basically look at 11 those trucks, as they enter GPA property 12 MS. MALLOY: But only as they enter the 13 GPA property, not impact in the roads as they 14 leave, the additional traffic that -- 15 MR. BAILEY: This is an air quality 16 analysis -- 17 MS. MALLOY: Right. 18 MR. BAILEY: -- not a traffic analysis 19 MS. MALLOY: Air quality, as impacted by 20 the traffic that will be increased, within a 21 certain mile radius of the port? 22 MR. BAILEY: We'll be including the trucks 23 necessary to move the containers -- 24 MS. MALLOY: The truck's air space where 25 it is being monitored is being captured 152 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 directly around the property lines of the port? 3 MR. BAILEY: Right. We're not going out 4 -- we don't have any times of how long they 5 spend in certain, like out to I-95 or out to 6 Effingham County, we don't have that 7 information 8 MS. MALLOY: Okay. 9 MR. DYSART: John, Judy, David. 10 MR. ROBINETTE: What are you using for 11 type and grade of fuels, is there a standard 12 fuel that you use, when you are calculating 13 emissions from a container vessel or from a 14 large ship? 15 MR. BAILEY: Just the standard that's been 16 used, as we've been doing the work, we've seen 17 the EPA has required different -- changes in 18 the fuel, and there's been less -- there's 19 been less -- lower -- 20 MR. ROBINETTE: Lower emissions? 21 MR. BAILEY: -- lower emissions, lower 22 levels of sulfur in the future, so EPA has 23 those things on the books where they have to be 24 at a lower level in the future. I'm not sure 25 how much of that we're going to be able to 153 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 crank into our analysis or not, but all the -- 3 on some of those parameters, there are 4 requirements that they be lower in the future. 5 We'll identify those in the report, 6 whether we can quantify them or not. I think 7 we're just going to probably show the numbers 8 as they are now. 9 MR. ROBINETTE: And your time and distance 10 analysis, does that start, you know, when the 11 ship first enters the harbor way offshore? 12 MS. MOORER: That's something I have to 13 talk to Bill about, because I've been the one 14 gathering a lot of the time data and the speed 15 data. 16 And it's -- we need to consult with EPA 17 about how far out that goes, how far out it 18 should go. Technically, EPA -- I was reading 19 in the EPA suggestions and it has, normally, 20 the pilots board at the breakwater. 21 Well, our breakwater is very close in. 22 Our pilots board 10 miles offshore. From that 23 point on, they're pretty much at a reduced 24 speed, you know, unlike some other terminals 25 that cruise all the way in to the breakwater 154 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 then get in then at a reduced speed. 3 It's something we need to consult with EPA 4 to understand where is that point, where do we 5 do it? You know, because our speeds are slower 6 from a longer point out, because of where the 7 pilots board, and where the breakwater is, and 8 where -- and the federal pilot area and 9 normally breakwater are not where our sea bouy 10 or where the pilots boarding area is. That's 11 something we have to consult with EPA on to 12 kind of determine that, so -- 13 MR. DYSART: Judy. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Some of the questions have 15 already come up, but you mentioned, you know, 16 the landside. You'll include tugboats? 17 MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. 18 MS. JENNINGS: And will this be on the 19 presentation on the website? 20 MR. BAILEY: It will be. 21 MS. JENNINGS: Good. Going back to what 22 Andrea said about the -- I realize you can't do 23 -- well actually, I don't know why you couldn't 24 do a traffic pattern. You know where some of 25 these -- you know where some of these going, I 155 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 mean to 12, 14 or so distributions centers. 3 MR. BAILEY: The other part, the other 4 consideration in the analysis is that the 5 amount of cargo is not going to change. 6 The projections the Corps has is that the 7 cargo is not going to change with a deeper 8 harbor, so the number of trucks isn't going to 9 change. 10 MS. JENNINGS: And you realize everytime 11 y'all say that, you get a comment back from me. 12 I find that completely astounding. Is that up 13 for discussion? 14 MR. BAILEY: Everything is up for 15 discussion. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Y'all have said that 17 everytime I ever brought that up, that a deeper 18 harbor won't result in more cargo. I mean, 19 that's one of those assumptions that I always 20 stumble over. 21 MS. MOORER: I think -- I think too, you 22 need to wait on the economics analysis to be 23 completed, because there are scenario-based 24 analyses too. I think that's going to end up, 25 eventually, factoring into that. The scenario 156 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 -- I wouldn't just count that final yet until 3 we see that final count. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Also I don't want to put in 5 too much in terms air quality. It comes up 6 everytime they say it and there are lots of 7 reasons to say it. 8 MS. MOORER: Yes. 9 MR. DYSART: David. 10 MR. KYLER: A Couple questions. That 11 first slide Alan went over, I guess you have 12 the same set of slides, Bill? 13 MR. BAILEY: No. 14 MR. KYLER: There are references to 15 constraints, and that's exclusively the 16 Savannah port and not the Jasper port, right? 17 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 18 MR. KYLER: Jasper is, at this point, 19 totally independent. It's not part of the 20 analysis. 21 MR. BAILEY: From what he was talking 22 about, yes. 23 MR. KYLER: Because obviously, having some 24 capacity in Jasper, at some point in the life 25 span of this project, but affecting the 157 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 constraints on this project, it seems to me. 3 MR. BAILEY: I'm not -- I think that would 4 be adding constraints to the harbor as a result 5 of that project. 6 MR. KYLER: I guess it depends what you're 7 considering the term constraint to apply to. 8 Less constraint on traffic, it seems to me, if 9 there are other place where the vessels coming 10 in can go. 11 So there would more landside support and 12 more diverse docking and facilities, if you 13 have a port at Jasper than just one at the 14 existing GPA facility. 15 It seems that's a good reason, one of many 16 reasons, to incorporate both analysis of both 17 projects into one assessment. Aside from that, 18 I want to bring up another point I raised when 19 we were discussing the oxygen injections 20 system. 21 That is, the electrical impacts may seem 22 innocuous at this level of analysis. After 23 all, power has to be generated someplace, and 24 that has air emissions and water use for that 25 water thermal contamination of its own -- in 158 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 its own right. 3 So it seems to me, you should be analyzing 4 air quality impacts also in terms of electrical 5 loads being imposed by this project in the 6 landside facility, if that's different than 7 what it would be without the project. 8 MR. BAILEY: Okay. 9 MR. KYLER: You understand my point. 10 MS. MOORER: Pre-utilization with or 11 without a project is what you are saying? 12 MR. KYLER: Yes. Power plants -- power 13 plants have implications on the environment as 14 well, including air quality. So if you are 15 more electricity, that need to be attributed. 16 That may be marginal compared to the other 17 air emissions issues related to vessels, but 18 still it needs to be incorporated, in order to 19 be systemic and thorough in your analysis. 20 MR. DYSART: Gail, Steve, Judy, and we 21 have five minutes left. 22 MS. BOWERS: This is strictly a curiosity. 23 Once you submit your expanded air analysis 24 report to the EPA, do they have a certain time 25 frame in which to respond, or they can take as 159 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 long as they want? I was just curious about 3 that. 4 MR. BAILEY: They can take long as they 5 want, and if they don't answer it, it will be 6 in the EIS. They can comment on it then. 7 MS. BOWERS: Okay. Thank you. 8 MR. DYSART: Steve. 9 MR. WILLIS: Just real quickly, the last 10 meeting we said that, I believe, that they 11 forecast a six-fold increase in the number of 12 containers coming through the port. 13 I guess what you're saying is that's going 14 to happen whether we deepen the port or not, so 15 it's not contingent on that. I was just 16 wondering, are you considering this analysis 17 based upon no change in the number of ships 18 coming through here, because of the port 19 deepening, or are you considering all this, the 20 pollution aspects for this with a six-fold 21 increase. I mean which one, is it six-fold or 22 none? 23 MR. BAILEY: We'll be looking at it, at 24 emissions at present time, and then we'll also 25 be looking at emissions, I guess it's 50 years 160 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 out both with and without the project. 3 So we have one point now and another point 4 in the future, if the harbor is not deepened. 5 So it will capture -- it will capture growth 6 that the economics folks say they expect to 7 move through the harbor. It will also have one 8 out in the future, if the harbor is deepened. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy. 10 MS. JENNINGS: I'm just wondering, I'm 11 sure you use various time frames, but when you 12 look at the Savannah fleet projections, over 13 time, do you consider the number of vehicles -- 14 I'm sorry the number of vessels that would be 15 outfitted for cold ironing? 16 MS. MOORER: No. 17 MR. BAILEY: In this, no, we're not 18 assuming a change in that -- in their emissions 19 that way. 20 MR. DYSART: Hope. 21 MS. MOORER: Judy, I don't think that's to 22 say that would or wouldn't happen. It's just 23 it's not there now, and most of the vessels 24 calling are not outfitted for that. We have to 25 look in the future, with the project and 161 1 AIR QUALITY - BILL BAILEY 2 without the project. We don't know how to 3 configure that in at this point. 4 MS. JENNINGS: But it's more of a question 5 mark, but you are looking at it? 6 MS. MOORER: No. I don't think there's -- 7 we don't know how to factor that in, what 8 percentage of the ships, in the future, would 9 be outfitted for cold ironing. 10 MS. JENNINGS: But you're not asking -- 11 MS. MOORER: It doesn't rule out of 12 potential future things to be in place 13 somewhere, but I don't think you can accurately 14 reflect what might be in the future, or if 15 that's the way the technology goes in the 16 future. 17 There are reports that I've read that 18 scrubbers are -- you is that the way they will 19 go. I mean -- 20 MS. JENNINGS: I guess really that's a 21 good point. The question could be expanded to 22 say how are you considering the industry's 23 response to clearly air issues at ports. The 24 technology on the vessels, if it is not cold 25 ironing, then scrubbers or what other 162 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 technologies are they employing on vessels, and 3 how many of those vessels might be induced to 4 call on Savannah. 5 MR. DYSART: The next potential meeting 6 date -- we thank you, Bill, for some of your 7 presentations. We will look forward to that in 8 an updated form. 9 Suggested next meeting, Will's suggestion 10 is January, how does that sound for planning 11 purposes? 12 MS. MOORER: I would like to suggest that 13 we have an interim meeting in December as well. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay, a well-attended -- 15 MR. BERSON: Let's let -- the normal 16 impulse would be to do December 4th, but I 17 think this is a people driven meeting. 18 MS. MOORER: I think so too for op 19 guidelines. 20 MR. BERSON: Let's commit to posting it on 21 website or ask Cathy to do an e-mail. We'll 22 work for the 4th. If the 4th doesn't work for 23 everybody, we'll go to an alternate -- sound 24 good for everybody? 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. Tentative SEG meeting 163 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 January the 8th. 3 MR. KEEGAN: Certainly not the 1st. 4 MR. DYSART: Not the 1st, not the 1st. 5 All right. Thank you for your good discussion, 6 your good humor today. We'll hopefully be 7 moving things along. Hope, you have a great 8 meeting at the interim session. Bring some 9 good stuff for us to act upon 10 11 (Concluded at 1:00 o'clock p.m.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 164 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 G E O R G I A : 5 CHATHAM COUNTY : 6 7 I hereby certify that the foregoing 8 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 9 caption, and the questions and answers thereto were 10 reduced to typewriting under my direction; that the 11 foregoing pages 1 through 163 represent a true and 12 correct transcript of the evidence given upon said 13 hearing, and I further certify that I am not of kin 14 or counsel to the parties in the case; am not in 15 the regular employ of counsel for any of said 16 parties; nor am I in anywise interested in the 17 result of said case. 18 This the 6th day December, 2007. 19 20 _______________________________ 21 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 22 Reporter, B-2041 23 24 25