1 2 3 4 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 5 6 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 7 8 SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 9 9:00 A.M. 10 MIGHTY 8TH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 11 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 I N D E X 5 6 INTRODUCTIONS ------------------------------- 3 7 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING ------------------------- 8 8 COMMITTEE REPORTS --------------------------- 73 9 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS ----------- 77 10 OPERATING GUIDELINES DISCUSSION ------------- 80 11 CERTIFICATE --------------------------------- 129 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ........................................................WITNESS [INTRODUCTIONS 3 1 2 (THE REPORTER: I'm appearing here today on 3 behalf of my employer, Tom Crites & Associates. My 4 office was requested by Georgia Ports Authority to 5 provide a court reporter today at 9:00 a.m. at this 6 address. 7 Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well as at 8 the instructions of my employer, I wish to disclose 9 that, other than accepting to serve as your 10 reporter, we have not entered into any other 11 contractual agreement with any party involved in 12 this case.) 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. I would like to welcome 14 all of you to the meeting of the Stakeholders 15 Evaluation Group. We have a very nice turnout. 16 I understand we have several more on the way. 17 It's always good to have a representative group of 18 agencies, businesses, citizens, and so forth. 19 We have an interesting agenda today. We have 20 some interesting reports coming in, and let's 21 proceed with this. 22 All of you should have a copy of the draft 23 agenda. The first thing we like to do, as always, 24 is introduce the folks who are here, the membership 25 of the SEG, and we'd like to start with Lou. Say 4 1 2 who you are and who you represent and come around 3 the table. 4 MR. OFF: Okay. Lou Off, I am with the Tybee 5 Island Beach Task Force. 6 MR. SMITH: Card Smith with the Savannah 7 District Corps of Engineers. 8 MS. McINTOSH: Mackie McIntosh with the 9 Savannah District Corps of Engineers. 10 MR. GRIFFIN: Dave Griffin, Georgia Department 11 of Transportation. 12 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo. 13 MR. WRIGHT: Tom Wright, citizen. 14 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, Savannah 15 Coastal Refuge. 16 MR. PRUSA: Tom Prusa, Savannah Coastal 17 Refuge. 18 MR. FLOCK: Allan Flock, Savannah National 19 Wildlife Refuge. 20 MS. RAHN: Lucille Collins Rahn, Georgia 21 Sierra. Judy Jennings, Georgia Sierra. 22 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 23 Service. 24 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, Lockwood Greene 25 Engineers, consultant to GPA. 5 1 2 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for GPA. 3 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 4 Authority. 5 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 6 Authority. 7 MR. DYSART: I'm Ben Dysart, the SEG 8 Facilitator. 9 MR. KYLER: Dave Kyler, Center for a 10 Sustainable Coast. 11 MR. PLACHY: Doug Plachy, U.S. Army Corps of 12 Engineers, Savannah District. 13 MR. FLEMING: Joel Fleming, Georgia DNR, 14 Fishing Management. 15 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia Wildlife 16 Federation. 17 MS. MOORE: Kelie Moore, DNR, Coastal 18 Resources Division. 19 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers. 20 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, citizen. 21 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, The Georgia 22 Conservancy. 23 MR. BEACH: Rick Beach, Weston Solutions. 24 MR. THOMAS: Paul Thomas, EMD Chemicals. 25 MR. STAFFORD: John Stafford, Ogeechee 6 1 2 Audubon. 3 MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of Savannah 4 and also The Savannah Harbor Committee. 5 MR. DYSART: We have some people -- forces of 6 darkness, I suppose, sitting out there without any 7 lights on. I presume that that is getting ready 8 for the presentation, that's light humor, item 9 three. 10 The next item is to look at the agenda, 11 proposed agenda for today, you should all have a 12 copy of that, and if there are any items that 13 anyone -- sure. 14 MS. JENNINGS: For the record, I was late, 15 Judy Jennings. 16 MR. DYSART: As usual, if there's anything 17 that anybody wants to add or anybody wants to move 18 around or what not, this is your agenda. 19 Everything on here are things that I have picked up 20 that y'all have suggested and so forth. 21 We do have a custom of anything, any 22 scientific presentation or briefing, we tend to put 23 that early on in the program, so forth. So is 24 there anything that you want to add or anything 25 that you want to change or what not? 7 1 2 MR. PLACHY: Ben -- 3 MR. DYSART: Yes. 4 MR. PLACHY: -- we'd like to do an update on 5 Savannah Harbor Expansion Aquifer Study under the 6 scientific briefing. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any other suggested 8 changes? While you're thinking about that, anyone 9 who has come in since we had our introductions, 10 please introduce themselves. 11 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia Ports 12 Authority. 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: Oh -- Chris Schuberth, Chatham 14 Environmental Forum. 15 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. 16 If there are no further suggestions for changes, 17 other than moving the aquifer update under section 18 4A, we will consider the draft agenda as accepted 19 and we will operate under that. 20 You've had an opportunity to review the July 21 transcript as posted. Are there any changes or 22 clarifications or what not you want to make on the 23 record pertaining to that? Seeing none, we will 24 consider that the SEG has adopted the transcript, 25 as posted, as a fair record of what was said at the 8 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 last meeting. 3 At this time, we're ready for the scientific 4 briefings, and Doug would you like to kick that off 5 or introduce that? 6 MR. PLACHY: Sure. Card Smith is our 7 hydrogeologist, in our district, that's been 8 working on this study for a quite a number of years 9 overall, but in this latest effort about six 10 months. And Mackie McIntosh is also working with 11 Card on this, and Card, if you would be so kind. 12 MR. SMITH: I'll put you back in the dark up 13 here if you don't mind. I'll move this over and 14 not use audio. I trust you can hear me okay if I 15 don't use that. 16 Well, we asked Doug if we could come and make 17 an update presentation on the aquifer studies that 18 we've been doing. Since we were here last updating 19 you on the data, we've done an awful lot. 20 We've done a tremendous amount of drilling on 21 the water and on land, and we're not through yet. 22 We still have some work to do. 23 We've collected some pretty interesting data, 24 some extremely interesting data, I think. Last 25 time we were here, we gave you some indications of 9 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 what some of our pore water data was looking like 3 that we're pretty excited about, and now we have a 4 lot more of that data to show you. 5 I want to show you what the trend is with that 6 data all the way from the entrance to the harbor to 7 downtown. 8 Last time we were here, we showed you a couple 9 of slides that might help tune some folks into the 10 way that we looked at the harbor. This is a 11 typical image that we might expect to see in the 12 harbor, but when it comes to thinking about ground 13 water the way that we do, we like to think of it 14 like this. 15 This is just a little cartoon to kind of 16 illustrate some of the main points that we're 17 working on, and that is if we look below the 18 channel, into the geology of the channel, here's 19 the greener material, the miocene confining 20 material, and here's the yellowish material which 21 is the Floridan Aquifer. 22 Again, this is a cartoon. This is not to 23 scale or anything, but just to illustrate an idea. 24 Of course, here's one of these rascal paleochannels 25 here that we've been doing an awful lot of work on. 10 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 We have some interesting seismic data to show 3 you this morning on paleochannels. This is the way 4 we like to think of what's going on in the harbor 5 for our work. 6 We started out with six basic elements of 7 supplemental work to do for our aquifer studies. 8 And everything in yellow and what's checked off is 9 what we've completed. The last one, the land 10 drilling, we're still engaged in that, and we will 11 about tomorrow or the next day be cranking up again 12 to start working again on some of these multilevel 13 wells in a couple of locations. 14 So we're still working on a lot of these. 15 We're still working on compiling the, GIS and 16 adding to the harbor-wide GIS with any -- 17 basically, any subsurface information that we have. 18 We are working on the 3D models. It's coming 19 along well. We'll talk more about that in a little 20 bit. We did do the sub-bottom seismic survey, and 21 I'll show you some more of that this morning. 22 We have completed -- pretty much completed all 23 of the marine drilling where we drilled in the 24 paleochannels, the deep paleochannels areas, and 25 some other areas too. 11 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 Mostly, that was to get pore water data and to 3 also enhance the stratigraphy, the geologic 4 situation here. We wanted to learn everything we 5 could or learn more about -- as I said, now we are 6 in the additional land drilling phase. 7 We have completed a good bit of that. We are 8 continuing on with that. Our last one here, we 9 conducted a trial pumping test. That remains to be 10 done yet, so we'll be looking at doing that when we 11 complete these deep well installations. 12 Okay. Just quickly, a little map to show you 13 these elements along the entire harbor, how they 14 fit into the whole picture. The area in yellow 15 here is the area we wanted to resurvey with seismic 16 and get a better handle on the orientation of 17 paleochannels in this area, because this is the 18 area where they're concentrated, basically Fields 19 Cut and just offshore of Tybee. 20 The blue boring locations are dots, and I 21 realize they're hard to see from the back of the 22 room. Those are borings that we've done 23 previously. The red ones are the additional 24 borings that we've now done in the harbor in the 25 channel and on land. 12 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 Some of these are wells and some of them were 3 just port water and stratigraphic borings. Of 4 course, in the 1998 seismic survey, we identified 5 about five or six deep paleochannels that 6 definitely warranted further -- further work. 7 It's not as if these are the only 8 paleochannels, but as I said, these were the deeper 9 ones that possibly would impact things more in the 10 shallow waters. I just wanted to give you a quick 11 view. 12 If you have never seen or thought about how 13 the seismic survey might be done, it's not a very 14 complicated process, as far as collecting data. Of 15 course, a lot of complicated equipment is used. 16 Basically, you'll have a 30 foot boat towing a 17 boomer, or a sound source, about 30 or 40 yards 18 behind the vessel. On the other side of the boat, 19 what you can't see is called an eel. It's a long 20 string of very sensitive geophones or microphones. 21 So the boomer sends down a huge sound source, 22 goes down, penetrates the bottom, and reflects off 23 of layers in the bottom. And then the eel, on the 24 other side, measures the reflective signal that 25 comes back up. What you get inside the cabin on 13 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 the record there are these seismic records. 3 Those are the ones that we're interested in. 4 Okay. The supplemental seismic survey, as I showed 5 in the previous slide, we concentrate in this area 6 where the paleochannels were -- were concentrated. 7 We're just trying to show in this slide the density 8 of track lines. 9 All these red lines are track lines that we 10 recorded our position using GPS on all the seismic 11 lines we've run. You can see where we concentrated 12 -- pointer is dying out -- you can see where we 13 concentrated in some of these areas. Of course, 14 those are where the paleochannels were. 15 We crisscrossed them back and forth to try to 16 get as much coverage. We just wanted to show you 17 this to give you an aerial view. If you notice 18 a familiar landmark here, Ft. Pulaski, here's where 19 the jetty -- north jetty comes ashore, south jetty 20 comes ashore here. 21 You can see the borings we've done, some of 22 the borings in relation to the paleochannels. 23 Wherever you see the red -- let me back up. The 24 white lines here are the track lines. Everywhere 25 you see a track line is where we ran the vessel to 14 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 record data. 3 Where you see the red lines is where that 4 track line encountered a paleochannel. Okay. So 5 the important thing about this is in the initial 6 survey and other surveys we've run, we've only run 7 down the center line of the channel, just a one 8 shot center line slice looking in the bottom. 9 Now we've come back and we've run these 10 crisscross patterns a lot of different directions 11 to get a better field of orientation of these 12 paleochannels. So we've really worked theses 13 paleochannels over. 14 I think it would be fair to say that there's 15 probably not an area anywhere, that I can imagine, 16 that has been worked over for paleochannel 17 delineation as has been in the Savannah Harbor. 18 There have been some other projects and some 19 other papers done on this type of thing, but I 20 don't think any of them come close to collecting 21 the data that we're trying to collect on this. 22 So here we are a little further out now, and 23 you can see the jetty coming out here, the north 24 jetty, the north end of Tybee. We're just trying 25 to show you, again, where we encountered these 15 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 paleochannels to give you some perspective, kind of 3 in a real world sense, about, you know, we all kind 4 of know where the north end of Tybee is. 5 Right here in the jetties is one significant 6 paleochannel. Right here at the end of the jetties 7 is yet another. Outside the jetties, in this turn, 8 is another area where we have a pretty good 9 paleochannel. 10 Okay. Here -- here we just want to show you 11 one quick shot of an interpretation. The guys who 12 did the seismic work for us also did the previous 13 survey, and they were well-familiar with our 14 stratigraphy here. 15 We think they did an excellent job of not only 16 collecting data but interpreting the data. One 17 thing about these guys doing this work, as I said, 18 they were familiar with our site. They worked here 19 before, so we knew they could bring the right 20 equipment here to do this work. 21 But the real thing we were concerned about, in 22 this survey getting off the center line of the 23 channel, is our experience has shown when you work 24 along the edges of the channel, you usually 25 don't get good data or, heretofore, we did not get 16 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 good data. 3 It had a lot of windows in the data or and a 4 lot of problems, because in areas where it has not 5 been dredged, you have a lot of gases in the 6 sediments, natural gases in the sediments from 7 decomposition of organic matter. 8 That tends to dampen or -- or confuse the 9 seismic data. But lo and behold, we started 10 working outside the center line, working along the 11 edges, and we just -- I just couldn't believe some 12 of the data we got, because it was so much better 13 than what we'd seen before outside the center line. 14 So these are some of the actual records, and 15 this is an actual location -- see this paleochannel 16 location; here's the jetty, here's the north end of 17 Tybee. This is that one on the curve out here. 18 All these guys are trying to do is -- this is 19 called a fence diagram in geology. We use these a 20 good bit to -- you can see where they took a 21 section through this area. We surveyed kind of 22 this way, and jagged over this way, and turned 90 23 degrees. You can see how this is. 24 Of course, they're reproducing that in this 25 fence diagram. This red line represents the 17 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 paleochannel. 3 Well, what we're trying to do is give you and 4 ourselves a 3D representation of this paleochannel 5 the best that we can. I realize this fence diagram 6 doesn't really do a very good job of that. If you 7 can just visual the other side of this paleochannel 8 coming over this way, and this is the same 9 paleochannel in this fence diagram here, where it 10 just winds itself around here. 11 We intersect it in one direction here and we 12 take a slice 90 degrees of that. Here it is over 13 here. This material here is actually the confining 14 material, and this is the top of the Floridan 15 Aquifer here. 16 Okay. So those are the some of the important 17 things that we're concerned with. Okay. We've 18 done this kind of thing before too, but we pulled 19 some of the sections out of the seismic report. 20 Again, we're laying some of our boring data over 21 those. 22 We're just trying to show you here that an 23 interpretation in this location of the paleochannel 24 cuts down in the miocene. Our boring does a pretty 25 good job of verifying this gray material is 18 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 in-filling material in the paleochannel. 3 Below here confining material. Now, these 4 don't agree exactly. There's a couple of reasons 5 for that. One of them is the resolution of the 6 seismic data; if you get within about three feet on 7 the seismic data, you're doing a pretty good job. 8 What I mean by that is we drill a boring, we 9 have really tight control on the vertical down to 10 the tenth of where these things occur in the 11 boring. 12 When you get the seismic data, the resolution 13 of the seismic data is within about three feet. So 14 there's going to be a little bit of play in here. 15 The other thing is, the important thing is that 16 where these borings are located is not necessarily 17 in exactly the same place that the seismic line was 18 run. 19 Okay. So the materials you encounter, if that 20 boring is actually 100 or 200 feet away from that 21 line, then you have a little bit different 22 situation of what you encounter. 23 Okay. We just wanted to give you a quick idea 24 of how close we have drilled to the channel. Some 25 of these ships that come in come very close to the 19 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 jack-up barge. We can't really drill in the center 3 of the channel, I think I've said it before, 4 because of the disruption of the shipping. We 5 don't want to do that. 6 We tried very hard to pick locations on the 7 very edge of the channel, as close to the channel 8 as we could get, and still be in a good location to 9 encounter the best part of the paleochannel that we 10 could -- the deepest part of the paleochannel -- 11 because again, we wanted to get the best pore water 12 profile that we could. 13 We're going to show a lot of that pore water 14 here in a second. Okay. I just wanted to show you 15 a quick shot of some of the land work that we're 16 doing. This is actually working on our boring 17 SHE-18. 18 If you know where Fields Cut is, this is over 19 on the edge of the disposal area of the river right 20 back here. The ships were coming by, you could 21 see their superstructure up over these trees. 22 We're right on the bluff on the northside of 23 the channel at Fields Cut with the drill rig. 24 These are some of our -- this is some of the 25 confining material, the miocene confining material. 20 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 We're in the process here of pulling samples 3 out of the pore water. This sample has just come 4 out of the core barrel, and the sample is about 5 three inches in diameter, and this is a nice 10 6 foot stick. We make 10 foot runs with the barrel, 7 and when you do good, this is what you end up with, 8 is 10 feet. If you do bad, you end up with two 9 feet. 10 So that's not good. We like to get as much 11 core as we can. We've had some pretty good corings 12 with this work. Okay. Pore water, we talked about 13 pore water before. This is something we're really 14 focusing on. 15 This is Dr. Jim Landmeyer, with USGS, out of 16 Columbia, South Carolina. Pore water, the pore 17 water work we're doing is kind of his baby. He and 18 Camille Ransom, with South Carolina DHEC, got 19 together and started doing some preliminary pore 20 water work on some borings that Camille was doing, 21 and it really looked promising. 22 Of course, some of you, who might have been 23 at some of the early Aquifer Committee meetings we 24 had, know that Camille Ransom proposed doing this 25 also with some of the harbor borings, because 21 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 he felt like from the work he and Jim had done it 3 would good be some data. 4 And boy, was he right. So here's when we 5 squeeze those pore water samples, we pull out, you 6 know, a couple of inches from the sample. 7 And Jim Landmeyer was doing the squeezing, but 8 what we've done now is we've borrowed Jim's press, 9 all of his equipment. He was gracious enough to 10 loan it to us. 11 We do the extraction in the field. We squeeze 12 all the samples right when they come out of the 13 barrel in the field, and that gives us a nice 14 sample and a representative sample. 15 We, of course, file those samples and send 16 those into Jim. We might get anywhere from five to 17 one milliliter of sample. And really, I think Jim 18 -- what does Jim say, Mackie, he has to have at 19 least one milliliter or maybe a little less -- 20 MR. McINTOSH: Pretty much. 21 MR. SMITH: -- to analyze a sample. So, it 22 doesn't take very much. This is what Jim calls a 23 hockey puck. When you put about 3,000 pounds of 24 pressure on the sample and hand press, it hand 25 presses that sample down to a nice, compact unit, 22 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 and there's your sample in the vial. 3 Okay. This is one of the things, even though 4 it's an extremely simple thing, that we've had a 5 lot of fun with. It's been very interesting, 6 extremely interesting, extremely useful in the 7 field, but we almost laugh about it now, because as 8 soon as we get a sample out, we're almost fighting 9 to see whose going to get to look at the sample 10 first in the refractometer. 11 This is a handheld refractometer that Jim 12 Landmeyer loaned us. What it does, it's a very 13 simple process. It's used in a lot of food 14 processing techniques and things where you can 15 -- sometimes you can look at sugars using 16 refractometry. In this case, we're looking at 17 salts. On this scale, you take one drop and put 18 it on this refractometer and look at it in the 19 light. 20 I realize this is kind of fuzzy, but in a 21 normal viewing, through a refractometer, it's very 22 clear and very explicit where this line is. On 23 this side is a scale, and this is a scale for 24 salinity, not chlorides, but salinity, like all the 25 salts together. 23 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 These are in parts per thousand. So we can 3 directly read off five minutes after we pull the 4 sample out of hole, and squeeze it and get the pore 5 water. 6 We have a nice, better than ball park idea of 7 what the salinity is in that boring at that level. 8 Again, that is salinity. It's not chlorides. When 9 we send a sample in to Jim, he measures chlorides 10 in the lab, so we get a more precise reading on the 11 one -- not the one, but the most important thing 12 we're concerned about here and interested in, and 13 that's chlorides. 14 Okay. We're going to zoom in on this, so give 15 me just a second. I don't expect you to read 16 values off of this from back in the room. What we 17 want to show you here, this is what we've been 18 working hard to produce. 19 Mackie has done a great job of representing 20 this, much better than I did earlier in some of our 21 earlier work, but we're trying to show you the pore 22 water profile; not only in individual borings, but 23 all the way down the river. 24 Here we are right here off of Tybee in this 25 SHE-4 -- 4 doesn't have pore water -- SHE-16 is our 24 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 furthest out pore water boring. 3 It's right here. We come all the way down 4 into town and up beyond the bridge. Up near IP we 5 have this SHE-15. This was a river borings which 6 was one of our deepest ones. 7 We have a complete pore water profile all the 8 way down. So this is the one we were really 9 interested in -- good coring and good data on. 10 So you can see we have got a pretty good 11 spread throughout the entire project length. What 12 we wanted to show you, the red numbers are the more 13 recent ones that we have filled in, these previous 14 ones that we had, and of course, many of the 15 previous borings we did not have pore water. 16 That's why we wanted to go back and do these 17 fill-ins and do the pore water. It would have been 18 great if we had known about pore water, had done 19 pore water early on, but we didn't. 20 Okay. Here we are, again, back up real quick. 21 We're going to look now from about SHE-18. This is 22 about Fields Cut, which is about right here, from 23 here back in this next section. 24 Okay. Let's start out and work our way in. 25 First thing you see, these curves; what do 25 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 these curves represent. These curves represent 3 chloride values in the borings, okay, pore water 4 chloride values. 5 Okay. What does that mean? First thing I 6 want to point out to you, we have two of them that 7 Jim Landmeyer has not given us the data on, so as 8 much as we tried to get that data for today, sorry 9 to say we don't have it. But the green curve you 10 see here is the refractometer data. So it gives us 11 a relative idea where these data points go, and we 12 can see that they resemble some of the others. 13 I'm not going to go into the values on these 14 salinity readings from the refractometer. All I 15 want to point out to you is they are indicative, 16 even though we don't yet have the final chloride 17 values, they show us kind of the shape of the 18 curve. 19 Even the chloride curve will mimic this curve 20 when we get it. That's what always happens. Okay. 21 So we come to SHE-10 here, this boring is right 22 across from Elba Island, like the westward end of 23 Elba Island in the harbor. 24 So what do we see in this boring? We come 25 down and start getting pore water samples here -- 26 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 remember this boring is on land and not in the 3 harbor. So we've got pore water values up high in 4 disposal area material. 5 So we start out around 1,700 and we come to 6 this value which is 820. We go down to 810, 756, 7 454, 451, 221, 179, 141, 130, and 76. 8 And why in the world did we get some down 9 here? Well, we did, but we haven't yet figured out 10 why Jim Landmeyer didn't analyze it. So we're 11 still looking into that, but we got a good profile 12 here. 13 So what we're looking at is the saltwater 14 profile or the chloride profile in this boring 15 around the Elba Island area. Okay. Let me back up 16 one second here too. Let me show you what this 17 blue line is. You can probably guess what this 18 line is. 19 This is the potentiometric surface, in the 20 Floridan Aquifer, for the year 2000. And this is 21 an approximate representation. We're just trying 22 to show you what the draw down cone looks like, in 23 our profile for the Floridan Aquifer, due to 24 pumping in Savannah. It's pretty clear where the 25 center of pumping is. 27 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 Here's SHE-19. We got some great data from 3 that. We're chomping at the bit to get the 4 chloride data back from the lab on this one, but 5 again, we have SHE-9. This one -- you know where 6 the tide gate is, this is right over on the north 7 end in Jasper County right on the end of the tide 8 gate structure -- near the end of it. 9 Now, I want to tell you something about this 10 boring right here. First of all, we've got some 11 values up here, 4,000, 5,000, 1,200, 1,200, 1,500, 12 they come on down to 900, 800, got a bump here, 13 some higher values, come down to 900, 800, and 14 right at the bottom we're at 310. 15 All right. This one boring right here is one 16 boring that we are kind of suspect on the data. We 17 think that what happened is we think the values are 18 too high. We're going to even go to the pain and 19 go back and take another quick boring here, and get 20 a couple of samples down low here. 21 The reason we think these are too high is 22 because there was a good time lapse. This was 23 before we were squeezing the samples in the field. 24 We would wrap the samples up, send them to Jim, and 25 he would squeeze the samples in the lab. 28 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 We think that there was too long a time 3 between the time we sent the samples in and the 4 time they were squeezed, because everyone of 5 samples is significantly higher than any of the 6 others, and that's one of the only reasons that we 7 can think of to see something like that, based on 8 what we see in the geology and stratigraphy. 9 We don't see anything that would lend itself 10 to having these types of values all the way down. 11 That's okay. We're going to live with these values 12 for right now. 13 Okay. Here's an extremely interesting and 14 extremely critical boring right here. That's 15 SHE-15, which is near the center of the cone. And 16 we -- this is actually a river boring out in the 17 channel or near the northside of the channel. 18 There is no paleochannel, so to speak here, no 19 paleochannel of mention here at all. So we started 20 sampling right -- right out of the surficial 21 material. In fact, this one appears to even be a 22 little bit of a surficial material, a value of 23 about 4,000. 24 You see the miocene drops back a little bit, 25 but right below the miocene we go up to 7,000. 29 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 This is curve is really a beautiful curve. We drop 3 from 7,000, 3,000, 1,400, 280, 130, 92, 45. Then 4 we have a little bump here, 192, 173, 51, 51, 16, 5 12, 22, 11, 15, 24. 6 So the one thing you can already see, we've 7 shown this before, these bumps here, for whatever 8 reason, are real. Down at this interface, they're 9 actually is somewhat of a contact that comes 10 through here, we've shown before, between the upper 11 and lower miocene. We left it off this time 12 because it can be confusing trying to look at these 13 sections. 14 There is, without a doubt, something going on 15 at this level that we don't know whether it's 16 chlorides are kind of stacking up here because 17 there's a less permeable layer here or what, but 18 there is a situation where something's going on 19 here. 20 You see it in a small way here. It's there 21 nonetheless. Okay. What's so important about this 22 boring? This boring is near the center of the 23 cone, and we have a lot of confining material. Any 24 salinity, any chloride in this area have had to 25 travel a long way, okay, because of pumping in this 30 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 area near the center of the cone. 3 This is where the maximum head difference is 4 between the river water and the aquifer. Okay. 5 Actually, to be technical, the maximum is right in 6 here. This is an area where it is deep. So where 7 we have the maximum head differential or the 8 maximum pull trying to pull saltwater down is in 9 this area right in here. 10 That's why this one is critical. In this 11 area, we didn't have any kind of information like 12 this before. We knew the confining material was 13 thick here, but we didn't have this pore water 14 profile. Now we have this. 15 We are really looking forward to, along with 16 all the other data, plugging this into the model 17 we're doing, and using this data, which you rarely 18 have this kind of data when you do a model like 19 this, the 3D model the guys are working on. 20 All right. Now, we're dealing from SHE-18, 21 which is at Fields Cut, all the way out to in front 22 of Tybee. Okay. This is where it gets really 23 interesting, because look where the borings are. 24 They are right smack in the paleochannels, and 25 we tried our hardest looking at all the seismic 31 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 data to locate these borings, not all of them but 3 some of them. 4 We couldn't put every boring we had in 5 paleochannels, but we wanted to get a good 6 representation in paleochannels for pore water. 7 We'd already done a lot of borings in 8 paleochannels, but we wanted to have some pore 9 water in a paleochannel. And the main thing that 10 we were shooting for was to get pore water data up 11 in the in-filling material in the paleochannels. 12 Okay. This was the ideal situation that we 13 tried to do was get not only the pore water data in 14 the miocene, but get data up here in the in-fill 15 material. 16 Now, let's start right here at SHE-16. This 17 curve goes with that boring. I know this is 18 confusing, but when you get these borings in the 19 scale we're trying to show now, all this pore water 20 data starts overlapping. Please bear with us. 21 This is the pore water profile for this boring 22 right here. Look at 16, 16 is not in a 23 paleochannel. 24 It's in between some paleochannels, but boy do 25 we have a nice chloride curve here we start out at 32 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 12,000, Mackie -- 3 MR. McINTOSH: 12,381. 4 MR. SMITH: -- 12,381. We drop that back to 5 about 5,000, 1,630, so a really nice profile. We 6 come down to about 16. Didn't we decide 24 is 7 actually in the limestone? 8 MR. McINTOSH: It's in the limestone. 9 MR. SMITH: Okay. In this upper limestone, 10 here's the Floridan Aquifer now remember. This is 11 all confining material. We've even got a couple of 12 samples down in the aquifer. 13 Here's one that shows 24 parts per million 14 chloride right at the interface between the 15 confining material and the aquifer. Okay. Now is 16 when it really gets interesting. 17 Look what happens -- here's the first one 18 coming this way in the paleochannel. We've got 19 these high values -- what -- 15,000 out here right 20 at the top of the miocene. 21 We drop back to 6,500 or so and then 3,000, 22 2,000, 2,000 something. We bump up to 2,700 and we 23 drop back to 1,600. Then we go 680, 74, 30 or so, 24 and then 20 -- is that 39 or 29 or so. Okay. So, 25 some kind of profile, but look what happens right 33 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 here -- here's another one of these bumps right 3 here. 4 Okay. So pretty interesting. All right. 5 Let's see what happens if we go to these others. 6 All right. That was 17 we just looked at in a 7 paleochannel. Here's 14, okay, also in a 8 paleochannel. 9 This is one of the deeper paleochannels, the 10 one at 13 and the one at 14. Look what happens 11 here -- 14,000, 5,000, 6,500, back up to 15,000 or 12 14,000, 15,000, 13,000, almost 3,000, and then 400, 13 186, 267, 69, and a sample in the limestone at 151. 14 Okay. Here's this trend, look, this bump here 15 in paleochannels. Okay. It's continuing on. 16 Let's go to 13, same kind of thing. Here's the 17 curve for 13. Look at this, 17,000 out here, 18 19,000, 16,000, almost 10,000, over 7,000, 4,500 or 19 so, 1,700, 1,000, 493, 281, 153. 20 The same thing with this one. Okay. So 21 there's a pretty obvious trend here. Paleochannels 22 apparently do have an effect on this downward 23 migration of chlorides. 24 Okay. We have one, two, three, four of them 25 in paleochannels. We put this 16 in to have kind 34 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 of an outlier or background boring in between two 3 fairly significant paleochannels. And lo and 4 behold we don't see that happening in that one. 5 We come over to these and we start seeing this 6 kick in there. 7 Okay. This is going to be extremely valuable 8 and extremely interesting data to put into our 9 model. Nobody is going to be able to deny that 10 there's something going on there. There is an 11 effect by paleochannels. 12 But the thing to remember is this is what's 13 going on right now. Okay. This is -- it is true 14 that there has been some dredging done previously 15 in some of these areas, but the one thing I want to 16 point out, last time we showed a boring that 17 Camille Ransom at South Carolina DHEC did, over at 18 Bold River where we were, just across the Bold 19 River Bridge, and we did a rotosonic hole there. 20 We thought we had this boring copied in 21 there. Somehow it didn't make it into the 22 presentation -- didn't get saved or something. 23 Camille had a really nice pore water profile. He 24 shows, even though we were in somewhat of a 25 paleochannel there, he shows some fairly 35 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 significant kicks in his pore water data also. 3 Right on down you have a similar profile as 4 this one, where you decrease and decrease until you 5 get right down to the top of limestone. 6 He did have some lower values, even down in 7 the limestone. All I'm trying to say is, even 8 away from the harbor and away from the channel, you 9 see some of these profiles. 10 Okay. We're going to expect to see -- if we 11 drilled in other places out in the marshes, out in 12 other areas that had not even been dredged, you 13 would expect to see some similar-type profiles 14 where these paleochannels were located. 15 Okay. So we're still looking at this. We 16 have made no conclusion about any of this, but we 17 are -- we've just given this to modellers. We are 18 waiting patiently to see what the model's going to 19 tell us about this kind of data. 20 Let me just mention the model. The model that 21 we're constructing, or having constructed, is at a 22 point now where the model has been -- all of the 23 model data has been entered; that is the 24 boundaries, the stratigraphy, all of those things 25 have been put in the model, hydraulic conductivity 36 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 for the limestone, and the model is doing a good 3 job of reproducing what we want the model to do, at 4 this stage, called calibration. 5 When we plug everything in to the model, when 6 these guys run the model without putting any 7 chloride data in -- we're not at that point yet -- 8 that's what they're getting ready to do, but what 9 they want to see that model do, on its own as far 10 as the flow characteristics of that, they want to 11 see the model reproduce this draw down cone in 12 Savannah. 13 They put the pumping rates in that we know 14 exist in Savannah. We put the geology in, what 15 we know about the limestone characteristics, what 16 we know about vertical flow in the confining 17 material, horizontal flow in the confining 18 material, and the modellers have said it's doing 19 a really good job of reproducing the draw down 20 cone. 21 So that's good. That's a good start. The 22 next step will be to plug in this chloride data, 23 because the model they're doing is a 3D 24 solu-transport model. 25 It's not just a flow model. It's a 37 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 solu-transport model. What that means is when you 3 put these chloride values in, if the model is 4 working properly and is truly representing, you 5 know, to the best of its ability the conditions we 6 have along the channel from out at Tybee all the 7 way into town, then we'd like to see the model 8 reproduce these chloride values on its own. 9 And what we would do is they will introduce 10 certain values at the tops, for instance in the 11 model, and then let the model run through years and 12 years. 13 For instance, how long has it taken this to 14 happen -- about 80 years. Okay. Remember when we 15 talked previously about 80 years ago, this 16 potentiometric surface did not exist. Flow was out 17 of limestone, up through the confining material, 18 and upward flow, outward flow. 19 Water was flowing out of the aquifer. Now 20 because of the cone in Savannah, we've drawn this 21 cone down, and flow, including seawater and 22 chloride are trying to come down. 23 Okay. Here's proof that chlorides are coming 24 down. They are coming down, there is no doubt 25 about it. 38 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 We've got some -- the thing about these 3 values, these are not values that we've modelled, 4 that we have done the pump test, and done all these 5 assumptions. 6 The thing that excites us about this data, and 7 we probably get too excited about it, it's just 8 because we've reached down and grabbed this. This 9 is a real sample from down where it is happening. 10 This is not what we think. This is what it 11 is. That's why we're really fortunate and happy to 12 have this kind of data to put into the model. Now 13 we want to see what the model is going to do with 14 it. 15 Okay. So just a wrap up slide, again, to show 16 you, let's put all the curves together. We see 17 what's happened out here where the paleochannels 18 are. We've got some things going on where there 19 definitely appears to be some paleochannel 20 influence, even though chlorides appear to increase 21 in paleochannel areas down to a certain level, as 22 soon as we get into some good confining material, 23 again, the classic characteristic, what appears to 24 be a characteristic curve comes back lower and 25 lower as we approach the limestone, but it 39 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 certainly does not come back to zero. 3 Okay. So all the way through, and of course 4 when we get the data from 18 and 19 we'll be a lot 5 -- a lot happier because we're going to fill some 6 gaps here. But, again, these are refractometer 7 data, so we have an idea of what this curve is 8 going to look like, but the actual chloride values 9 will fill that in for us. 10 So, that's where we are. And we just we 11 didn't want to come this morning with any 12 conclusions or talk a lot about analysis. We just 13 want to show you the data we have. So that's what 14 we tried to do. Thank you. 15 MR. DYSART: Thank you very much. I'm sure 16 we're going to have some -- lots of questions. 17 First one is Dave Kyler. 18 MR. KYLER: What's the -- Card, what's the 19 significance of the distinction between chloride 20 versus salinity? 21 MR. SMITH: Well, all right. Salinity is just 22 -- there are certainly other salts, other than 23 chlorides. Okay. Salinity is like a total salts. 24 MS. McINTOSH: Sulfite, sulfate, whatever. 25 MR. SMITH: A lot of these other elements too, 40 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 so the refractometer can only get down to that 3 level, the chloride, which is the one we're very 4 interested in, and also chloride just so happened 5 turns out to be an excellent tracer. 6 It's used in environmental sites sometimes, 7 even injected because it's fairly harmless and low 8 concentrations to the environment that it can be 9 tracked to check flow directions and things. So 10 again, the red lines indicate chloride, the greens 11 are refractometer data. 12 MR. KYLER: Second question, someone with a 13 very rudimentary area understanding, such as 14 myself, it would seem as if there should be some 15 correlation of the potentiometric surface and 16 chlorides, but that's not the case, is that 17 correct? 18 MR. SMITH: That's -- you get it. You 19 understand it, David. I mean, that's the whole 20 thing. What you said is exactly true, but we felt, 21 you know, from the early work that normally yes, in 22 here because of the draw down the head differential 23 is much greater in here than out here, and you 24 would expect it to be pulling harder, and it is 25 pulling harder. 41 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 But the thing is, you have a much thicker 3 section of confining material. So what's the 4 trade-off between the thicker confining material 5 and greater head. Okay. 6 We took some criticism for this in the early 7 work we did because it was said that we didn't put 8 enough emphasis on this, but if you just look at 9 these values, you don't see, necessarily, you know 10 you see these bumps here but these are, we think, 11 maybe due to something else. 12 But there is the trade-off. There is much 13 more -- there's a much harder pull downward here, 14 there's also a thicker sequence of this nice 15 confining material that these chlorides have to 16 pass through, you know, to get where they're headed 17 ultimately. Does that answer your question or make 18 sense? 19 MR. KYLER: I can't say it makes sense, but I 20 understand what you said. 21 MR. SMITH: How about out here, David, as 22 opposed to out here, the potentiometric surface, 23 and look -- I know this sounds like a $3 word, all 24 this is is anywhere out here that we drill wells 25 into the Floridan, once we penetrate the Floridan 42 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 this is where water is going to rise to in that 3 well. 4 So out here -- this is getting out here 5 offshore somewhere is the zero contour. As we come 6 in, we get lower and lower and lower in that 7 potentiometric surface in the Floridan. 8 So out here we don't have nearly the pull 9 that's trying to pull chlorides down through these 10 paleochannels and then pull it -- say this red dot 11 is a chloride particle that's coming down, it's 12 coming vertically, basically, through the confining 13 layer. 14 It probably has some vector in a slanting 15 direction. When it breaks through, it hits the 16 limestone, it's in warp speed now, relatively 17 speaking, for the time -- it took 80 years for this 18 to happen, for it travel through here, but the time 19 it's going to take that chloride particle to travel 20 here, towards the center of pumping, is going to be 21 a much shorter time. 22 So the pull down out here is -- the whole 23 driving force of this whole thing is pumping in 24 Savannah. That's what's driving this whole 25 mechanism. So everything that comes in, all the 43 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 chlorides that come in out here, at least along the 3 river channel, are trying to make a bee line for 4 Downtown Savannah. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy and Hope and then 6 Chris. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah. Card, I don't understand 8 -- I can't see them, to be honest, but it doesn't 9 matter. 10 MR. SMITH: No, it does matter, it does 11 matter. 12 MS. JENNINGS: The relevant nature of the 13 number 10, 20, 30, 40, it doesn't matter, but how 14 salty is -- I mean -- 15 MR. SMITH: That's a very good question, 16 excellent question, and I should have done a better 17 job. Okay. Normally, we think of seawater maybe 18 20 to 30,000 parts per million. Okay. Here we 19 have at the top of the miocene -- we've got -- 20 wherever there's a marine boring, we might have a 21 little bit sediment out here on top of these. 22 On land we have, you know, a good bit of 23 sediment that we've drilled through in the disposal 24 area out. But out here, this is the water. Okay. 25 So we've got say 25, 28,000 parts per million out 44 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 here in seawater, and that seawater is trying to 3 come down the confining material. 4 As it comes down, you know, the concentration 5 is decreased just because the amount of seawater 6 that can come through, as you go deeper, I guess 7 the way I think of it, it kind of slows down and 8 gets impeded the deeper it goes. 9 So the significant thing is 250 parts per 10 million, when you get above 250, that's the EPA 11 limit for chlorides and drinking water, okay. So 12 if you were approaching 250, at a well intake, then 13 you got a real problem. 14 Okay. But out here, we see values, like in 15 the top of the limestone, at 24. Here's one that's 16 150, and you can say well, 150, and you can say 17 well, 150, that's only 100 away from 250, okay, but 18 when you -- when this 150, by the time it travels 19 towards Savannah, in this much higher flow, much 20 more volume flow that's coming through limestone, 21 the idea is it gets diluted, because it's being 22 kind of flushed through in a higher volume flow and 23 diluted out. 24 I admit this isn't the only place this is 25 occurring along the channel. It's occurring other 45 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 places too. We have our borings along the channel, 3 but how about over on the Wilmington River and 4 those areas, same kind of thing has got to be going 5 on. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Do I understand then that the 7 premise is that you postulate that the 8 potentiometric pressure, the decrease of it draws 9 all of these chlorides to the lowest point of 10 potentiometric pressure? 11 MR. SMITH: Exactly. You got it. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Wow, that's cool. Well, I 13 mean, of interest. 14 MR. DYSART: Does that constitute a peer 15 review, Judy? 16 MS. JENNINGS: Of interest. 17 MS. MOORER: You said that it was, the miocene 18 was relatively thick or deep near where the 19 potentiometric pull down is? 20 MR. SMITH: Right. 21 MS. MOORER: What kind of depths are you 22 talking -- 23 MR. SMITH: Good question. 24 MS. MOORER: -- that we're looking at? 25 MR. SMITH: Right here out in this area there 46 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 is about minus 50 right there, and there is about 3 minus 100. So in this area, where there are no 4 paleochannels, we're looking at about 50 feet of 5 thickness of confining material, but where the 6 paleochannels have removed some of that, even 7 though they are filled with material also, they 8 have removed our nice confining material though, so 9 we have certainly less, even on the order of what 10 -- 30 feet -- around 30 feet or a little less 11 thickness left of confining material. 12 MS. MOORER: Under the paleochannel? 13 MR. SMITH: Huh? 14 MS. MOORER: Under the paleochannel? 15 MR. SMITH: Under the paleochannel, right. 16 But it's not like this material in the paleochannel 17 is totally permeable. It has some resistance too. 18 MS. MOORER: So some of the paleochannels are 19 up to 20 feet -- 20 MR. SMITH: Deep, some deeper than that. 21 MS. MOORER: Then the thickness over here -- 22 MR. SMITH: Okay. So we said we have maybe on 23 the average, outside of the paleochannels, about 50 24 feet out around Tybee and from Tybee towards Fields 25 Cut. We come to downtown, there's the minus 50 and 47 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 there's minus 200, 150 feet or so, three times the 3 thickness of the confining material. 4 And if you didn't have this thing here or this 5 pulling force, this driving force from pumping, you 6 wouldn't expect -- I mean, you know, these 7 chlorides couldn't make it through here. They 8 couldn't make it through this much thicker 9 material. 10 But it's ironic that we have the greatest pull 11 where the thickness is, and it's a nice irony. 12 It's better this way than the other way. 13 What if we did all our pumping out of Tybee 14 for whole area? We'd have a problem in more ways 15 than one. We'd pulling this thing down in an area 16 that is more sensitive to that. 17 MR. DYSART: Chris. 18 MR. SCHUBERTH: Card, just two technical 19 questions. On the right, is that -- in your 20 section, is that the Tybee high -- 21 MR. SMITH: Yes -- 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: -- which brings the aquifer up 23 closer? 24 MR. SMITH: -- it sure does. 25 MR. SCHUBERTH: Second question is 48 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 theoretically, where you get to that zero point on 3 the potentiometric surface, have you seen any 4 suggestion it's reverse flow, in which the 5 freshwater is escaping and going up? 6 MR. SMITH: I haven't seen it personally, but 7 it's known to exist. Dr. Henry has talked about 8 springs offshore -- 9 MR. SCHUBERTH: Today? 10 MR. SMITH: Yes, that are still there. 11 There's one of these things out at Grays Reef. 12 Grays Reef is down the coast -- same situation, 13 yes, there is flow out -- out there. 14 Of course, USGS, several years ago, we 15 participated with USGS, and Georgia EPD, and South 16 Carolina DHEC, drilling offshore. That report is 17 about to come out, for that data, where we drilled 18 in several locations to try to intercept offshore 19 that interface between saltwater and freshwater. 20 We got, we think, right in the top of it -- 21 we got about 400 feet off in depth offshore. 22 MR. DYSART: Will. 23 MR. BERSON: I love SEG meetings, they're such 24 a lesson in intellectual humility. As I heard you 25 describe these three -- there are sort of three 49 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 factors involved here; one is the natural level of 3 freshwater, one is the depth of the confining 4 layer, and one is the paleochannel. 5 But if you look at the graph where the 6 existing project level is, then you go down to 7 -- what's that -- 42, and then you go to 60 with 8 over-dredge, we're basically at the bottom of most 9 of the paleochannels, aren't we? 10 MR. SMITH: Sixty across -- come through this 11 one? 12 MR. SCHALLER: Card, I think 60 might be the 13 wrong number to be talking about. 14 MR. SMITH: Oh yeah -- well, as far as a 15 depth? 16 MR. SCHALLER: Yeah. I mean, if the project 17 went to 48, you wouldn't go to 60 for over-dredge. 18 I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question. 19 MR. BERSON: I guess what I was really getting 20 to, it seems to me what you are showing us argues 21 that the actual depth of the miocene is the most 22 important factor. 23 MR. SMITH: Okay. 24 MR. BERSON: Even including the paleochannels, 25 since we're going to be digging down -- let me stop 50 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 there. 3 MR. SMITH: No, no. The thickness, I think 4 what you probably mean by depth is critical. It is 5 critical, no doubt about it. It's a short path 6 through this intersection for chlorides to enter. 7 It's a good thing that this thing is up here 8 so there is not as much pull -- yes. I mean, I 9 would never deny and I have tried to say all along 10 that this is the area, you know, if there is 11 concern, this is an area that we need to focus on. 12 We have tried to do that in seismic, in 13 borings -- you're right, from Fields Cut to Tybee. 14 MR. BERSON: I guess my question is, I had 15 been thinking that the paleochannels perhaps went 16 deeper than they do. Since we see them, it 17 facilitates salt moving down, the fact that they 18 don't go deeper means that the thickness is the 19 controlling factor; I mean, since we're going to be 20 essentially going 54 feet, we'll be shaving off a 21 certain amount, I mean just to be -- 22 MR. SMITH: Thickness is certainly an extreme, 23 controlling factor. There are several, two of 24 which I think are the most important, which is 25 thickness of the confining material, and this thing 51 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 right here, pumping in Savannah. 3 MR. BERSON: I apologize to my colleagues as I 4 stumble around to make words. 5 MR. SMITH: These are good points. There are 6 other people thinking and wondering the same thing, 7 asking about it, and there's -- you hit it on the 8 head. 9 This thing out here, this thickness right 10 here, is very important. Now what this is all 11 about, Will, as far as the model, is we want to 12 -- when we plug all this into the model, we want to 13 do some things with the model like okay, let's 14 remove down to 60 here, what happens in the model 15 as far as chlorides coming through, how is it 16 accelerated, those kind of things? 17 Can the model do a good job of reproducing 18 those things? In essence, the kind of neat thing 19 about it is what we're looking at here on these 20 chloride values is an 80 year pump test. 21 I don't think there's anybody that's going to 22 argue this is what's happened in 80 years. In a 23 lot of respects, you couldn't have a better pump 24 test than what we have here. 25 Now, putting it all together and making some 52 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 sense out of this data, that's yet to be done. 3 MR. DYSART: Bob Scanlon. 4 MR. SCANLON: My comments really are to a 5 broader issue than just the deepening. The 6 question, Card, you show the cone of depression at 7 Savannah, but actually those chlorides are going to 8 travel to any cone of depression, is that correct? 9 MR. SMITH: Sure. 10 MR. SCANLON: The reason I raise that issue 11 is, and it is related to the harbor deepening, but 12 it is a much broader thing having to do with a lot 13 being said about aquifer usage right now in this 14 area. 15 My concern is really directed to the folks at 16 Tybee, that there is another sub cone of depression 17 at Tybee, which is much closer to this. And there 18 are folks, and there is a lot of scientific data 19 that is being bandied around right now saying, we 20 can increase pumping, in the Floridan Aquifer, west 21 of Savannah and not have an impact, and I think 22 that we're really flirting with a serious disaster 23 in doing that. 24 This is totally unrelated to harbor deepening. 25 This is strictly having to do with water supply and 53 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 water availability in this aquifer. 3 This data really raises serious concerns about 4 future water supply. I think the first people to 5 really see it would be Tybee, potentially, because 6 there seems to be saltwater getting much closer to 7 the top of the aquifer there. 8 If it starts getting drawn towards the cone of 9 depression in Tybee, I would expect to start seeing 10 chloride levels increase in Tybee's wells, similar 11 to what happened on the north end of Hilton Head, 12 potentially within the next 20 to 30 years. Would 13 you agree with that, Card, or am I overreacting? 14 MR. SMITH: I don't know if it is 15 overreacting, but it is certainly something to 16 think about, because there is pumping going on 17 Tybee, no doubt about it. 18 It is in kind of a sensitive area here. I'm 19 hoping that when we run the model, and in fact I'm 20 sure that the guys have included pumping at Tybee 21 to be included in the model, so we may be able to 22 run that way forward and way harder and see what 23 happens. 24 Again, that's what the model is really good 25 for, and as you know, the model that USGS is 54 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 working on in Sound Science will do some things. 3 MR. SCANLON: My concern is there's a credible 4 scientist who is making comments in support of 5 pumping more, for the Floridan Aquifer, west of 6 Savannah saying there's no evidence of saltwater 7 intrusion anywhere in Georgia, so therefore we 8 should be able to continue to use the aquifer west 9 of Savannah. 10 I think that this data is saying that there 11 may not be any saltwater intrusion, but there is a 12 big qualifier that should be out there -- yet. 13 MR. SMITH: Well, I think you can go a little 14 further than that. I'd say if that's what's being 15 said now, then this ought to tell you that that's 16 not the case anymore. 17 Okay. But now look, what I wanted to show 18 you, if we're going to talk about west of Savannah, 19 that's certainly out of -- 20 MR. SCANLON: You're going to be talking the 21 potentiometric surface. Anything you take further 22 back -- 23 MR. SMITH: This things comes, at some angle, 24 further back this way. It does. It does. But I 25 wish I had more of the geology back that way 55 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 displayed, because it changes too, because for one 3 thing, what it does on this end, it starts to come 4 back again. We have kind of this base thing in 5 Downtown Savannah. 6 As we come this way, the top of the aquifer 7 starts coming back up some. I can't remember 8 exactly how much, but again here look, this is the 9 thing Camille Ransom has harped on since day one in 10 his saltwater work. 11 He -- Camille likes to look -- our maps are 12 awfully washed out to try to show this, but if you 13 look at -- if you look at the USGS models that have 14 been done, and I'm going to play loose with some 15 numbers here and I probably shouldn't do that, but 16 if you look at the USGS models, within the cone of 17 depression, okay, that cone of depression zero 18 contour is something like that, wait a minute, 19 something like out here, around pumping in 20 Savannah. 21 So if you look at -- if you look at inside 22 that cone of depression, the potential areas that 23 saltwater could contribute to that pumping, then 24 Camille reasons that if the model says somewhere 25 around 50% of the flow that comes to Savannah comes 56 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 from this area east of Savannah, I don't think 3 that's an unreasonable assumption, then he's saying 4 okay, there's a lot of area out here that has the 5 potential to contribute salinity to that. 6 Okay. That's what he's interested in looking 7 into right now too. But of course, the flow that 8 comes back here towards the front end of Savannah 9 for sure is not going to have chlorides in it, 10 because the source is not there. 11 And we think the flow, if we think of this 12 cone of depression being out here somewhere like 13 this in a map view, the zero contour -- Chris, I 14 think I'm wearing your battery out too -- then we 15 think of flow lines coming in the aquifer, we think 16 of flowing, taking straight line flows, from that 17 contour they take straight line vectors in 18 Savannah. Okay. So -- and the same thing is 19 happening up here. 20 The ones coming from here are the ones that 21 have -- you've got two things going on here, don't 22 you? You've got this freshwater saltwater 23 interface that is creeping this way because of 24 what's going on here. 25 Then you have another situation. There's 57 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 really two types. I think, technically, folks like 3 to call this lateral thing from the saltwater wedge 4 out here encroachment. This thing is going on 5 because of the vertical movement down through the 6 confining material we think of as intrusion. 7 If you ever hear of the difference in those, 8 that's what they are trying to say. You've got two 9 things going on. People are trying to figure out 10 well, how long is it going to take this thing to 11 come this way, this front, you know, based on the 12 pumping we pump. 13 Now we're looking at another thing, how long 14 is it going to take for this to happen in 15 sufficient quantity to cause a problem? As was 16 pointed out to me the other day also, I thought 17 about it before it was reiterated, it also depends 18 on where your well is too. 19 As you pointed out, the well at Tybee 20 certainly kind of seem to be an area, it looks 21 like. You would know that without any of this 22 data. At least you would know that knowing how 23 thick the confine material is there. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. We have comments; Bill 25 Bailey, Judy, Hope, Lou, and Chris. 58 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. BAILEY: He's already answered my 3 question. 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy. 5 MS. JENNINGS: Card, I just don't know. It 6 sounds like all the facts and factors that you are 7 talking about are related to physical forces like 8 hydraulics, you know, a physical force thing. Is 9 there other chemistry that's involved? 10 MR. SMITH: This is some chemistry involved, 11 there is, when you talk about the dilution and 12 things like that -- it isn't strictly a physical 13 thing. 14 MS. JENNINGS: That's what I hear though. 15 MR. SMITH: You hear me emphasizing that 16 because that's what we kind of focused on. 17 MS. JENNINGS: Since I don't know. 18 MR. SMITH: You bring up a good point. Jim 19 Landmeyer with USGS, we are looking to Jim to give 20 us a better feel. Jim is actually a geochemist, so 21 we're looking at Jim to give us insight into that. 22 He's analyzing the data. We're certainly 23 interested in what he thinks about the chemical 24 aspect. 25 MS. JENNINGS: I'm thinking about little atoms 59 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 subtracting other little atoms. 3 MR. SMITH: Chemistry was never my forte. I'm 4 going to stay away from that. 5 MR. DYSART: Hope. 6 MS. MOORER: My question I guess is really for 7 Bob, will this data and model be useful, for the 8 city, in planning for water and water usage and 9 supply needs for the future too? 10 MR. SCANLON: Very much so. In fact, I had 11 gotten a lot of this information from Card. We 12 have been using a lot of this information already. 13 I'll also say, I made the statement earlier, I 14 don't see really having -- the harbor deepening 15 having a great impact. I still don't think digging 16 a channel -- the whole area we're talking about 17 here, we have intrusions coming through the marsh 18 surface, and all over, anywhere where this is salt 19 on top of it, we have the potential of sucking this 20 down. 21 Actual changing, deepening the harbor a little 22 bit through that Pleistocene layer is -- the impact 23 of that is minimal, or diminimus even, compared to 24 the other issue that we're talking about here. 25 So I don't -- I see this information as being 60 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 very, very useful, but I think it has much a 3 broader implications, much more important 4 implications as a water supply issue, and that the 5 implications of the harbor deepening, while it 6 would be -- could potentially have an implication 7 to deepen the harbor, an impact, overall relative 8 to the overall impact, it's a very, very minimal 9 impact. 10 MS. MOORER: Right now we are deluged with 11 water, how does a drop play into this too, what 12 we've experienced so far -- nothing? 13 MR. SCANLON: Probably. 14 MR. SMITH: Not really that much of a factor 15 for what we're talking about. Let me point out one 16 thing. The point you made is good. 17 I mentioned another model. That model is a 18 model that's being done for Sound Science, as part 19 of the Sound Science Program, by USGS. 20 They will also use this data in their model, 21 although we only have data along channel, they are 22 very interested in the data, of course, because it 23 is really some of the first data to come out like 24 this. 25 So they're working on that model, which is 61 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 more of a regional model that will focus on the 3 region, and will have very strong implications for 4 what Bob is concerned and interested in, whereas 5 our model is focused entirely, even though we 6 include the boundaries and things from that same 7 regional model, we are focusing only on the -- you 8 want to say the dynamics along the channel, what 9 really happens to flow along that channel. 10 The USGS model will be more of a broad, 11 regional model. It won't ever get down to the 12 level of detail that our model will. 13 MS. MOORER: The trends shown in our model 14 could apply? 15 MR. SMITH: They certainly should agree with 16 each other where they overlap. They should be a 17 check against each other. 18 Let me say one final thing about this thing 19 about other areas outside the channel and the input 20 of chlorides. Two words -- stay tuned. 21 Okay. You're going to see, in the coming 22 months, a lot more being done coming out along 23 those lines. 24 MS. MOORER: Thank you. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. Lou, then Chris, then 62 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 Larry, and then when catch up on questions and take 3 a little break. Joel -- and Joel. Okay. Lou. 4 MR. OFF: Can you add to this chart a line of 5 potable water? 6 MR. SMITH: A line of potable water in the 7 aquifer, in the limestone? 8 MR. OFF: Right. I would assume 25 parts per 9 million chloride readings, would that be the line 10 of potable water? 11 MR. SMITH: Well, actually -- actually 250 is 12 the limit. Okay. If you wanted to look at it that 13 way, but I mean, let me tell you an interesting 14 thing. 15 When we worked offshore and USGS was drilling 16 deep to find the saltwater interface out here, and 17 we were measuring chlorides and conductivity, which 18 are very much related in all the samples as we 19 drilled down, so I wanted to see what I could taste 20 in salinity. 21 So everytime they would take a sample, I would 22 taste it. This is a really nice well we got 23 pumping offshore, the most beautiful water you ever 24 saw. As we went deeper, it got more chloride, but 25 it had to get 500 before -- this is just an 63 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 interesting aside -- it had to get to 500 before I 3 could really tell something was going on. 4 So at 250, more than likely, you're never 5 going to know it's there. So what's that got to do 6 with -- it has nothing to do with the line we're 7 talking about drawing. I'm saying that isn't like 8 when it hits 250 you're going to say oh, I know it. 9 I can taste it, because more than likely you 10 aren't. 11 MR. OFF: What I'm driving at, draw a line 12 now, what changes has that line made historically, 13 and do we know, and what changes does that make 14 relative to draw down line? 15 MR. SMITH: I think we don't know where that 16 line is. I don't think we include where that line 17 is. 18 I think really if you are thinking of, this is 19 a good question you're asking. It relates back to 20 like, for instance, right here. There's 480 or -- 21 480 or so right there. This is the SHE-9 near the 22 tide gate. There's 310 right above the limestone, 23 so, you know, we may have 250 in the limestone 24 right there. 25 But here's the thing, you can't just draw a 64 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 line that connects all the 25 or the 100s or 250s. 3 First of all, we don't have that kind of data, but 4 secondly, it isn't going to be a line that has some 5 kind of trim probably. 6 You're going to have these bulbs of salinity 7 that are coming through here for whatever reason. 8 You know, we may have a bulb that kind of gets 9 together because of all the influence in here, you 10 know. 11 I mean, does that make sense that the amount 12 of chlorides coming in are not, by any means, even 13 or the same. It depends on how thick the confining 14 material is. It depends on how hard the pumping 15 is, what the draw down is. So I don't think we 16 can draw that line. 17 MR. OFF: Theoretically, would that change as 18 the draw down line changes? 19 MR. SMITH: Yeah. I think if you got to the 20 point -- yeah. If you got to the point where you 21 could say now, okay. We have enough wells down 22 into the top of the Floridan, and enough data we 23 can plot this chloride line, but you see the flow 24 is kind of along this way. 25 The upper part of the Floridan is where most 65 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 of the flow takes place, the upper permeable unit, 3 so you've got this, relatively speaking, horrendous 4 flow trying to come this way, relative to a 5 minuscule flow that's coming down with chlorides. 6 So this flow picks up what little is coming 7 through, whatever is coming through, you know, it 8 gets caught up in a much higher volume flow and 9 diluted to an extent. 10 So it's a real dynamic thing, you know, as far 11 as drawing a line, I'm not saying you couldn't a 12 draw a line if you had all the data to do it, but I 13 can't imagine what that line would look like. 14 MR. OFF: This is last question. The 15 gentleman over here talking about drilling wells in 16 Tybee and so forth; theoretically, would it be 17 better to go to Garden City, Pooler, even 18 Statesboro, and drill a well and pump water to 19 Tybee, or would it be better to drill a well at 20 Tybee and pump water? 21 MR. SMITH: Boy, theoretically, I really 22 shouldn't answer that question. It has nothing to 23 do with what we're up here for. 24 Theoretically, if you were on the side where 25 there is not a source of salinity, in the normal 66 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 course of affairs, you would think that might be 3 the better place to drill a well. But it all goes 4 back to, you know, what are going to pump out of 5 that well, how much are going to pump, is that well 6 going to interfere with other wells, if you get a 7 combined effect? 8 It isn't like we can go on the westside and 9 put down all the wells we want to because we lessen 10 the burden back over this way. After a while, over 11 that way, you're going to start having a problem, 12 too much pumping, too many wells start interfering 13 with each other. 14 But -- but they're definitely, as is being 15 done, there need to be some planning, some good 16 planning that goes into water resource things. I 17 think Bob Scanlon can attest to that and already 18 has. 19 MR. DYSART: Chris. 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: While this would never happen, 21 it would be interesting to see in real life what 22 would happen if all the wells stopped pumping for 23 30 to 45 days. 24 Then the model that's being developed does 25 exactly the same, what would be the change in all 67 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 of this, if the cone of depression actually began 3 to disappear, as the depression that's got a 4 diameter of about 70 miles, as Card was saying, 5 with that great circular sweeping? 6 MR. SMITH: And we already know over like the 7 past 10 years, I think from 1980 to -- no, from 8 19 -- what is it? 9 MS. McINTOSH: 1980 to 1990. 10 MR. SMITH: There is a period of time, the 11 last USGS official cone of depression map, had a 12 period of about 10 years where the pumping was 13 decreased, and definitely the trend was for this to 14 rise. 15 I mean, we know it's going to happen. They 16 have proof it definitely happens. 17 MR. SCHUBERTH: The other question that I had 18 earlier, when you presented, Card, you had 19 indicated in all the drilling that had been done up 20 to that point, six months ago, eight months ago, 21 there was no evidence of any fractures that were 22 joint systems of any sort. In this new series of 23 the drill holes, did you encounter any kind of 24 fractures or any -- 25 MR. SMITH: Glad you brought that up. I 68 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 should have mentioned it. We have tried to look at 3 this core very diligently. Have we seen anything 4 that really -- 5 MS. MCINTOSH: Not a one, I mean not a one. 6 MR. SMITH: We see some things sometimes that 7 may be at a high angle through the core, but what 8 they are -- we've noticed in a couple of borings 9 where the cores -- when we get to certain areas, 10 the core gets really crumbly. 11 There's a lot of things going on down there, 12 stress relief, unloading, things like that. We 13 don't know -- they don't suggest to me, at all, 14 fractures. They suggest maybe from unloading that 15 core, taking the load off of it, things start 16 happening. 17 MR. SCHUBERTH: Just for the record, I raised 18 this question because three years ago, my 19 octogenarian friends remind me, four years ago, 20 Fred Rich was here, who had done the study of the 21 miocene cap exposed in Bulloch County, where he was 22 studying fracture system. 23 So that's just a continuation of whether those 24 fracture systems are in addition to paleochannels, 25 and that was the purpose of the question. 69 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. Going to take Larry, Joel, 3 Tom, and Will, and then we're going to take a 4 break. 5 MR. KEEGAN: Take Joel. 6 MR. FLEMING: I was just wondering, there's 7 been a little confusion, I think, at least in my 8 point. While we're seeing those increased levels 9 of chlorides to the right, I'm perceiving that 10 being offshore a little bit, has there been any 11 effort to weight data by like historical, ambient 12 salinities in the water column? 13 MR. SMITH: That's a good point. It's 14 something that we have thought about, not so much 15 out here but how about up here? 16 MR. FLEMING: I think it would show a much 17 more dramatic effect of the cone of depression. 18 MR. SMITH: You're right. That is something 19 we definitely need to look at. That's a very good. 20 We've wondered, for instance, we'd be out here 21 drilling, you know, somewhere in the channel here 22 and we'd see these high readings. 23 The first sample would come up and we'd say, 24 how about just go take a sample out of the river 25 and let's look at the refractometer. We came up 70 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 with some kind of interesting results. 3 That density, because the density is different 4 in the column, we're not surface water folks, but 5 we want to talk to the surface water folks do the 6 model about those kind of things. 7 MR. FLEMING: I don't know what's out there 8 historically. I know some model has been done. 9 MR. SMITH: I don't either. It should be 10 looked at. It should be looked at. I mean, 11 because, you know, what you are talking about, you 12 know, when you get up this way further -- Bill 13 Bailey -- what would you guess? 14 Have we seen -- I'm surface water ignorant. 15 What have we seen up here for surface water? I'm 16 sure it fluctuates, but what do we see up here; can 17 you tell us in a ball park fashion? 18 MR. BAILEY: No. 19 MR. FLEMING: I probably had the last reading 20 doing striped bass. It can vary, obviously, 21 depending on the flow. We've had as close to zero 22 anywhere to -- I don't know -- depending on where 23 you're at, it will map up to 15. 24 What I'm saying, though, you're talking about 25 30 on one end and zero or seven, at least part of 71 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 the time on left hand, if you normalize that data 3 over 50 years, if we had historical data to 4 normalize it or weight it with, it may show that 5 effect of the cone a little better. 6 MR. SMITH: When these guys do the model, you 7 know the model that we're working on, they need to 8 take that into account. That's a good point. 9 MR. DYSART: Tom. 10 MR. WRIGHT: When you did the seismic survey, 11 could you give an indication of the frequency of 12 range of your source and sensors? 13 MR. SMITH: Frequency of range and source -- 14 MR WRIGHT: What frequency was the pulses and 15 what frequencies were the sensors measuring? It's 16 a sonic -- 17 MR. SMITH: Yeah, yeah. I can't regurgitate 18 to you exactly what those were. I can tell you 19 that the travel times, that we speak of in all the 20 seismic work, are about 5,000 feet per second. 21 That's not frequency, but that's what we think 22 of, the seismic guys think of, is travel time 23 through the sediments. 24 The seismic guys, I'm sure, could tell us 25 exactly, but they make all types of calibrations 72 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 and, you know, checks on equipment, if that's what 3 you are alluding to, I'm not sure. 4 MR. DYSART: Will, you're between the folks 5 and the break. 6 MR. BERSON: One word answer, everybody's so 7 excited -- based on this research, is it fair to 8 say that the sediments, in the paleochannels, are 9 more permeable than in the surrounding miocene? 10 MR. SMITH: I don't think there's any way you 11 could deny that, okay, but to what degree, and the 12 question is, to what degree, very, very important. 13 I don't think it can be denied and, of course, 14 we've tried to say from early on that we had some 15 laboratory hydraulic conductivity data. 16 We're getting more of those in that material, 17 and they show, even the lab values show less, but 18 not a lot less. And Will, it varies so much in a 19 paleochannel. 20 From paleochannel to paleochannel the type of 21 material that's in-filled, some of it is a good bit 22 of sand. Some of them have mostly silty, 23 clay-material. It varies vertically and 24 horizontally. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. I declare a 10 minute 73 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 break, and we're going to start right in 10 3 minutes. 4 (Short Break) 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. I'd like to call the 6 meeting back to order, please, and the next item of 7 business, on the agenda, old business. 8 Okay. If everybody will have a seat and be 9 quiet, we'll turn it over to Larry Keegan. Larry, 10 the first item is a review of general reevaluation 11 study, and then we'll be following that with some 12 information on the work breakdown structure. 13 Larry. 14 MR. KEEGAN: I'll be brief. You've already 15 heard most of the new information from Card -- a 16 few other pieces. The marsh secession modelling, 17 we thought for a while was going to be directly 18 dependent upon the enhancements being done EFDC and 19 WASS models. 20 It looks like we have a way clear now that 21 will allow USGS to complete their module, based 22 on gauge data that they have collected, which will 23 allow that piece to be done independent of the 24 enhancements of the EFDC model, which will shrink 25 the time to the point where we actually have a 74 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 marsh secession model to use to look at changes in 3 the marshes. 4 We're trying to -- another couple of 5 modules, one was the geographic information 6 system interface that ATM is finishing. We expect 7 that will be ready for use in November. 8 There is a variation, I guess I'll call it of 9 that Fish and Wildlife, through Dr. Kitchens, is 10 developing to predict family species changes. 11 We're looking to see when that can be 12 finished. I'll get that out to you. The full 13 thrust there is to try and get that into a 14 workable state, so we can start to look at marsh 15 secession and marsh impact soon -- talk louder -- I 16 apologize. 17 It's not often I get accused of not talking 18 loud enough. Anyway, bottom line, marsh secession 19 model, the goal is to have it in usable form by mid 20 November or so, so we can start to apply it. We're 21 hopeful we can do that. 22 Chloride model has sort of been overcome by 23 other modelling considerations. We put it actually 24 on hold because we had the people involved 25 concentrating on the model development. It looks 75 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 like now we're going to be able to bring that back 3 on to, may be not the front burner but a near front 4 burner, and work to see what the -- using a 5 correlation that USGS thinks they have between 6 salinity data in the river, up around I-95 I 7 believe, and the city's water intake, which is a 8 very similar approach to what we were trying to do 9 before. 10 And the whole aim there will be to look at the 11 potential impact to the water chloride level at the 12 water intake for the city's water processing plant, 13 based on what might happen on salinity change in 14 the river. 15 So, that will start to pick up again. And the 16 other thing, and I'm not going to go into detail 17 because I don't have a lot of detail yet is Doug 18 is working very hard on the work that's going to be 19 done, using work breakdown that we developed over 20 some period of time. 21 I'll talk about the work breakdown structure 22 in just a minute or two, and Doug may or may not 23 be able to add some highlight into what we'll be 24 able to do with the schedule, but the goal there is 25 to try and produce a draft, combined general 76 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 reevaluation study and EIS report, in about a year 3 if we can do that, without compromising what has to 4 be done to do that, we're trying to use different 5 strategies on how to get all those things done, and 6 piece them altogether, and make all the 7 coordination. 8 I'm going to let Doug talk about that, if he 9 wants. That's about it. You'll notice that this 10 month's report does not have a picture of the 11 current schedule because of what's going on -- not 12 much sense in showing something I know is going to 13 be outdated. 14 As soon as we have the new one, I'll get that 15 out to you. Hopefully, that will be fairly soon. 16 And that's all I have, unless there are questions. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any questions. Seeing 18 none, who needs to introduce themselves? Who has 19 not introduced themselves already. 20 MR. MIKELL: Rob Mikell, South Carolina DHEC 21 Coastal Program. 22 MR. DYSART: Anybody else? I think it's shown 23 there discussion about water quality modelling, so 24 forth. If possible I would like to, since we're 25 now at 11:00 o'clock, get your permission, 77 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 hopefully, to go on to committee reports briefly, 3 and then concentrate on the Operating Guidelines 4 Committee recommendations and so forth. 5 Would that be acceptable? Seeing no 6 objections, I'll assume that's the case. Aquifer 7 Committee, Chris. 8 MR. SCHUBERTH: Yeah. We're going to meet and 9 bring everyone together within the next two, three 10 weeks from today. 11 I have to reconstruct my e-mail list. It was 12 quite a long time since we had met last, and Cathy 13 Vaughn has agreed to help me with that. I'll send 14 the notice out to everyone for a location. 15 We had met at the conference room of SEPCO 16 down on Bay Street. Hopefully, we can still do 17 that. We had met on a Friday, from the noon hour, 18 from 12:00 until about 2:00. We'll probably 19 continue that way. 20 If there's anyone interested to participate, 21 in that first meeting of Aquifer Committee, just 22 let me know, or let Cathy know. Let it be known 23 that you are interested in participating. I'll add 24 you to the e-mail distribution list. That's -- 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Bill Farmer, 78 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 Beach Erosion. 3 MR. FARMER: The Beach Erosion Committee has 4 not met. We don't have any pending issues except 5 to await the completion of the studies suggested by 6 the committee. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Fred. 8 MR. BEASON: We do not have any data to look 9 at so we're still on standby. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy Economics Working 11 Group. 12 MS. JENNINGS: We met after the last SEG 13 meeting, and Kevin Horn, consultant for the Corps, 14 gave a presentation about the work plan. We 15 looked, specifically, at the existing world fleet 16 and the prospective world fleet. 17 And I believe the commodity forecast, in the 18 pike coming down there with the Corps and GEC, the 19 consultants. 20 Hopefully, we'll get to look at that soon. 21 Totally cool stuff. No meeting planned, but 22 pending outcome of Operating Guidelines Committee 23 recommendations we'll see about that. Work 24 products are forthcoming. Bill, Doug, Larry, 25 Morgan? 79 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 MR. PLACHY: Is that a question, Judy? 3 MS. JENNINGS: Anything to add? 4 MR. PLACHY: As far as the economics go, I 5 don't want to say it wrong because I'd probably get 6 it backwards, the two pieces that have been under 7 contract the last six months or so was the fleet 8 forecast and the trade forecast. One of the other 9 ones has been finished up. I can't remember which 10 one. 11 MS. JENNINGS: We have world fleet existing 12 and world fleet prospective, and the commodity and 13 trade forecast, I think, is out there, but it 14 hasn't cleared the hurdles to the point at which it 15 could be shared. 16 MR. PLACHY: I'm just getting back into it 17 again. I don't know exactly which ones are at what 18 stage of review. 19 MS. JENNINGS: On line are the fleet world 20 existing and world prospective. 21 MR. PLACHY: And then what we're working on 22 right now is to put three other pieces under 23 contract, which is the regional port analysis, the 24 multi-port analysis, and then the actual 25 construction of the model, the economics model. 80 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 Those three, we're getting ready to put those under 3 contract. 4 MS. JENNINGS: The methodology and the model 5 have been really interesting, don't you think? 6 We'll probably try to schedule an Economics Working 7 Group meeting to look at definitely methodology and 8 the model, don't you think maybe, Doug -- 9 MR. PLACHY: Okay. 10 MS. JENNINGS: -- Morgan, cool. 11 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Will, Fisheries. 12 MR. BERSON: No report on the Fisheries 13 Committee. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. That constitutes a report. 15 MR. DYSART: Larry, do we have anything in the 16 modelling area to pass on? 17 MR. KEEGAN: No, nothing, Ben. 18 MR. DYSART: Let's jump over to Joel and 19 Striped Bass. 20 MR. FLEMING: Nothing at this time. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. Now, I passed around a 22 little handout, which is a memo from Teri, and a 23 summary of the last two Operating Guidelines 24 Committee meetings that have been held since the 25 last SEG meeting. 81 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 As indicated, Teri had -- something came up. 3 She is not able to be here. Is there anybody who 4 would like to take the lead in talking through 5 this, or saying something on the behalf of the 6 Operating Guidelines Committee? 7 MR. BERSON: I think I'm nominated actually. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. Then Will, you've been 9 officially nominated to lead the discussion how 10 ever you choose to. 11 MR. BERSON: I know Teri's sorry she couldn't 12 be here. I want to say I think she did a great job 13 in getting us together to try and look 14 prospectively at the process moving forward. 15 Our concern, generally, was that we needed a 16 better communication as -- as this entire list of 17 tasks was moving forward. 18 I think there's been a problem or a concern 19 that we weren't quite sure how often we ought to be 20 meeting, and what level of -- whether we should 21 have these sort of sessions where we go through 22 everything, whether we ought to focus on one topic 23 per meeting, and we got together to try and think 24 some of those things through. 25 I think we came up with a compromise that I'm 82 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 hoping the SEG can endorse. I guess I just sort of 3 wanted to say, I kind of see us moving from a 4 study and enumeration phase to a study evaluation 5 phase. 6 I think that the difference between those two 7 is going to put a greater burden on SEG members to 8 come to meetings, having looked at the relevant 9 information beforehand, so that can have an 10 informed discussion, asking more questions, and 11 really participate. 12 I think that's going to be harder to do in the 13 future than it has been in the past. I mean, it's 14 easier to talk about what we ought to be looking at 15 as opposed to what the results of something we have 16 looked at are in front of us. 17 The compromise that we discussed, it goes, 18 basically, as follows; we would stay on a 19 bimonthly calendar for SEG meetings, here in this 20 building, as usually have them. 21 In the intervening month, we would have what 22 you might call a planning meeting, where we would 23 get -- basically take stock of what studies were 24 coming on line, what were being returned, where we 25 were. 83 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 And the idea there is to try and improve 3 communication, with the SEG, with the Corps, and 4 with GPA, without actually attending more meetings 5 than we have to. 6 I'm sure we all appreciate that. Our friends 7 in south Carolina come down here regularly, from 8 Atlanta, these not small meetings. So we were 9 looking for a way to enhance matters, without 10 making folks pedal faster. 11 I hope this will be an acceptable compromise. 12 As this memo that Teri gave us outlines, the idea 13 is for us to get together on these off months, as 14 it were. 15 Those would be regularly scheduled meetings. 16 Everyone would be invited to attend. I don't 17 really expect everyone would attend unless they 18 were personally interested. 19 We would take minutes. We wouldn't do a 20 transcript of those meetings, but we would take 21 minutes and we would post them. The purpose would 22 be, again, to recap what's happening, as well as 23 to look at the next SEG meeting, and set out an 24 agenda based on what we've learned, basically, in 25 the intervening month. 84 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 There's also the possibility, if we enter a 3 phase where study results are coming out fast and 4 furious, we might very well decide that we want to 5 go to a monthly schedule. 6 That would be a way for to us evaluate that, 7 not necessarily waiting until the next SEG meeting. 8 Let's see -- we had thought the interim meeting 9 would be run by the Operating Guidelines' chair, 10 Teri, and we would look to have that at the first 11 Tuesday of the month, at 1:00 o'clock, at the 12 office of Lockwood Greene. 13 That way we wouldn't necessarily have to send 14 out a notice. If y'all want to be on the meeting 15 list, you can provide us with an e-mail and we can 16 do a mailing to you, but as a general rule, I'd 17 like to keep it as, sort of, a permanently 18 scheduled meeting at a permanently scheduled place. 19 And that way people don't suddenly realize, oh 20 my gosh, where am I going. Every once in a while, 21 when we're not meeting here I'm freaking out, on 22 Monday afternoon, thinking where am I supposed to 23 go. I'm sort of like a lemming. I keep coming 24 back here to this building. 25 But the purpose of this, again, is to try and 85 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 beef up communication as we move into the 3 evaluation phase, while providing a method for 4 folks to be as involved as they feel they should 5 be. 6 And having said that, I will open to anybody 7 else, please, who was participating in the 8 Operating Guidelines, who wants to chip in. 9 MR. DYSART: Thank you very much. I think 10 that would be -- we would like to hear from all the 11 people, who have been involved, to amplify on that. 12 David. 13 MR. KYLER: I would urge people to read over 14 these minutes or the meeting summary of the August 15 12th meeting. You may remember that, I'm not sure 16 Will said this, I just want to remind everybody, 17 what we initially started doing was triggered by 18 the outcome of the model decision switch over to 19 plan B modelling. 20 We looked at the summary reports. We 21 discussed at length how that came about. Some 22 members of the Operating Guidelines, participants 23 in Operating Guidelines meetings, were more 24 familiar with the details of that than others. I 25 think we came to a mutual agreement it was not 86 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 necessarily a flaw in the process, of the model 3 development and review, but it did suggest, at 4 least this is my opinion and I would appreciate any 5 debate one way or the another from other members of 6 the group or the larger SEG members, that there -- 7 whenever possible, there needs to be more structure 8 in these kinds of decisions to try to predict and 9 determine when it is that we have reached a point 10 of impasse. 11 It seemed to many of us, on the SEG, this 12 outcome with the model was a total sandbag. We 13 just didn't see it coming. 14 I think that could have been avoided had we 15 had a more predictable performance standard, or 16 some sort of decision criteria for when it was a 17 certain level of progress was not acceptable, and 18 therefore we needed to change a course of action. 19 Moral of the story is, I guess, pretty 20 obvious; that is we try to impose more structure on 21 how we regulate and control the progress and 22 outcome of the committee. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Judy Jennings. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Ben, I was a member of that 25 committee and concur with the recommendations, 87 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 largely as a matter of compromise. 3 But I want to point out some of the elements 4 on which I compromised. I think one of the reasons 5 we went to bimonthly meeting was that studies were 6 ongoing, and there wasn't a lot of decision-making 7 to be done at the time, or input, feedback, or 8 whatever. 9 But I think, having said I compromised, I 10 think we've moved past that, to a large extent, and 11 that we, hopefully, will soon see model runs which 12 will define impacts, lead to mitigation and 13 discussions. 14 And another thing that came up in the meeting 15 was the cost of the monthly SEG meetings, and 16 whether or not we would have agency participation, 17 and that goes back to their time and money and 18 ability to participate. 19 So I just want to add that that was part of 20 my decision-making, are there resources to do -- I 21 think there are vital -- I think there are vital 22 issues on the table. We went to bimonthly meetings 23 to conserve time and energy when it wasn't 24 required. 25 I think, hopefully, there will be model runs 88 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 soon, and we'll be looking at information that 3 we've been waiting on for five years. I 4 compromised, but those were the some of the 5 elements in the compromise. 6 MR. DYSART: Are there other members of the 7 committee here who would like to endorse the 8 recommendations, or add any views? Chris. 9 MR. SCHUBERTH: I was a member of that -- of 10 those two meetings, and I agree with everything 11 that's been stated so far by Will and Dave and 12 Judy. 13 I think what's important is that there is as 14 broad-based participation, in these interim 15 meetings, interim meetings, between the month 16 meetings. As cost had been a factor, we found 17 alternate meeting sites so that it wouldn't be 18 here. Armstrong, for example, is available. Civic 19 Center meetings rooms are available. Lockwood 20 Greene offered to place their facility on the 21 table, so it went to Lockwood Greene, Tuesdays at 22 1:00 p.m. 23 I think the point that needs to be made is 24 that maximum participation should be encouraged. 25 We have a kind of split personality here at SEG. 89 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 We've got the federal agents that have the 3 authority to say and be listened to, and the rest 4 of can say and are listened to, but not with the 5 same degree of focus. 6 We clearly were surprised by the outcome of 7 the study of the H and S model. That became the 8 wellspring for trying to have a better open line of 9 communication. And in this regard, I do want to 10 compliment Card, in presenting a wonderful 11 assessment of the work that's been done. 12 This is what we needed all along with the H 13 and S model and really didn't get it. As I was 14 sitting here saying to myself, I try to convince my 15 students that geology can be interesting and 16 exciting, and one of the most exciting things 17 happened this morning with this presentation, and 18 that's what the purpose of all this is about. 19 MR. DYSART: Thank you. David Kyler. 20 MR. KYLER: Just to clarify, H and S, 21 hydrological and salinity, is that the term? 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: Hydrodynamic and salinity 23 model, correct. 24 MR. DYSART: Will Berson. 25 MR. BERSON: I definitely agree with Chris, 90 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 when I come this close to understanding one of 3 these presentation, it's a miracle. It's a 4 wonderful thing. I want to congratulate Card, 5 really good. I was almost there. 6 One thing I wanted to add to the discussion, 7 we had asked -- we had decided in the Operating 8 Guidelines if, after discussing this the SEG wants 9 to move forward with this recommendation, we're 10 asking that the committee chairs could meet this 11 first meeting, which would be the 5th at 1:00 12 o'clock at Lockwood Greene, that's -- I just want 13 to put that out there. 14 Just to get everybody -- as our first meeting, 15 I don't anticipate that the committee chairs would 16 have to meet always. We'd like it if you could, 17 but just for the first inaugural effort, we'd like 18 to sort talk through how we want this new meeting 19 structure to work. That, again, is assuming that 20 y'all are comfortable with moving forward with this 21 idea. 22 MR. DYSART: Judy and then Morgan. Judy is 23 probably going to say that Card's presentation was 24 really, really cool, right? 25 MS. JENNINGS: I enjoyed it, comprehended a 91 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 lot of it. I guess part of what I want to 3 emphasize that the Operating Guidelines Committee's 4 recommendation was a compromise. The goal was to 5 facilitate collaboration and communication. 6 And in that spirit, I'd really appreciate some 7 feedback and input from this body as a whole. I 8 will tell you, even though I compromised, my heart 9 isn't it. I think this recommendation sucks. For 10 the record, it sucks, and I only did it in the 11 spirit of compromise. 12 I think that if you look at the harbor 13 projects around the world, and the people going to 14 court, when Georgia Ports Authority has this many 15 people willing to get together with them, on a 16 monthly basis, bimonthly basis, and they turn it 17 down, that sucks. 18 So, that's a record; however, I was willing to 19 compromise. Having said that, I would appreciate 20 some input and feedback on the suggestion. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. Morgan. 22 MR. REES: After that, I better not put my 23 guard down. Actually, there's a lesson there. 24 What I was going to say, I will still say it, this 25 was a compromise, but I participated in both 92 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 meetings, but by telephone, not in person. 3 So I didn't see all the body language, but I 4 may have picked up on something, by Judy's comment, 5 had I seen the body language. 6 It struck me, on the phone, that the 7 compromise was reached in a constructive, collegial 8 spirit, and that really impressed me. We've all 9 been a long way in this process, and the early days 10 were not constructive or collegial. 11 I just wanted to point that everybody 12 involved, they worked hard together to solve the 13 problem and not create a problem. Having said all 14 that, Judy, I'd really like to -- 15 MS. JENNINGS: I compromised, Morgan. I'll go 16 with the flow. Personally, I think all we're doing 17 by not meeting monthly is saving what, and I 18 compromised. 19 MR. REES: Okay. 20 MS. JENNINGS: I think it's like -- 21 MR. DYSART: I see no more cards up. This has 22 been a discussion, principally, from -- oh, Chris. 23 MR. SCHUBERTH: Judy, in your comment, I just 24 took it for a fact that every other month was it. 25 I had in these discussions said, why can't we go 93 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 back to monthly meetings? 3 MS. JENNINGS: Remember, the reason we went to 4 bimonthly, and you could do it weekly -- who cares 5 -- but the point is the reason we spaced them out 6 is when the studies were in progress, there wasn't 7 that much to report, and was there any 8 recommendations to made. 9 When you go back to the language, actually 10 this body is involved in the mitigation. That 11 takes us all the way through a potential project. 12 So, I mean, it just blows me away. 13 I mean, if you read the news -- oh lord, my 14 language. I can barely contain. I mean, just read 15 it, you know, the story about out on the West 16 Coast. 17 These people are bogged down in lawsuits 18 forever. They sit on the ground with projects 19 built and they can't use them. Here is one that 20 probably, you know, a landmark, and we're fussing 21 whether we meet bimonthly or not. I'm sorry. I 22 can't get it. I compromised. I am on record here. 23 MR. SCHUBERTH: So let's meet monthly, put it 24 on the table. 25 MS. JENNINGS: I'm on record. I said I 94 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 wouldn't fight about that. I couldn't go through 3 it and be true to myself without saying, I mean, I 4 just don't get it. 5 MR. DYSART: I think we could reach a 6 consensus that Judy is very much on record here. 7 Okay, seriously, this has been discussion, 8 presentation by the committee members. I, 9 personally, as facilitator appreciate these. I 10 think all the people, sitting around the table, 11 should feel they have a good sense of the 12 discussion. 13 As David Kyler pointed out, the two meetings 14 summaries have been provided to give you 15 background. I think the intent is to cause the SEG 16 membership to be familiar with what went on, what 17 was behind the recommendation, so forth, so that 18 you, as a body, can act with knowledge and 19 understanding. 20 So if there are no further comments, at this 21 time by members of the Operating Guidelines 22 Committee, I would certainly invite comments, 23 reactions of the SEG membership, in general, as 24 broader participation we get in anything the better 25 it's going to be; comments, recommendations, 95 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 suggestions, reactions? 3 MR. PLACHY: Ben, I just have a question for 4 clarification; is there a motion, per se, to change 5 something or do something? I'm not quite sure I 6 follow the whole discussion for sure. 7 MR. DYSART: So far as I know, there was a 8 charge that went from this body, there was a 9 consensus that this needed to be looked at, get 10 improved communications to make sure that things 11 were being handled in a way the body could be 12 comfortable with. 13 It was referred to Operating Guidelines for 14 them to do some digging, to come back with some 15 recommendations for discussion here. My 16 interpretation is it has been brought back here. 17 It has been put on the table. 18 I do not have the sense there is necessarily a 19 motion for action. I would certainly hope and 20 expect, out of this meeting today, there would be 21 some kind of consensus about how things go forward, 22 whatever the sense of this group happens to be. 23 Good point. Larry Keegan. 24 MR. KEEGAN: I think the Operating Guidelines 25 Committee tried very hard to provide a clear 96 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 recommendation, to the SEG as a whole, which is 3 what Teri has summarized here under recommendations 4 to the SEG. 5 There's a lot of very good focus work, I 6 thought, that went on in those two meetings, 7 notwithstanding the compromise that went on. 8 There was clearly compromise. 9 I think what's on the table is the Operating 10 Guidelines Committee is making some specific 11 recommendations for how to proceed in the future, 12 not that they can't be changed, should the need 13 come up in the future, but this was the collective 14 recommendations of that committee for here are the 15 changes that should be made now. 16 Here's how we think we should proceed, so the 17 question that's in front of the SEG, in my view, is 18 do you adopt these or not? 19 MR. DYSART: I would -- just a moment here -- 20 basically what I see here is the recommendation 21 from Teri and the committee is the SEG continue to 22 meet bimonthly, that there be off or interim 23 meetings, by OGC for planning, that it be run by 24 OGC, that minutes be posted so everybody can know. 25 Something I heard Will say was that this body 97 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 -- this body meaning interim group -- would make 3 recommendations, or decide about the necessity or 4 desirability of meeting at a different frequency. 5 So that was, I think, part of the discussion 6 that has been here. I guess what I hear is that 7 everybody is concerned about maximizing value, that 8 all of the parties; whether it's the Corps, GPA, 9 all the parties sitting around the table want the 10 most value to try to move forward as good a project 11 as possible. 12 If that means recommendations coming out of 13 the interim meetings of the full SEG meeting, so be 14 it. I have not heard anybody saying they don't 15 want value, when value can be obtained, consistent 16 with some of Judy's comments. 17 I think, to me, that's what's been teed up 18 here. I think it would be good to leave here 19 saying is that acceptable, is that the way we want 20 to proceed, or do you want to do something 21 different? David Kyler. 22 MR. KYLER: I would kind of second what Larry 23 just said. To that I would add a little bit of 24 discomfort I have with describing this new segment 25 of meetings between the regular meetings as 98 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 planning meetings. Really, that term is used in 3 Teri's memo. 4 At the risk of sounding academic or something, 5 I would think of this more as a "adaptive 6 management process" rather than a planning process, 7 because planning is such a generic term. It means 8 so many different things to so many different 9 people. 10 As I see this, it's really intended to enhance 11 and detail some of the information management 12 control -- management and control issues that were 13 raised in the initial charge, which as I said 14 earlier, was the result of unpredicted outcome with 15 the modelling. 16 So I don't know if the use of that term helps 17 at all. This is meant to be more of dynamic, 18 interjection of a dynamic process to help the SEG 19 make more timely and well-informed changes in how 20 -- in information generation and decision-making 21 based upon that information. 22 MR. DYSART: I have just -- I have been 23 involved on the side and discussions with Teri. I 24 have provided comments to the committee, and so 25 forth. 99 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 I am not aware of any motion or any intent, on 3 the part of the committee, to move any kind of 4 decision-making away from the SEG to the interim 5 meeting. 6 This is simply, basically, review staff work, 7 so forth, that can make the full SEG meetings more 8 productive, and provide guidance or input on the 9 agenda, so forth. Correct? I see several heads 10 nodding. Chris. 11 MR. SCHUBERTH: In that regard, Ben, if you 12 look at the last page of the agenda where it says, 13 above the next meeting date, where it says new 14 structure for SEG discussion. It isn't really a 15 new structure, it is a modified or alternative 16 structure, so that no decision-making is removed 17 from the SEG. 18 It is simply to bring us back to monthly 19 meetings, which is Judy's and my point of view that 20 there is enough on the table to keep us up-to-date, 21 so that we don't get sandbagged as Dave Kyler had 22 used that expression, as a singular -- singular 23 purpose of having the in-between months, the 24 interim months this way. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. Good. Further comments? 100 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 What is the sense of this body? David, reaching 3 for your card. 4 MR. KYLER: Yeah. I would -- I think I'm 5 going to clarify, in my mind at least, what I 6 understand Chris to have just said. Rather than 7 the term new structure, it's -- it's with its new 8 set of bimonthly meetings by this, what is called 9 Operating Guidelines hosted meeting, according to 10 Teri's memo, recommendation from that committee, it 11 is meant to enhance the use of the existing 12 structure of the SEG, as I said earlier, through 13 refinement of information and its use by the SEG -- 14 recommendations of that refinement and use of the 15 information by the SEG. 16 MR. DYSART: What is the pleasure of this 17 body, with regard to the recommendations that have 18 been brought forward by the Operating Guidelines 19 Committee and as discussed here this morning, are 20 you comfortable with proceeding with this fine 21 tuning of these adjustments? Fred. 22 MR. BEASON: Ben, I think, from where I sit, 23 if there's enough information we need to talk about 24 it. I think we need to get together. If somebody 25 wants to dig in deep in the data that's being 101 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 produced, I think they've got that avenue through 3 participating on that committee. 4 I'm opposed to having an interim meeting. I 5 don't think you're going to have full 6 participation. You are going to have spotty 7 participation. That flies in the face of what GPA 8 is trying to do. They're trying to get everybody 9 involved. 10 I think we need to stay involved if we want to 11 do it. I appreciate the Operating Guidelines 12 trying to clarify, but I think we're trying to fix 13 something that's not needing to be fixed. 14 We had an incident there where a study fell 15 apart. I think if you'll go back and look at it, 16 you'll find that everybody was doing the best that 17 they could at the time. Technology outran some 18 technology that was being used, and a better system 19 came to the top of the water. That's what they're 20 using. 21 MR. DYSART: Lucille. 22 MS. RAHN: I agree with Fred. If they want 23 to, like Dave said, an adaptive process, try it, 24 you know, if they wanted to for a time, and see if 25 they felt that that made it all more efficient. 102 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 But I agree, it might be a little, you know, 3 not needed, but -- 4 MR. DYSART: Other comments? David Kyler. 5 MR. KYLER: Afraid I'm wearing out my welcome. 6 It seems to me that part of the problem is that the 7 forest for the trees scenario in many of the 8 committees. Technical committees are technical 9 people. 10 They know the subject at hand that the 11 committee is focusing on, but they may not be very 12 aware, self-conscious about the wider implications 13 about the use of information being produced by that 14 committee, or the nuances of control mechanisms 15 within the committee that were revealed by the 16 problem with the modelling group. 17 You may note at the bottom of page -- the 18 second page of the August 12th minutes from the 19 Operating Guidelines, I point out the important 20 distinction is made between communication 21 difficulties related to a technical topic like 22 modelling versus a point that Will brought up, 23 transparency and trust issues, such as the openly 24 admitting problems when they're known to be 25 occurring. 103 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 It's unclear, to this point to this day, 3 whether as I say, a question remains whether anyone 4 on the SEG knew that this outcome of the modelling 5 committee was forthcoming, and if so, how far in 6 advance they knew it. 7 So it seems to me it's those kind of issues 8 that we're trying to interject to the technical 9 committees, which the members of this committee 10 themselves may not be very savvy about, just 11 because of the nature of their professional 12 expertise, or because of their immersion in the 13 issues of committee and can't stand back and see 14 these larger questions that are attempted to be 15 addressed by the Operating Guideline Committee. 16 MR. DYSART: Judy. 17 MS. JENNINGS: I'd just like to draw attention 18 to the hand-out that Larry passed out. It's not 19 just -- it's a pretty picture. It's more than 20 that. 21 If you'll read the legend, the completed work 22 is the Corps scoping meeting and the GPA scoping 23 meeting. Those were ages ago. Everything is in 24 progress or yet to be started. 25 That's the work on this project. Either this 104 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 body cares to be involved or it doesn't, because 3 it's all still there. And, I mean, within these 4 things a lot of other things lie. 5 I mean, this is huge. So I'm thinking that, 6 in terms of approving this recommendation, you can 7 do it and you can try to make it work. I 8 compromised and I'm willing to go with the flow. I 9 think there has to be some degree of commitment, 10 and sense of culpability to make something work. 11 I'm mean, I'm not saying there's a project. I 12 don't know, 42 feet, 48, whatever, but some 13 project. Either this body's relevant or it's not. 14 I mean, I've got company at my house. I could go 15 home. 16 MR. DYSART: Any other thoughts? Seems like 17 we've got two ideas here. One is keep on keeping 18 on, and the other is to try the fine tuning here, 19 seeing how the interim meetings, sponsored by the 20 Operating Guidelines Committee, how that would 21 improve things. Is there any sense of this body? 22 Bob Scanlon. 23 MR. SCANLON: Picking up with what Fred said 24 earlier, I think adding another meeting to a lot of 25 peoples' very busy schedule, I think one of the big 105 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 issues that is in play here is the fact that we 3 were held up for so long waiting on a model. 4 We're now at a point where a lot of the 5 committee work is going to be become much more 6 productive. 7 I think the big issue that I see, that's 8 important to come to this group, is that we could 9 get accurate, good reports of what's going on at 10 the committee level. I personally believe that 11 every other month is probably, at this point, often 12 enough. 13 As we get closer to decisions, maybe we would 14 have to bring meetings closer together, as you had 15 more information, as we're getting closer to 16 decision points. 17 But at this point in time, I think that we're 18 now at a point where the committees should be 19 becoming much more active. I think what's critical 20 is getting good reports of what going on in those 21 committees for decisions. And I think just adding 22 another meeting is -- could result in more 23 superficial reports of those committees, and really 24 not -- you're diluting the efforts of the 25 committees in doing it. 106 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 They're having to prepare a report of what's 3 happened in the last four weeks versus moving 4 forward with what they were doing. 5 MR. DYSART: More thoughts, or are we pretty 6 well there? This body, in my view, tasked the 7 Operating Guidelines Committee to take a situation, 8 study it in broad participation. 9 I gather, from what I hear, there was a wide 10 invitation for people to come sit in this on this 11 process -- two meetings. 12 It appears, from the notes, that these were 13 substantive meetings, lots of stuff going back and 14 forth. They have made a recommendation. I would 15 ask you, how much -- are there strong -- are there 16 strong feelings against trying the recommendation, 17 of the Operating Guidelines Committee, for at least 18 one time and seeing how it works? 19 To me, that is what is on the table. There 20 are two views. Chris. 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think we have to be careful 22 that we don't drop into benign neglect, where if we 23 go to the interim meeting, a handful of people 24 come, and those that should be involved are not 25 involved because they feel that is not necessary. 107 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 Then I think we're defeating the purpose of 3 having that second meeting. So I'm conscious of 4 benign neglect. 5 MR. DYSART: It's a good point. I think 6 whether it's SEG meetings, committee meetings, or 7 those proposed meetings, if there's not 8 participation then we do have a problem. Is that 9 something that could be attempted, and see if this 10 body could then determine whether there was 11 sufficient and broad participation, or whether it 12 was too limited? 13 MS. RAHN: Okay. So then, Chris, what you're 14 saying, I mean so that all the main top officials 15 that are here at this table now needs to be at this 16 interim gathering as well? 17 MR. SCHUBERTH: At least some representation 18 and clearly we're split, not necessarily down the 19 middle, but we're split. There's not going to be 20 consensus. If consensus is not reached, based upon 21 Fred's comments he would be opposed, there are 22 others probably also that would be opposed, then we 23 remain and continue in the manner that we have been 24 meeting every other month here at the Mighty 8th, 25 conducting business the way it's always been 108 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 conducted. 3 I think it's the responsibility of everyone 4 sitting at this table that the Operating Guidelines 5 Committee was tasked with looking into this, and we 6 did look into it, and we met for the better part of 7 two and a half hours each sitting and debated this 8 up and down and left and right. We came up with, 9 basically, this recommendation thinking this would, 10 more than likely, be accepted. 11 I appreciate -- not except to me -- to me not 12 accepting it is not an issue, but if it is 13 accepted, which it probably will not be, based on 14 the temperament of it all, then if it is accepted, 15 then it need to be participatory. 16 MS. RAHN: Would that mean then like Larry and 17 Dave and on around, part of this first interim -- 18 be part of this interim meeting process then, 19 right? 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: Right. Again, the purpose 21 being to develop a stronger line of communication 22 between the various projects that Judy pointed out, 23 we have lots of yellows here, and getting to 24 understand, perhaps, a little bit more fully as we 25 learned this morning about the geology of this 109 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 region and the hydrology of this region. 3 That is the purpose of having this additional 4 meeting is to have this kind of presentation, which 5 I understand is costly to put on. My coming here 6 is costly. Everybody, it's costly, but we've been 7 doing it for six years monthly until about two 8 years ago. 9 We're just trying to come back to the way it 10 had been, so that presentations like this can be 11 brought before this body and the questions can be 12 asked in a non-threatening situation; what do you 13 mean by a paleochannel? 14 MR. DYSART: Judy. Will. Larry. 15 MS. JENNINGS: When we changed models, it was 16 said, at this table, that that would add about two 17 years to the life of the project; however, it was 18 also said that adapting the old model would also 19 add two years. 20 One of the Operating Guidelines Committee 21 meetings we were told that the Corps was working on 22 compressing that schedule, so that that time would 23 not -- so that we wouldn't add two years; is that 24 likely to happen? 25 So I guess what I'm trying to get a grip on is 110 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 what is the time frame, how quickly will things 3 happen, how quickly will decisions be made, when 4 will they come up? 5 I mean, we've gone along here in a couple of 6 years with basically, you know, entertainment. I 7 know stuff has been going on. I want to know at 8 what rate of time are we likely to be in a 9 decision-making mode in the next year or two; can 10 anybody help me with that? 11 MR. DYSART: Doug, would you like to respond 12 to that comment? 13 MR. PLACHY: Yeah, I think that's my area. As 14 y'all know, I've been gone for a while. When I got 15 back, one of the first things I did was take a look 16 at the current schedule. There was an assumption 17 made, I believe, in the schedule that y'all are 18 talking about, that nothing would occur on the 19 project until a future date when some enhancements 20 were made to the TMDL. 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: Plan A, plan B. 22 MR. PLACHY: Yeah, but that really wasn't a 23 very accurate assumption. I had some meetings and 24 visited with cooperating agencies. And the TMDL 25 model that's now been released, I think it was 111 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 released at the end of August, it's officially now 3 been put out by EPA. 4 It's gotten the backing of all of the agencies 5 as being a defendable model. Based on that, what 6 the Corps intends to do is -- I'm working on it 7 right now -- is putting together a schedule whereby 8 we initiate the model runs, of the different 9 alternative, using the TMDL model, and seeing based 10 on that model initially, what kind of screening 11 could occur with the different alternatives. 12 But concurrent to that, I'm also putting under 13 contract enhancements to that model looking at 14 things like potentially a finer grid, and some 15 other items. 16 So that would be going on concurrently. What 17 that all translates to, I think, goes directly to 18 Judy's question; is there -- there's potential that 19 should the contractor be able to get the 20 enhancements done, in the time frame that we're 21 contracting for, and should the TMDL model as it 22 exists now, the EPA model, give us some results 23 that are of use. 24 There's a great chance that we'll have a draft 25 EIS, potentially, out on the street by the end of 112 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 next summer, maybe early next fall. What that 3 translates into is there's going to be data that's 4 going to start coming out, much like the aquifer 5 data, you know. 6 Card basically just presented to y'all what 7 the data is. We haven't gotten to the point of 8 making any determinations of that data, but in the 9 same sense, as we start doing model runs with the 10 EPA model, we're going to start having data. 11 I guess the question that's out there is how 12 does the body obtain the data, and in what way do 13 they want it. Do you want to have a monthly 14 meeting whereby we show you data, which would be 15 very raw and very coarse data, or do you want to 16 wait until after the Corps, working with the 17 federal and state agencies, does some work with 18 that data and kind of determines what that means, 19 in terms of impacts, and then present that kind of 20 information to the body. 21 I think that's the question everybody is 22 wrestling with. Where does the SEG -- where does 23 that participation line hit, and how often should 24 they meet in order to get this information. 25 I guess all I can say is, as soon as we have 113 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 data that we can put out there, and I mean when we 3 could, not in terms of holding anything back, but 4 actually having something that's a finished 5 product, rather than put out data for each boring, 6 it will come out a piecemeal period of time, but 7 does it make more sense to do all the borings, pull 8 the data together, and then release that data? 9 We're going to have model runs, hopefully yet 10 this fall. We're going to be looking at impacts 11 winter and spring time frame. A lot of things are 12 going to occur in the next 12 months. 13 Basically, to answer the question Judy raised, 14 it's not going to be two years from now before 15 anything starts. Everything is going to be 16 restarting within the next month. And we're going 17 to start seeing some data and we're going to start 18 doing some screenings. I don't know if that helped 19 or muddied the situation. 20 MR. DYSART: Will, then Larry. 21 MR. BERSON: I don't want to take on your role 22 as facilitator, I'm hearing a resounding lack of 23 consensus, around the table, in terms of a 24 recommendation. 25 I'd like to suggest, just because we did meet 114 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 and put a substantial amount of work into it, I'd 3 like to suggest that we table this and bring it up 4 at the next SEG meeting, and see if people, after 5 reading this meeting summary, feel any differently 6 about it. 7 MR. DYSART: Let me follow-up on that in just 8 a moment. Larry, Chris, Judy, and then -- Larry. 9 MR. KEEGAN: I think there is an aspect of 10 discussions that might be worth highlighting for 11 people to think about whether we try to come to a 12 conclusion today or table it, and that was the 13 relationship between what was brought up for 14 discussion in these meetings of the SEG, and what 15 was happening and likely to be coming available, 16 in the project work as it went along. 17 It ties into this thing I handed out, which is 18 not related to any line in time. There is no time 19 on it. These are the building blocks that will go 20 into the eventual draft of the general evaluation 21 study and EIS that comes out. 22 So each of these pieces will be being drafted 23 and written and will eventually be coming available 24 to look at before the whole. As Doug just said, 25 and as I said earlier, the goal is to do that in 115 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 the next year, to build these pieces. 3 One of the things I think discussed, in the 4 Operating Guidelines Committee, in trying to deal 5 with how to enhance the SEG's ability to be 6 involved, in things going on, was to try and figure 7 out a way we could look at what was coming 8 available when, identify it for discussion in a 9 particular point in time, and provide the 10 information that people could look at in advance of 11 that discussion, so that when we met to discuss, we 12 could have some substance and have some value come 13 out of the discussion, and transform it into a 14 substantive discussion of something that was, at 15 least, in draft form, and not just a reaction to an 16 informative briefing. 17 That touches to Will's discussion earlier of 18 moving from a -- into an evaluative phase. We're 19 going to have to start to deal with substance. 20 We're going to have to start to deal with 21 interpretation of analysis. 22 We're going to have to start to deal with raw 23 data. We're going to have to start to deal with 24 judgments about impacts. All of those things would 25 require an investment of time and effort, Judy's 116 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 commitment, if you will. 3 This whole thing, we thought in the compromise 4 we put together in the recommendations, was to try 5 to provide a way to help SEG members be prepared 6 for those discussions when they came up, as they 7 came up in the course of the schedule. 8 Now, we don't know that that's going to work 9 well. If it doesn't work, I would offer you my 10 personal opinion that what we're doing now isn't 11 going to work any better. 12 We'll need to identify some alternative if you 13 want to stay more involved. 14 MR. DYSART: Chris and Judy. 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: Larry actually said what I 16 wanted to say, so let me just since I had my card 17 up is I asked myself why did the SEG ask the 18 Operating Guidelines Committee to look into this, 19 so in the minutes of August 12th it's stated very 20 clearly. 21 The committee was tasked, at the July '04 SEG 22 meeting, to look at, determine how, the rejection 23 of the hydrological model effort, after years of 24 technical review, occurred, how to prevent it from 25 reoccurring, and how to facility/increase the flow 117 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 of information between SEG and the federal 3 agencies, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et cetera. 4 That's basically what Larry just said. 5 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah. I appreciate Larry's 6 clarification as Chris says. The thing about it is 7 I think we might need to realize that the pace of 8 business is changing, and that while we've been -- 9 it's been easy for a few years, what Doug says the 10 next year is going put a lot of stuff on the table. 11 So you either get briefed every two months or 12 you participate, and it could be that possibly an 13 action item scenario is to take a suggestion from 14 the Operating Guidelines Committee. 15 And I mean for instance, just for instance, we 16 could go back to monthly meeting and have Operating 17 Guidelines Committee meet in an interim. It's just 18 a matter of time. It's -- time is an abstract 19 concept, but it's not really, because I'm not going 20 to be standing here a year from now, looking at an 21 EIS on the table, and tell my constituency, gee I 22 didn't see it coming because sure as hell it is. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. I'm mindful of what the 24 clock is saying here. Let me see what I can 25 capture here. 118 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 I think we've had a very good discussion here. 3 It has been candid. It has been give and take. 4 Let me tell you what I hear. There was a need to 5 improve communication and have needed input and 6 discussion. There was a consensus on that two 7 months ago. 8 What I hear is there is not a desire to go to 9 permanent interim meetings, to have a commitment to 10 that definitely. There's also a call to have more 11 effort by broad involvement of people interested, 12 so forth, in the deliberations. 13 There's also a desire not necessarily to lock 14 into going back to monthly meetings. There is a 15 concern about the participation at the interim 16 meetings. There's also a concern about 17 participation at regular SEG meetings. 18 We're getting consensus on a lot of things 19 here. There was consensus about -- for going ahead 20 and trying to do something to improve things. 21 What I hear, what I sense out of this is what 22 could capture, I think, most everything I hear, and 23 Larry used the word try about three times in his 24 last set of remarks, how would it be to try an 25 interim meeting between now and the next meeting. 119 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 Then let's see what kind of participation. 3 Let's see what kind of value that can bring to the 4 next meeting. 5 Then we can also incorporate -- one of Will's 6 last comments was instead of reevaluating the idea 7 next time, not knowing anymore than you really do 8 now, how about reevaluate this next time after 9 having had a trial, and people can see what 10 happens. 11 Would that be acceptable to say we would like 12 to see one interim meeting -- see what happens? 13 Larry. 14 MR. KEEGAN: Just a question, could we clarify 15 who is expected at the interim meeting? I think 16 the recommendations, from the Operating Guidelines 17 Committee, were that it be the Operating Guidelines 18 Committee with all of the committee chairs 19 encouraged to attend. 20 And the impression I'm getting from the 21 discussion is somehow that's being seen as 22 everybody who is sitting here should come to the 23 interim meeting. I don't think that was the 24 intent. 25 MR. BERSON: Although anyone who wishes to 120 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 come is welcome. 3 MR. KEEGAN: Everyone is welcome, but it was 4 not intended to be an entirety of the SEG in some 5 different meeting format. It was intended to be a 6 smaller group. I'm asking a question, that's what 7 I thought. 8 MR. BERSON: That was the intention, yes. 9 MS. JENNINGS: I think that was the compromise 10 MR. DYSART: David. 11 MR. SCHALLER: Yes. Thanks. I kind of stayed 12 out of deliberations, debate about whether we adopt 13 or not adopt this recommendation by the SEG. 14 I think it' a reasoned recommendation. The 15 GPA will support it, but Ben, you picked up right 16 at the end -- I think was the first time I heard 17 it. There may have been others who said it. If 18 there were, forgive me. 19 There's nothing about this that is chiseled in 20 stone. If we need to meet weekly, then we ought to 21 meet weekly. I think all of us recognize that 22 decisions don't come out of studies, out of the 23 Corps -- no disrespect to the Corps -- out of 24 the agencies, out of anybody with lightening speed. 25 I mean, it's well-documented the time it's 121 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 taken to get to the position where we are. There 3 are cost/benefit issues, value issues, I think you 4 mentioned that, that I feel are a little -- 5 probably a little inappropriate to expose in their 6 entirety here, but just do understand that these 7 meetings cost time. 8 They cost everybody time, as Chris said. They 9 cost money as well, and that's an issue that ought 10 to play into the consideration of how frequently we 11 meet. 12 In terms of the characterization of the 13 interim meeting, as it's been now described, my 14 view is it is not an interim meeting of the SEG at 15 all. There are different levels of interest in 16 what's happening here with this proposed Savannah 17 Harbor Deepening Project. 18 There are many agencies represented here, 19 which is perhaps more and more out of duty than of 20 interest, and again, that's not disrespectful at 21 all. 22 They're going to be in a position to make a 23 judgment about the impacts, and about the 24 mitigation, you know, impact avoidance, all of 25 those things. 122 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 They are tasked in the law that either works 3 or that doesn't work in the final analysis. Others 4 here are private citizens and representative of 5 NGOs. Again, the level of interest varies. 6 We have all -- no, that's not the way to say 7 the sentence. Many of us have been here when there 8 were only 10 or 12 people at an SEG meeting, and in 9 terms of the cost to host a meeting with 10 or 10 12 people, as opposed to 50 or 60 people, is the 11 same. 12 It doesn't change a bit. So the GPA, to my 13 knowledge, has never, never denied anybody 14 information known to it, will always be responsive, 15 and open the books, and show anybody anything they 16 want to know at any time. 17 I don't think we need an SEG meeting to do 18 that. Your calls are welcome. We'd even make 19 meeting facilities available to you, from time to 20 time. 21 So I think we ought to move forward planning 22 to have SEG meetings when there is something of 23 value to present to the group, and an opportunity 24 for the group to put their arms around it, you 25 know, evaluate it, think about it, talk about it, 123 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 do those kinds of things. 3 Again, this sounds critical, and I don't mean 4 for it to. It's my observation. I'll bet you in 5 the last 10 or 15 or 20 meetings, we haven't had 6 chair reports, committee chair reports, but from 7 maybe one or two people who have had opportunity to 8 meet. 9 The other times it's been no report, you know, 10 no meeting. So as things bubble up, and they will 11 begin to do that, as Doug as pointed out, we can 12 choose to meet when we need to meet. 13 We don't have to say we're going to meet only 14 once every other month. But for now, I think 15 that's a reasonable step for the body to take. 16 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Let me throw out the 17 notion of trying the recommendation one time, to 18 provide the basis for this group to have some 19 evaluation. 20 That's about as close as I can come to finding 21 something that captures everything that we've been 22 hearing, and honors the concerns as well as the 23 desires around the table. Is there strong 24 objection or any particular objection to trying 25 that? 124 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 MS. JENNINGS: Could we define that, and 3 David, you're one of the most articulate people I 4 know, but even at the end, I'm not sure what you 5 said. Please forgive me, you said, let's try that. 6 MR. SCHALLER: Let's try the recommendation of 7 the SEG -- excuse me -- Operating Guidelines 8 Committee that says, in between these bimonthly 9 that are currently on our calendar, that those 10 who would have that higher level of interest, who 11 want to know more, who want to make suggestions 12 about what the SEG hears, at the ensuing meeting, 13 get together and do that. 14 MR. DYSART: That's that. 15 MR. SCHALLER: That's that. 16 MS. JENNINGS: I appreciate that. 17 MR. DYSART: I would say it's my presumption 18 people are going to be saying they wanted the next 19 full SEG meeting probably in a couple of months. 20 That would allow us to have something more 21 concrete to look at and evaluate and to have 22 tested, as opposed to having simply all the 23 preexisting two months to be rehashed. Will. 24 Chris. 25 MR. BERSON: Since I worked on this 125 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 recommendation, I'm going to take myself out of it. 3 We can either move forward or not. 4 I just want to make one point, and that is 5 when we get to the bottom of the agenda today, 6 we're -- Ben's going to ask us when do you want to 7 meet, and we're all going sit here and we're not 8 going to know why; should we meet in a month, 9 should we meet in two, what would the basis be for 10 that decision? 11 The interim meeting would, at least, give you 12 the reason to know why you're meeting in a month or 13 two months. Every single time, we're all anxious 14 to get out of here, it's almost 12:00, we're going 15 to say okay two months. 16 There's no rhyme or reason to that decision, 17 and that's really the whole reason we're doing 18 this, just trying to put a little structure to it. 19 Having actually said that, I no opinion on 20 whether we move forward on this recommendation or 21 we don't. 22 I think everybody, sitting around the 23 table, ought to have an opinion one way or the 24 other at this point, having listened to the 25 discussion, and everyone is giving me blank looks, 126 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 so help me there Ben. 3 MR. DYSART: Chris and Larry. 4 MR. SCHUBERTH: Let me make a suggestion, 5 because I think David spelled it out very, very 6 nicely, that we have our next SEG in November, that 7 we have the interim committee meeting on Tuesday 8 October 5th, at Lockwood Greene, that I go on 9 record saying that it is encouraged for as many 10 people, particularly the chairs of the different 11 committees, to at least come to that first interim 12 meeting on the 5th of October. 13 MR. DYSART: Well stated. Larry. 14 MR. KEEGAN: One additional suggestion and 15 I'll shut up, rather than characterize this as a 16 one time trial, I suggest we characterize this as 17 let's try this until the SEG directs us to do 18 something else. 19 MR. DYSART: I'm actually seeing some heads 20 nodding -- may have been a breakthrough. 21 MR. BERSON: One question, Larry. I threw out 22 the 5th. I wrote that in my calendar, based on -- 23 MR. KEEGAN: Not a problem. 24 MR. BERSON: That's fine. Never mind. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. I'm going to state for the 127 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 record that I've been seeing a fair number of heads 3 bob and nobody is shaking their head. 4 With the amplification Larry provided, let's 5 try the recommendation from the OGC, and let's let 6 the SEG decide when they want to change things. 7 I'm going to declare that seems to be something we 8 can live with, and therefore is a consensus. Okay. 9 Now, Will stole my thunder, when do you want to 10 meet next -- how about in two months? November 11 9th is the first Tuesday. Well, that's Election 12 Day. 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: It says here November 2nd. 14 MR. DYSART: November 2nd then it mentions the 15 9th. Whenever there's a holiday, that's something 16 we normally stay off of, federal holidays. Whether 17 November 2nd would be the same kind of equivalent 18 as Pearl Harbor Day, we'll have to see. November 19 the 9th would be the unconflicted first time to 20 meet. 21 Okay. Cathy is now getting an answer. Cathy 22 will put something on the Internet, within the next 23 few days, but the presumption would be it would be 24 Tuesday the 9th, to be confirmed by availability of 25 the room. 128 1 REPORT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES 2 We will be guided by Cathy's posting on the 3 Internet. Thank you for your great participation. 4 I declare the meeting adjourned. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 1 2 3 4 5 C E R T I F I C A T E 6 G E O R G I A : 7 CHATHAM COUNTY: 8 I hereby certify that the foregoing 9 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 10 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 11 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 12 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 128 represent 13 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 14 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 15 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 16 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 17 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 18 anywise interested in the result of said case. 19 This, the 1st day of October, 2004. 20 21 22 ________________________ 23 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court Reporter, B-2041 24 25