1 2 3 4 5 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP MEETING 6 7 OF 8 9 NOVEMBER 14, 2006 10 11 12 13 MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 14 POOLER, GEORGIA 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 I N D E X 5 6 7 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------ 3 8 9 COMMITTEE REPORTS ---------------------- 7 10 11 12 UPDATE BRIEFING 13 14 By Bill Bailey --------------------- 9 15 By Alan Garrett -------------------- 20 16 TMDL Discussion -------------------- 48 17 By Alan Garrett -------------------- 71 18 19 20 21 NEXT MEETING DISCUSSION ---------------- 83 22 23 24 CERTIFICATE ---------------------------- 87 25 3 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 (THE REPORTER: I am appearing today on 3 behalf of my employer, Tom Crites & Associates. 4 My office was requested by Mr. Clark's office 5 to provide a court reporter today at 10:30 a.m. 6 at this address. 7 Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well 8 as at the instructions of my employer, I wish 9 to disclose that, other than accepting to serve 10 as your reporter, we have not entered into any 11 other contractual agreement with any party 12 involved in this case.) 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. I'd like to welcome 14 everyone and call this meetings of the 15 Stakeholders Evaluation Group to order. 16 We have a nice turnout today. We have 17 some interesting presentations to be made, 18 which presumably will mean that there will be 19 some interesting discussion as well. 20 And the first thing I'd like to do is to 21 go around the table right up here, and 22 introduce yourself, say who you are in a nice, 23 clear voice, so everyone can hear including 24 madam court reporter, and indicate whatever 25 1 affiliation you care to give. 4 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. WRIGHT: I'm Tom Wright, and I'm 3 a resident civilian -- as citizen, something 4 like that. 5 MR. GRIFFIN: David Griffin of the Georgia 6 DOT. 7 MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of 8 Savannah and also the Savannah Harbor 9 Committee. 10 LIEUTENANT WEBB: Lieutenant Rob Webb, 11 U.S. Coast Guard, Water Waste Management also. 12 MR. DYSART: I'm Ben Dysart, Stakeholders 13 Evaluation Group facilitator. 14 MR. BERSON: I'm Will Berson. I'm with 15 the Georgia Conservancy. 16 MR. WILLIS: I'm Steve Willis and I'm with 17 Blue Planet Projects. 18 MS. GRAINEY: I'm Karen Grainey of the 19 Savannah Riverkeepers. 20 MS. BOWERS: I'm Gail Bowers of the League 21 of Women Voters. 22 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant for 23 GPA. 24 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller with Georgia 25 Ports Authority. 5 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant with 3 GPA. 4 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 5 Authority. 6 MR. KYLER: David Kyler, Center for a 7 Sustainable Coast. 8 MS. GRIESS: Jane Griess, U.S. Fish and 9 Wildlife Service, Savannah Coastal Refuge. 10 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly with Fish and 11 Wildlife Service. 12 MR. HALL: Carl Hall with Georgia Wildlife 13 Federation. 14 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Army Corps of 15 Engineers. 16 MS. COLLINS-RAHN: Lucille Collins-Rahn, 17 Georgia Sierra. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia 19 Sierra. 20 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Island. 21 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Brent Rothschild, 22 National Parks Service, Ft. Pulaski. 23 MR. GARRETT: Alan Garrett, Army Corps of 24 Engineers and Project Manager for the Savannah 25 Harbor Expansion. 6 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. DYSART: Thank you. You have before 3 you the draft agenda for today's meeting. 4 You've had a chance to look at it. I would 5 like for you to indicate if you would like to 6 add anything, or change the order of any of the 7 agenda items. 8 This has been posted and updated and so 9 forth. If there are no requests for 10 modifications, then we will consider this the 11 agenda from which we will operate today, and I 12 appreciate your attention to this. 13 The September transcript has been posted. 14 Are there any questions or comments concerning 15 that? Our custom is that if anything in error, 16 or somebody misspoke anything, or what not, we 17 correct it on the next record. We don't go 18 back. 19 And so if there's anything that is not 20 clear in the last transcript, please indicate. 21 Seeing no request to make such a change, and 22 being unaware of any changes otherwise, we'll 23 consider that the September transcript has been 24 accepted by this body. 25 Okay. Moving right on down to committee 7 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 Reports, Bob Scanlon, anything on the Aquifer 3 Committee? 4 MR. SCANLON: Nothing to report. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Anybody from the Beach 6 Erosion Committee, anything happening there? 7 Lou. 8 MR. OFF: Since last month we had the Army 9 Corps of Engineers report, I was wondering who 10 would be in charge to make sure that we had a 11 committee meeting. 12 Our chair hasn't been here for about six 13 or eight months, and I was just wondering 14 what's the procedure to get that committee back 15 reviewing that information from the Corps. 16 MR. DYSART: How many people are here who 17 are normally involved in the those committee 18 meetings. 19 MR. OFF: I went to one meeting as a 20 guest. Larry. 21 MR. DYSART: Bill. I would -- perhaps the 22 three of y'all could look into this, either 23 contact the chair or initiate a meeting on your 24 own. 25 We'd be happy to hear from the committee, 8 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 if they have any comments that they want to 3 share with us next time. Do you feel 4 empowered, Lou? 5 MR. OFF: I was going to say, Larry would 6 be a great guy to take care of that. 7 MR. DYSART: We have multiple people 8 empowered. 9 MR. OFF: I will be glad to help. 10 MR. KEEGAN: I'll try to contact Bill and 11 see what his intentions. 12 MR. OFF: Okay. 13 MR. DYSART: Anything from the Dredging 14 and Disposal Committee? Okay. Judy, how about 15 the Economics Working Group? 16 MS. JENNINGS: I'm sure the economics are 17 working, but I wouldn't know anything about it. 18 Can somebody help me -- I know nothing so, but 19 I'd love to know anything anyone has to share. 20 I think, at some point -- 21 MR. BAILEY: A work in progress. 22 MS. JENNINGS: A work in progress. I will 23 call Bill and/or Alan later and get up to speed 24 and be better next time. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Fisheries 9 1 PRESENTATION - BILL BAILEY 2 and Aquatic Resources, anything to report 3 there? 4 MR. BERSON: No report. 5 MR. DYSART: Will -- the Agenda Committee 6 has been functioning Operating Guidelines, 7 anything from that area? No. Striped Bass 8 Committee anything from there? 9 Okay. We're ready to get into new 10 business. We have a number of updates and 11 first one, on the agenda, is the model update. 12 Who is going to be presenting on that. 13 MR. BAILEY: I think I'd like to say some 14 things about that. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. Bill. 16 MR. BAILEY: Probably will expand that 17 title a little bit into an update of the 18 overall studies that we're doing. Alan will 19 soon be talking about the coastal erosion 20 study. That's now complete. 21 There are research -- the Corps' research 22 folks down in Vicksburg formed. We are still 23 in the midst of external review on the chloride 24 model. 25 We should complete that soon, but we 10 1 PRESENTATION - BILL BAILEY 2 always seem to be at that point. The chloride 3 model, we should be done with the external 4 reviews soon. 5 Got a lot of work going on on impacts, 6 impact evaluation. On wetlands, if you 7 remember, we were looking at three different 8 methods of predicting impacts to wetlands. Two 9 of those methods used what is called marsh 10 seccession models, and reports have been 11 completed on those -- those models. 12 One uses an ATM -- an approach that ATM 13 developed, and another model uses an approach 14 that USGS and Wiley Kitchens developed. Both 15 of those reports will be sent out for external 16 review very soon, and both reports were 17 provided to the agencies, for their review, 18 earlier this month. 19 The third approach, the third methodology 20 for impacts to wetlands used predictions of 21 salinity, and the movement of .5 PPT contour 22 from the hydrodynamic model. That approach 23 there is a -- we've gotten to a certain point 24 on that, and we sent some information to the 25 agencies for them to look over on impacts and 11 1 PRESENTATION - BILL BAILEY 2 mitigation options. 3 So it's the effects on wetlands, using 4 that approach, so the agencies are reviewing 5 that. 6 DO mitigation and the DO system design, 7 we've gotten in some -- gotten in two reports; 8 one looking at the incremental effect of harbor 9 deepening, and the other -- other report 10 looking at a system to meet, so that the harbor 11 can meet DO standards. 12 We have reviewed the drafts of both of 13 those reports, provided comments, and should 14 have a final on each of those reports this 15 month. 16 There are -- the next item, there is a new 17 contact at EPA, Gerald Miller, who had been our 18 point of contact for this project for years, 19 he retired, and he was has been replaced with 20 two people. Ntale Kajumba is one and Ted 21 Bisterfeld is the other one. Ntale has 22 participated in one of the meetings on 23 fisheries, I think, that we've had. 24 I went up and briefed them, just before 25 Gerald Miller left, to give them an overview of 12 1 PRESENTATION - BILL BAILEY 2 the project and just to transition -- 3 transition them on to this project. 4 The next item, in early October, I went up 5 to Washington and took some training that EPA 6 was sponsoring, adaptive management. So that 7 was -- that's something we intend to apply here 8 in this project. 9 So that was helpful to hear what the state 10 of the art is, and also to hear how the 11 different agencies are kind of struggling to 12 work through that or apply that -- that 13 technique in each of their fields. 14 It is pretty new, in application, so it 15 was interesting to hear the way people think it 16 ought to be done. I was able to meet people, 17 the head of -- or the people in Interior up at 18 the secretary level that but will be writing 19 letters, on this project, to meet them and find 20 out who they would be. 21 They were taking the same class, learning 22 the same things. So a lot of work is being 23 done on impacts and mitigation with the models 24 now, and right now it's a lot of work in 25 progress. And I think that's it, unless you 13 1 PRESENTATION - BILL BAILEY 2 have got questions. 3 MR. DYSART: Bill, would you just in a 4 paragraph indicate what adaptive management is, 5 because there might be people here not familiar 6 with it -- perhaps the majority. 7 MR. BAILEY: One of the things we learned 8 is there is no concise definition, no uniform 9 definition. Being able to adjust a project, if 10 it doesn't meet your expectations is, I guess, 11 a quick definition. 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any -- David. 13 MR. KYLER: Yeah, to add to that a little 14 bit, not that I'm any expert on adaptive 15 management, but I've read a little bit about 16 it, and I've been pushing on the management 17 agency. 18 I would say, Bill, feel free to correct me 19 if I'm wrong, but I think the part of the 20 implication and objective of adaptive 21 management is adapting the project to change 22 in conditions, and puts a greater emphasis on 23 collecting information about the project to get 24 better monitoring and assessment in a quick 25 order, so it puts the project back on track 14 1 PRESENTATION - BILL BAILEY 2 with using better information. 3 MR. BAILEY: That's one of the ways that 4 it can be used, yes. 5 MR. KYLER: And in its widest sense, it 6 also institutional changes, not just changes in 7 the project; who's doing what and how the 8 project is administered and managed. That 9 conceivably could be changed to correct any 10 deviation from objectives as well. 11 MR. DYSART: Judy and then Ed. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Just about impact and 13 mitigation, lots of work; when -- you know, 14 when will we get to look at some of that, and 15 is it in the agency? Can you expand at all 16 on what's at work? 17 MR. BAILEY: The agencies have that one 18 piece, they're looking at the wetlands, one of 19 the techniques for wetlands. They have that 20 that they're looking at. 21 MS. JENNINGS: From the hydrodynamic 22 model? 23 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 24 MR. BAILEY: I'm not quite sure -- it's a 25 good question. 15 1 PRESENTATION - BILL BAILEY 2 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. You know, it's just 3 kind of like the final act. I'm just -- the 4 next to the final act. 5 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. When we get -- you 6 have different pieces coming at different 7 times, so it's hard to know. 8 We do have a meeting scheduled, a public 9 meeting, where we present all this stuff when 10 it is all available. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Do you have a day for that? 12 MR. BAILEY: I'm sure there is a date in 13 the schedule. I don't know what it is. It's 14 going to be next -- well, in the next year 15 some time, in the spring, I imagine. Anything 16 else? 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. Ed and then Will. 18 MR. EUDALY: One more comment about 19 adaptive management, it's a way to deal with 20 uncertainty. No matter how much time and money 21 we spend on these models, there's always a 22 certain amount of uncertainty. 23 You know, you can't make a perfect model. 24 So we know it's going to be wrong, we just 25 don't know how wrong. Adaptive management can 16 1 PRESENTATION - BILL BAILEY 2 be used monitor the project and determine how 3 accurate your predictions were, and then modify 4 the project, as needed, to address the 5 shortcomings, or missed predictions, and so 6 forth. 7 MR. DYSART: Will. 8 MR. BERSON: You mentioned in impact 9 evaluations, you mentioned there are three 10 different methods for wetlands impacts 11 evaluation. Two were marsh seccession and one 12 was the predictor. Is there a decision that 13 has to be made between the two; the Wiley 14 Kitchens and the ATM? 15 I mean, are you looking at them both and 16 having to make a decision on one, or are you 17 going to use both? 18 MR. BAILEY: We are going to be asking the 19 external reviewers. There's two methodologies, 20 tell us your thoughts on each of them, and by 21 the way, do you think one is better than the 22 other. 23 MR. BERSON: Okay. 24 MR. BAILEY: We'll probably ask the 25 agencies the same question. 17 1 PRESENTATION - BILL BAILEY 2 MR. BERSON: So you will have to make a 3 decision between the -- oh, okay. 4 MR. BAILEY: We won't have to. It will 5 make decision-making easier, if you had one 6 less set of numbers to look at. 7 MR. BERSON: I understand. 8 MR. DYSART: Any other comments or 9 questions? Judy. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Going back to DO, and this 11 may come up some other place, you said report 12 from incremental of harbor deepening, and 13 then one, just looking to bring the harbor up 14 to meet DO standards. Is that new work or is 15 that work we've seen in the past? I'm a little 16 confused. I'm out of touch is all. 17 MR. BAILEY: We've seen that before. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. So it's nothing 19 incremental to what we've seen here before? 20 MR. BAILEY: It's the same, same approach. 21 It's just different scales, different amounts 22 of it, both using the same techniques. 23 MS. JENNINGS: So they are evaluations of 24 mitigation options? 25 MR. BAILEY: For the incremental, yeah. 18 1 PRESENTATION - BILL BAILEY 2 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 3 MR. BAILEY: It's oxygen injection is what 4 they're looking at and designing systems. It's 5 just a question of -- 6 MS. JENNINGS: For incremental, and we've 7 never really seen that report, have we? 8 MR. BAILEY: Of design? 9 MS. JENNINGS: Right. 10 MR. BAILEY: Correct. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 12 MR. BAILEY: We just got a draft and as 13 soon as we get a final -- when we get the final 14 back, then we'll share that. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. All right. You have 17 follow-up -- Judy. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Just I'm so out of touch, 19 help me back with the schedule, if the meeting 20 you have scheduled in the spring, to look at 21 impact and mitigation, where does that happen 22 in relation to the draft EIS? 23 MR. BAILEY: Before. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Before, how much before? 25 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure. 19 1 PRESENTATION - BILL BAILEY 2 MS. JENNINGS: Larry. 3 MR. KEEGAN: Schedule-wise, I think it's 4 probably going to follow about three months or 5 so before the public comment period draft EIS. 6 Two or three months is the best estimate even. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. Two to three months 8 before the document hits the street? 9 MR. KEEGAN: If everything works out as 10 scheduled. 11 MS. JENNINGS: I'm so out of touch, I 12 don't know what the schedule is anymore. 13 MR. GARRETT: Judy, you want me to get a 14 copy of that? 15 MS. JENNINGS: I'm sorry. 16 MR. GARRETT: You want a copy of the 17 schedule? 18 MS. JENNINGS: It's online. 19 MR. GARRETT: Larry, the latest schedule 20 is online, isn't it? 21 MR. KEEGAN: We have milestones posted on 22 the home page, but that's for the project. 23 MR. GARRETT: I can get you the detail, if 24 you want it. 25 MS. JENNINGS: I would, thank you, Alan. 20 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 MR. DYSART: The next item on the agenda 3 is the coastal erosion. You will be handling 4 that, Alan? 5 MR. GARRETT: Yes. This was about a four 6 and a half presentation by Dr. Jane Smith, Don 7 Staulbe, Brian Williams, and Assam Portihari 8 (phonetic). He did not make it. Jane and Don 9 did on the 19th of September. 10 Lou was there, Eric Olsen was there, a 11 number of people were there. I have taken the 12 175 slides and culled it down to 160. We'll be 13 here till about 4:00 o'clock -- just kidding. 14 The power went off in Richmond Hill about 15 11:00 o'clock. You should be thankful for 16 that, because I got up this morning and had to 17 cut a lot of slides. 18 What I want to do, since this is online 19 this has been posted to the Savannah Harbor 20 website, as has the shipwake analysis. This is 21 the coastal erosion additional analysis. 22 If you recall, ATM did a study back in 23 '99, 2000, Larry, I think it was, and there 24 were a lot of comments, particularly from 25 engineering research and development center, 21 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 about how they got to the conclusion which 3 was additional deepening of the channel 4 wouldn't have additional impacts on erosion at 5 Tybee, because the channel had become a total, 6 litoral sink since the 38 foot deepening, and 7 so we spent a year and a half, and not a small 8 amount of funds, and we revalidated what ATM 9 had done and came up with pretty much the same 10 answer, that ERDC. 11 So I'll zoom through some of these slides 12 and encourage y'all to go out and look at the 13 expanded version online. It is -- all the 14 reports will be there in the next week, because 15 Wilmington District has just PR -- peer 16 review externaled them, so they are cleared. 17 That will give you all the verbiage that 18 explains all the slides, not just the ones I'm 19 showing here. 20 It's very well-written and very thorough. 21 So that will be up, hopefully, this weekend, 22 this week, maybe tomorrow. 23 So I'll just cull through a few of these. 24 They're fairly interesting. We'll look at it 25 and see. The tasks were two-fold; analyze the 22 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 shoreline change in the past, as far as we 3 could go back with the existing data, and also 4 look at sediment volumes, and then apply the 5 ADCIRC, STWAVE, and G TRAN model which are 6 used extensively by the Corps and others to 7 determine what happens in the coastal estuary 8 environment, with the whole purpose being to 9 evaluate what will happen if an additional six 10 foot is dug in the bar channel, and what will 11 happen, specifically, to the coastal section of 12 Tybee Island. 13 Just so everyone will get familiar, I 14 found a laser pointer thanks to the wonderful 15 Army Air Corps folks downstairs. Hilton Head 16 is up here, naturally Tybee Island, Turtle 17 Island is a South Carolina wildlife marine 18 resource managed habitat here. Here's Oyster 19 Bed Island, Fish and Wildlife Service property 20 here, the main channel coming out, the two 21 jetties, and there's the south channel, 22 Lazaretto Creek and Tybee. 23 One of the most important things that you 24 need to look at, as you look through these 25 slides and be aware of this, this is submerged 23 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 breakwater called the Gaynors (phonetic) Bank 3 Training Wall, which was built in 1897. It has 4 had a dramatic impact on this whole 5 down-drift area. As we look at some of the 6 slides, the unique computer graphics show that. 7 The first thing Don did was go back and 8 try to figure what's being dredged, what kind 9 of material, what kind of sediment volume had 10 been taken out of the Savannah Harbor entrance 11 channel, as far back as he could go. 12 You see he went back to 1910, and that 13 averages around 800 to a million cubic yards 14 per year, somewhere in that neighborhood, 15 this zone here, excluding the red lines which 16 are new work, dredging events which we don't 17 count those, but on an annual basis, you're 18 looking at 800 to a million cubic yards a year 19 going offshore to the ODMDS, the offshore 20 disposal area. 21 Naturally, those are maintenance 22 materials. They incorporate clays and silts 23 and sands. It's a black soup when you get it 24 up into the hopper dredge. 25 He had to do that first, before he started 24 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 looking at sediment lines. Then he went back 3 and he looked at historic shorelines through 4 four different sources, NOAA, CIRC, and this 5 particular graph corresponds very closely, if 6 not exactly with what Dr. Vernon Henry came up 7 with about 20 years ago, and others, Dr. Clark 8 Alexander also. 9 These lines are pretty well-established, 10 firmly established. You can see what he calls 11 the bulge or this appendage out here at the 12 northern end of Tybee was there up to about 13 1900, which just so happens to correlate to the 14 Gaynors Bank Training Wall and two jetties. 15 So then it receded back to what is now the 16 Tybee seawall, and it pretty much stayed there 17 except for periodic renourishments -- the 18 shoreline that is. 19 One thing you will also note is the 20 southern migration of Tybee. It was back here 21 and it's slowly migrating south back to the 22 point, I think, now you can walk across -- Lou, 23 can you still walk across that end down there 24 at low tide? 25 MR. OFF: At low tide. You have to call 25 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 people and get them back when the tide comes 3 in. 4 MR. GARRETT: Oh, okay -- your civic duty. 5 Here's some -- the 2005 area with those lines 6 laid over the top of it. It shows nothing more 7 than the historic shoreline, back to the 1800s 8 bulge out there. 9 The mass of lines here, which indicate 10 what happened after all the things were done in 11 1900, and this migration of material out to the 12 north end, and this has continued to grow. 13 Middle Beach, everyone is familiar with 14 the hot spot at 2nd Street. Prior to the last 15 renourishment, the waves were lapping against 16 the boulders, and I think they're getting to 17 that point now along that little jut in the 18 beach. 19 And of course, the south tip has been very 20 much altered by man with the seawall, the Works 21 Progress Administration seawall that was 22 constructed, the T-head groins which are down 23 here that had been notched to allow some of the 24 material to go around to the back side. 25 And that seems to have worked fairly well 26 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 with the 50 foot notching from the shore 3 oceanward side. The island itself still wants 4 to come this direction. 5 I think all islands on the coast of 6 Georgia are heading south with the litoral 7 drift. 8 This particular slide shows the 9 renourishments where he calls them beach fields 10 that correlate or relate to the shoreline. The 11 '71 shoreline, it's all mixed in with these 12 other colors. Beach fills -- these beach fills 13 correlate to the shorelines here, and you can 14 see what happens. 15 We pump material out and establish the 16 template, and then it erodes back. We pump 17 again, it erodes back. It's a cycle. That's a 18 pretty -- he did that again to determine what 19 the sediment bottom is, what we're losing, what 20 goes up and what disappears, where does it go. 21 He also looked, so that he wasn't looking 22 at operating in a vacuum, he looked up coast a 23 little bit to South Carolina. And you can see 24 a shored migration of the shoreline here, 25 landward migration on Daufuskie and Turtle 27 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 Island. 3 Also on Hilton Head there's a southern 4 migration on that island as well. The northern 5 end has had private renourishments. That's 6 what keeps the northern end in check. 7 You're just in time for your part of the 8 presentation. Okay. These are different 9 bathymetry slides, up to five them. It's 10 interesting to watch. Pay close attention to 11 what's happening at Calibogue Sound and Wright 12 River, which is coming out of here. 13 With respect to that area, the Gaynors 14 Bank Training Wall and the ship channel, 15 which is coming out of here and comes out and 16 curves out this direction. 17 You can see it's all pretty uniform 18 depth, except right in this area where the 19 channel is. That's 1854. 1897 all of a sudden 20 the seawall appears, and the deeper part behind 21 the seawall gets deeper and broader. 22 And that was built -- that training wall 23 was built, as were the jetties, to protect the 24 ships entering the harbor from the northeasters 25 and this provided for our archeologists provide 28 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 a safe haven for vessels, sailing ships and 3 steamships, of that period as they waited on 4 the bar harbor pilots to come get them and take 5 inshore. 6 So it's served its purpose and did a good 7 job in providing a safe haven. You can see 8 what's happening slowly with the shallower 9 materials as this area here -- here's the bar 10 channel. This area here first kind of creeped 11 upward in elevation. 12 You can see the finger shoals starting to 13 develop even more, so as the currents come 14 out, I guess they're overpowering the litoral 15 currents at this point, and all the material is 16 starting to go that way. 17 Here the bar channel is being dredged by 18 this point so it's deep. And here again is 19 the training wall, Calibogue Sound with the 20 sand shoals, and again this just so happens to 21 correspond to the area where we dig most of our 22 materials from the bar channel is right in this 23 zone right here. 24 Also, we neglected to point out as far as 25 Tybee is concerned, you can see now where the 29 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 ebb tide delta, to borrow Eric Olsen's phrase, 3 which was up here now is down here. So that 4 has actually shifted to the south. And that 5 has something to do with the fact that this 6 material has been cut off. It's not making its 7 way there. 8 This is just another view that is provided 9 which shows the exact same phenomenon. There's 10 the training wall with this material coming 11 down to the channel on that side. It doesn't 12 show anything different there. 13 So then he went back and looked at all the 14 sediment budget cells. He divided them up into 15 these eight different cells, Barrett, 16 Daufuskie, Calibogue, North Tybee, Tybee Island 17 Shelf -- the bar channel is broken in two, the 18 Tybee Knoll, the Tybee Roads, and then you 19 had Breakwater Lee Shoal. 20 This is a little bit busy. There are a 21 lot of numbers on there. You can just kind of 22 stare at it and add it up with your calculator, 23 and you can see where the Tybee Knoll bar shoal 24 and the Tybee Roads bar channel shoal at 119 25 and 100 -- the other -- and you get almost that 30 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 number right there, which is the down drift 3 shelf, Tybee shelf. 4 So that leads you to believe that the 5 sediment change in the channel equates to the 6 sediment change where it might have been. 7 So they conclude that that Gaynors Bank 8 Training Wall which is wherever it was -- 9 somewhere in there -- did indeed have an effect 10 on the litoral drift at Tybee, and the impact 11 -- and did cause some erosion on Tybee. That's 12 what that slide represents. 13 That's pretty much the same thing, just a 14 different time period. Actually, this 15 depletion of the anti-delta actually slowed 16 a little bit, but this shoal has actually 17 increased, in terms of its accretion. 18 So there's something still going on there. 19 And again, all this is outlined in immense 20 detail in this report. And this is just the 21 general pathways of sediments. 22 We can see the material coming in the 23 channel goes there now, and knoll point on the 24 front beach of Tybee causes the material to go 25 to the channel here or as to the south here. 31 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 So that's why the southern part of Tybee 3 is growing, and that's why that's always a 4 perennial maintenance problem, the northern 5 end, midway of the beach on is a perennial 6 problem. That's why we had the Federal Shore 7 Protection Project to pump the material back. 8 So these are just his conclusions which we 9 just talked about, about the bulge and how it 10 was removed after the training wall was built, 11 talks about the hot spot on Second Street, the 12 knoll point, bifurcation drift north and south. 13 It talks a little bit about the shore 14 protection project had to be accomplished to 15 bring the template back, and he also talks 16 about the volume change analysis somewhat down 17 here. 18 We've already talked about that, but he 19 does mention something here, there's a 20 shoreward migration, a five meter contour, and 21 the way that's been explained to me, offshore 22 anti-delta gets shallower, the wave energy 23 is increased as it makes its way to the 24 shoreline, because there's nothing trip up the 25 wave energy, and hence you have higher erosion 32 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 forces on the beach foots. 3 So the trick would be to inflate that 4 anti-delta by all means possible. Then we get 5 into -- this all started off with differential 6 equations. My heart started doing flips. Jane 7 Smith was right on top of it. She's a very 8 sharp individual, and she explained to us 9 ADCIRC modelling, circulation modelling, talks 10 about water levels and the type of currents 11 needed to drive to sediment transport. 12 This is what they're used for, coastal 13 flooding storm surge. I guess there's no 14 coincidence that's showing that particular 15 storm, and dredging feasibility and material 16 disposal. It's very much used for that. 17 In fact, I'll mention in a second how we 18 used that at the beginning of 2000 up to 2003 19 with the Tybee Nearshore Beneficial Use Study. 20 This is one of the charts out of that. 21 Tidal currents factor in initial transport, 22 wave driven longshore currents, flooding and 23 drying of the bar materials, and residual 24 currents, and also the channel maintenance 25 dredging was used -- the model was used to look 33 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 at the impact of that as well on the current 3 transport patterns. 4 This is just a slide which -- you can't 5 see it, but there are a zillion little 6 triangles out here. All modellers will know 7 they use triangulated irregular networks or 8 TINS models to model coastlines and model the 9 harbors. 10 That's pretty much what the Savannah 11 Harbor EFDC model is built on as well. You 12 tighten the grids up, depending on how close 13 you want to get, close accuracy. As they move 14 up in the harbor, the triangles get very, very 15 small. Out here offshore, they're larger. So 16 that is the finite element program. 17 The program had to be calibrated. She 18 threw this in to show us how closely this is 19 calibrated with the Sabsoo gauge, which is 20 offshore, it's the DOD site, the gauge site. 21 Also the currents, they pretty much, I 22 mean they're pretty doggone close here how they 23 calibrated. So she put that in to show the 24 confidence levels they had with the model. 25 They also, in all the simulations, they 34 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 made four different simulations periods, and 3 they also ran a forced, redirected Hurricane 4 Hugo, which is shown by this blue line taking 5 a different path. Instead of going to 6 McClellansville, it went right straight into 7 Savannah. 8 They used that too. That's also outlined 9 in her study. This just happens to be the 10 maximum -- the deep water surface elevation 11 retracked for Hurricane Hugo, it's interesting 12 to read what she's got about that. Lou, you 13 will find that very exciting, since your house 14 is down there somewhere. 15 Here's an expanded version to show the 16 water surface elevations. She's got about a 17 page that describes that. Currents, they 18 looked at all the currents, and the current 19 magnitude value, along Tybee with Hurricane 20 Hugo, actually decreased due to a deepened 21 channel as compared to the existing channel. 22 She's got both the existing and with project 23 situations modelled. 24 And the maximum water surface elevation, 25 also with deepened harbor, decreased. It makes 35 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 sense considering you've got a deeper harbor 3 and more water out here. The next two slide -- 4 it's another slide from now, that's just more 5 information on the model itself. 6 The maximum water surface elevations she 7 talks about, the water surface elevation I 8 mentioned the .2 meters lower and the maximum 9 current difference was one meter per second. 10 In the channel a little bit higher, but 11 along the beach also weaker along Tybee, which 12 was fairly interesting. 13 She also has the wave modelling, STWAVE 14 which is important in terms of sediment 15 transport because waves provide primary 16 difference for that. This just talks about 17 how the wave model is used and where it is 18 used. 19 Again back to Tybee, looking at the 20 longshore transport, and she had a lot of 21 information about the wave bottom velocity too, 22 which is the stirring mechanism, and more 23 information about STWAVE. Nothing really 24 earth-shattering there. 25 And the types of things they looked at 36 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 were the current and wave interactions, 3 refraction around the points, and wave break. 4 There's about a chapter on each one of those. 5 There's Tybee here, some of this is just 6 one of many shots to show what the wave looks 7 like. The wave enters each one of those lines 8 and it represents wave direction, and here's 9 the waves with the Hurricane Hugo. 10 You can see the different color variations 11 and the corresponding height in meters over 12 here for Hugo peak strike in Savannah. 13 What she showed was that the -- there were 14 some wave increased heights along the very edge 15 of the channel, but not much, .25 meters, and 16 that was in the near shore. 17 In the bar channel offshore was where the 18 waves increased out there. But again, it was 19 almost negligible,.71 meters in the channel 20 offshore and .25 along the edge of the channel. 21 This again just illustrates that. 22 So there's not a whole lot of difference. 23 The average of .01 meters changed with the wave 24 model. Then she goes into the sediment 25 transport processes, and you can read the 37 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 bullets. 3 Current strong near the river, mouth 4 of the channel, wave stronger during storms in 5 shallow water which is pretty much common 6 sense, and that particular model is useful for 7 non-cohesive sediment transport models, which 8 is what we're interested in right now. 9 This is just an example of compasses 10 roses, and again there are a number of these 11 print-outs in here. This indicates the compass 12 rose, we have the thick side on this side 13 that's flood dominant inward, in other words, 14 the channel naturally is with when ebb dominant 15 and then the ebb dominant transport on this 16 side as well. 17 She goes into a lot of detail explaining 18 how with the deepened harbor, the ebb dominant 19 flow predominates, but there's a phenomenon 20 which also occurs which causes the edge of 21 the channel to move inward. 22 You can actually see that here. The 23 inside of the channel showing it moving out, 24 but on the edge you've got a slight flood 25 dominant sediment pattern, sediment 38 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 transportation pattern. It's well-explained in 3 her report. 4 This is some detail about the study of the 5 model itself, not a whole lot of change in 6 transport in any of these areas, due to a 7 deepened channel. 8 For summaries and conclusions that the 9 deepening of the channel increases the ebb jet, 10 which means material may move off in the 11 channel. The cutoff bypassing from Barrett 12 Shoals has an impact, and there's a deflation 13 of the Tybee shelf to that extent, during that 14 period 1854 to 1970, to 220,000 cubic meters 15 a year, and from the period 1920 to 1970, 16 76,000 cubic meters per year. So it decreased 17 substantially in the latter half of the 18 century. 19 Small changes due to the channel deepening 20 on circulation and wave modelling, deepening 21 does not change sediment transport patterns, 22 and her conclusion was impact to the deepening 23 project was minimum to the actual situation, 24 shoaling on Tybee Island. 25 Then she had a question slide. We were 39 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 all spellbound because it was a very, very good 3 briefing and very thorough. Eric Olsen did 4 have some very good comments, but they were 5 aimed at the follow-up study to this, which is 6 going to be used to determine the percentage 7 impact of the bar channel dredging, the annual 8 end dredging on the coastline at Tybee. 9 And that's where most of his comments 10 were. I think Eric was suitably impressed with 11 this. He didn't really have any problems with 12 any of their approaches. So I think we 13 resolved the earlier ATM issues with that study 14 by all this effort done by ERDC. Hope. 15 MS. MOORER: Do you want to tell them who 16 Eric Olsen is, for those who may not know? 17 MR. GARRETT: Eric is -- I'm sorry -- the 18 City of Tybee's coastal ocean engineering 19 consultant, who's really very knowledgeable 20 about Tybee. 21 MR. OFF: Is he an ITR for this project? 22 MR. GARRETT: He did it, yes, and he will 23 get the following report as well, he and 24 Dr. Clark Alexander and Vernon Henry will all 25 get it. 40 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 MR. DYSART: Will. 3 MR. BERSON: As so often is the case in 4 these presentations, I thought I understood 5 what was going on, and then I got lost. 6 In terms of sediment transport, there 7 seemed two effects, and it looked like the map, 8 on that one slide, had lots of numbers 9 suggesting that the amount you're removing from 10 the channel is a proof of how much is not 11 making it to Tybee, but you also mentioned the 12 wall. 13 I was just wondering which is -- which 14 is the more -- which is the dominant structure 15 here? Is it the wall, the submerged -- you 16 called it a training wall -- 17 MR. GARRETT: Training wall. 18 MR. BERSON: -- or is the channel itself 19 acting as a sink. I mean, which one is doing 20 the most? I thought I understood it. 21 MR. GARRETT: It's a combination of both. 22 MR. BERSON: Okay. 23 MR. GARRETT: And the way it's been 24 explained, the training wall is actually 25 shunting the material that comes across to one 41 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 section of the channel, which is all taken 3 offshore. 4 But if you would take the training wall 5 out, you'd have a more lateral flow, which I 6 think -- I've asked waterways -- I had the same 7 exact question. 8 In fact, I e-mailed them yesterday and 9 asked, please look at this, because if we take 10 the training wall out, so what, what happens? 11 Does that help the situation? Do we still take 12 that much material offshore, do we are still 13 need to look -- which we are looking at 14 nearshore beneficial uses by placing some of 15 the material approved into the approved ERDC 16 areas for nearshore beneficial use. Just 17 what's going to happen, if you do take that 18 wall out? 19 MR. BERSON: From the current flows sort 20 of the deflection of the wall, it looked like 21 it would all end up in the channel, and you 22 will be digging more out of the channel. I 23 mean, just from the way the diagram was done, 24 that's kind of what it looked like. 25 MR. GARRETT: I actually look to the model 42 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 to tell us what's going to happen. With and 3 without the deepening, I don't think it makes 4 a whole lot of difference. 5 That wall is causing a lot of material to 6 be congregating in that one spot, and otherwise 7 it would flow across mud and but make its way 8 across the channel and find its way to the 9 shoreline, at least the ebb tide delta. 10 MR. BERSON: When was the wall built? 11 MR. GARRETT: 1897. 12 MR. BERSON: It must be quite a wall. 13 MR. GARRETT: Well, the Corps built things 14 to the last. Hope, you have your card up. 15 That's a good question, will. 16 MS. MOORER: Actually, I do. The channel 17 impact study, I know it hasn't been totally 18 scoped out, the scope hasn't been completed 19 yet, but will that look at the contribution of 20 the channel and the contribution -- versus the 21 contribution of the training wall or -- 22 MR. GARRETT: I don't think, Hope, that 23 anybody has looked at it, but it needs to. 24 MS. MOORER: The impact of the channel? 25 MR. GARRETT: Yes. I think that needs to 43 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 be factored in there, because if the removal of 3 that wall would -- would somehow relieve the 4 erosional forces on the northern end of Tybee, 5 then that would be the thing to do, because we 6 surely don't need a safe anchorage there for 7 ships right now. 8 MS. MOORER: But it's not in the scope -- 9 MR. GARRETT: No. I don't think so. I 10 haven't seen the revised scope. Lou, you have 11 seen it? 12 MR. OFF: (Shakes head from side to side.) 13 MR. DYSART: Steve. 14 MR. WILLIS: Will you help me out on this? 15 I heard you say that past channel deepening 16 doesn't indicate any change, or significant 17 change, in the flow of materials from the north 18 to south. What -- what deepening was that; did 19 I misunderstand? 20 MR. GARRETT: I think you misunderstood. 21 This deepening, the proposed deepening -- 22 MR. WILLIS: The proposed deepening -- 23 MR. GARRETT: -- will not have any 24 additional impacts -- 25 MR. WILLIS: Any additional impacts. 44 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 MR. GARRETT: -- other than what's already 3 occurred. That was the purpose of the study is 4 to -- 5 MR. WILLIS: So it will continue to be 6 about the same as it is -- 7 MR. GARRETT: Right -- 8 MR. WILLIS: -- even if it's six feet? 9 MR. GARRETT: -- exactly. In terms of 10 sediment loss or short circuiting the litoral 11 flow, because it's this much deeper in a 42 12 foot project. The material's going to go 13 across. Now it's already going across. 14 MR. WILLis: So there being -- it's 15 dredged out now, so there's not much flow down, 16 so -- 17 MR. GARRETT: Exactly. 18 MR. WILLIS: -- there won't be any then 19 either? 20 MR. GARRETT: Well, you add those two 21 numbers up, okay, do the math. 22 MR. WILLIS: If you took this retaining 23 wall, training wall out, you would still have 24 to dredge all the sediment that's coming down 25 there out, so you still wouldn't have the flow. 45 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 MR. GARRETT: That's the question. I 3 don't know how much sediment. It may be 75%. 4 I just don't know. The study may show that 5 that training wall, since the material we're 6 looking at putting material in the nearshore 7 zone, Bill's gone through a lot of effort with 8 Georgia DNR in identifying areas that -- what 9 Vicksburg people would have pointed out would 10 be the best and most optimum place to put 11 material on the nearshore, so it would have the 12 highest chance of making it to the beach. 13 A lot of that work is being done. In 14 fact, there's an option in our current bar 15 channel contract now, we should be opening bids 16 in the next few days, to allow contractors to 17 bid on putting material into the nearshore 18 zone. 19 So it's -- it's hard to say what would 20 happen, but you're right. We're going to keep 21 dredging it like it is now. You've got to do 22 something to reinflate the delta. 23 MR. WILLIS: It all comes in south of 24 Little Tybee eventually. 25 MR. GARRETT: It might. We put it so far 46 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 offshore, I don't think it enters into the 3 system again. It gets lost. 4 MR. DYSART: Further comments or 5 questions? Judy. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Just a comment. I sat 7 through the presentation back in September. 8 MR. GARRETT: That's right, you did. You 9 could given this. 10 MS. JENNINGS: No, no, no. I might have 11 picked up on one other finer point or two. The 12 comment is, I was so impressed with the amount 13 of information that had been brought to bare 14 here. I just -- if anybody has anything else 15 to say about this, I'd love to hear it. I just 16 can't imagine it. I thought it was a 17 tremendous amount -- 18 MR. GARRETT: Eric did. I'll send you his 19 comment. 20 MS. JENNINGS: Eric did, Eric did, but it 21 seemed to me like there was very adequate 22 expertise to handle the comments. 23 MR. GARRETT: Yeah. It was very thorough. 24 I was amazed at what they came up with in 25 terms of local information and their 47 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 hypothesis, which pretty much validated what 3 had been done before needed to be done in the 4 right way, I guess. 5 MS. JENNINGS: It was fascinating. 6 MR. DYSART: Further comments? We had a 7 couple of people who have come in since we 8 introduced ourselves. Kelly, would you like to 9 introduce yourself? 10 MS. MOORE: Yes, Kelie Moore with DNR's 11 Coastal Resources Division. 12 MR. DYSART: Welcome. 13 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 14 Authority. 15 MR. DYSART: If -- Alan, are you threw 16 with this presentation? 17 MR. GARRETT: Done with that -- I'm 18 finished. 19 MR. DYSART: Why don't let's take about a 20 10 minute break. 21 (Short Break) 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's -- had a sound 23 there for a change. Okay. Let's pick back up 24 and Bill, who's going to be talk about the TMDL 25 issue update? 48 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 MR. BAILEY: You were doing that, weren't 3 you? 4 MR. DYSART: No, no, no. 5 MR. BAILEY: I believe Hope is going to do 6 that. 7 MS. MOORER: I just asked everybody, we 8 discussed the TMDL was about to issue, we had 9 heard at the interim SEG meeting, and EPA has, 10 as of last week -- not last week -- yesterday, 11 EPA had not issued the final TMDL on DO for the 12 Savannah River. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Did -- 14 MS. MOORER: Go ahead. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Did or did not? 16 MS. MOORER: Did not. It has not issued 17 it. Bob, do you have any additional -- 18 MR. SCANLON: No, I think -- 19 MS. MOORER: -- details? 20 MR. SCANLON: I think there's still a 21 question. EPA is looking at the TMDL. There's 22 been a lot of question as to whether or not 23 they should issue a TMDL, which they know is 24 unachievable, which is what they're planning. 25 The TMDL that will be released, if it is, 49 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 will have a zero discharge, which is -- means 3 all existing discharge would have to 4 eliminated. They recognize that's not an 5 achievable TMDL. 6 MR. BERSON: You mean all discharges 7 between Savannah and all the way up? 8 MR. SCANLON: Thurman Dam -- Thurman Dam 9 all the way to the ocean, there can be no 10 discharge, municipal or industrial. 11 It will also impact stormwater, so there 12 will be no new development between Thurman Dam 13 and the ocean. I think they have been asked by 14 a lot of municipal and industrial permit 15 holders to review what they're doing, because 16 of the implications of the zero discharge TMDL 17 are tremendous. 18 So they did delay at least 30 days. We 19 had a meeting, a group of dischargers had a 20 meeting with the EPA two weeks ago, at which 21 time they said they're still planning to deal 22 with before the end of this month, unless 23 somebody talks them out of it. 24 MR. DYSART: Will. 25 MR. BERSON: Bob, I hate to put you on the 50 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 spot but I will; there was a time when EPA had 3 to do this because they were under a court 4 order to do so, and they issued, basically, the 5 same sort of conditions in their analysis was 6 basically about the zero discharge. 7 What's the impetus now? They're not under 8 a court order to reissue it, are they? 9 MR. SCANLON: Yes, they are. 10 MR. BERSON: Oh, well that would be it 11 then. 12 MS. JENNINGS: My understanding was that 13 the judge's order was to set TMDLs for this 14 piece of the river. 15 MR. BERSON: So issuing a draft wasn't 16 enough to get them out from underneath, that 17 they need to actually -- 18 MR. SCANLON: The order is still open. 19 That's EPA issue is trying to close the order. 20 MR. DYSART: Further comments, questions? 21 MS. JENNINGS: Well, just is there any 22 speculation here as to how this impacts harbor 23 deepening, or current harbor operations at all, 24 I mean since we're here talking harbor? 25 MR. SCANLON: Well, it will shut down all 51 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 the industry on the river, and shut down all 3 municipal -- oh, by the way, don't flush the 4 toilet. 5 All municipal systems, all industries, 6 so maybe we won't need the harbor, I don't 7 know, if they do it. 8 I'm being facetious, but I think there are 9 major major implications of issuing a zero 10 discharge TMDL. And I don't -- I don't know 11 that it's ever been done anywhere in the 12 country. 13 MR. DYSART: David Kyler and then Will. 14 MR. KYLER: I seem to remember back in 15 August Carol Couch saying there was 16 contemplation of reclassifying the river. Is 17 that still being contemplated, and how would 18 that affect the TMDL situation? 19 MR. SCANLON: There is a plan, the river 20 needs to be reclassified. I mean, there's 21 adaptive management. 22 You have -- naturally, you cannot meet the 23 water quality standard for the Savannah Harbor 24 because of what are termed the TMDL natural 25 conditions, which include the harbor channel 52 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 and you can't meet it. 3 Even if you take -- if you recall the 4 TMDL, the draft that was issued in August of 5 '04, not only had a zero discharge, it had all 6 of the discharges coming out, plus 90,000 7 pounds of oxygen being added to the harbor to 8 meet the water quality standard. 9 And the TMDL said it was unachievable. 10 The TMDL, if you read the whole 56 page 11 document, there's one paragraph dedicated to 12 the TMDL. 13 The rest of the document goes on to say 14 this TMDL is unachievable, and here is a 15 proposed way to adjust the water quality 16 standard, and then we can develop an achievable 17 TMDL. 18 And that was two years ago. Neither 19 Georgia nor South Carolina have issued a new 20 water quality standard, and I think EPA is 21 under a court order to do something. I think 22 they're going to go ahead do it, even though 23 the states have not acted. 24 MR. DYSART: Will and then Bill Bailey. 25 MR. BERSON: I heard Dr. Couch in this -- 53 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 in a presentation she was making discuss, and 3 for lack of a better way of saying this, that 4 there was another option that I didn't know 5 existed. 6 You can't reclassify the river because I 7 think the Clean Water Act prohibits backsliding 8 on your classification. The actual standard, 9 since EPA -- let me see -- since EPA 10 disapproved the state standard, it's incumbent 11 upon EPA to issue a new standard. Feel free 12 step in if I've got this wrong. 13 MR. SCANLON: EPD had taken that position. 14 They have now moved away from that position. 15 Georgia EPD is now taking the lead in 16 establishing a new water quality standard. I 17 think the issue, backsliding issue really comes 18 into an issue, okay, you're really not 19 backsliding on water quality. You're 20 backsliding on a standard which was an 21 unachievable standard. 22 I mean, so it's -- you established 23 something which was not achievable, so you 24 ought to be able to come back and establish 25 something that is the achievable. And I think 54 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 that's the approach that they are taking. I 3 guess you could that adaptive management, I 4 guess. 5 MR. BERSON: You could also call it 6 backsliding. 7 MR. SCANLON: No, because you're not 8 backsliding. I mean, the number that was put 9 out there was an arbitrary number to start 10 with. 11 MR. BERSON: I mean, there are two sort of 12 elements in the equation here. One is what you 13 have classified the river as, and the other is 14 standard -- the milligrams per liter standard 15 that underlies that classification. 16 And the state sets the milligrams per 17 liter standard and has identified what the 18 classification of river is. Is that -- 19 MR. SCANLON: Yeah, but that really gets 20 lost in the same thing. They get combined in 21 actuality. They will come up with a numerical 22 value and then give it a name and that will be 23 the classification. 24 MR. BERSON: Poor Bob. He didn't think 25 this had anything to do with him today. 55 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 MR. SCANLON: I'm trying to be quiet here. 3 thanks Hope. 4 MS. MOORER: You're welcome. 5 MR. BERSON: I guess what I was going to 6 say, my -- what I heard Dr. Couch saying, and I 7 have contacted her staff to try and verify 8 this, that there is a -- you can't get here -- 9 you can't get there from here option, that the 10 state is going to pursue. And I don't quite 11 know how that works. 12 MR. SCANLON: There's a use/attainability 13 option. That's the term -- 14 MR. BERSON: That sounds like something. 15 MR. SCANLON: -- use/attainability. They 16 will look at that, but right now EPD is not 17 trying to go down that road. They're looking 18 at -- and -- 19 MR. BERSON: EPD is not or EPA is not? 20 MR. SCANLON: EPD, DHEC and EPA are all 21 working together on this issue trying to come 22 up with a resolution of the issue. 23 But we have a situation where, I mean, 24 right now under the existing conditions, in 25 this harbor, God can't meet the standard. 56 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 MR. DYSART: Bill, Judy, Steve and Carl. 3 MR. BAILEY: Judy, your question kind of 4 what does that mean to this project, we are 5 developing designs for DO mitigation, so with 6 that we'll have no adverse affects on DO. 7 It will be zero, zero impact. So that's 8 the end result, kind of in the intermediate 9 where because of the standard thing, we're 10 having to do the analyses lots of different 11 ways, so it's caused more work, more cost. 12 We're looking at doing the analyses on the 13 existing Georgia standard, on the existing 14 South Carolina standard, what EPA proposed a 15 couple of years ago which had three components 16 to it. 17 So all of our analyses are being run 18 through like five different -- five different 19 sets of -- five different criteria. 20 It has to check each of those things, and 21 it's designed to the worst case, of course. So 22 it's making sure it meets all of those 23 criteria. So -- 24 MS. JENNINGS: At incremental deepening 25 levels? 57 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 MR. BAILEY: At each level, yes. 3 MS. JENNINGS: To see if it would, or are 4 you working on mitigation options? 5 MR. BAILEY: To see how much it takes to 6 make the DO impact go away, how much oxygen you 7 have to add to make -- 8 MS. JENNINGS: From the channel depth? 9 MR. BERSON: The additional channel depth. 10 MS. MOORER: Right. 11 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 13 MR. DYSART: Judy. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah. My question, I 15 guess, was we have spent so much time and 16 energy in this, and I really feel we're getting 17 at biology and the zoology of these issues. 18 A lot times with TMDLs I just hear, you 19 know, the numbers, and I'm wondering does -- I 20 mean is there -- I mean in the people whose job 21 it is to set TMDLs, is there some place in 22 their thinking where they say, okay, you know 23 these fisheries need this, or these things 24 require this, or you just you know no oxygen 25 is bad thing? 58 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 I mean, is it just so simple you don't 3 have to worry. Is the biology just that 4 obvious, I guess? 5 MR. BAILEY: No, it's not that obvious. 6 MR. SCANLON: Nothing is simple in this 7 whole process. 8 MR. BAILEY: The draft standard that EPA 9 had a couple of years ago, it's a one day 10 average DO, and a seven day average, and a 30 11 day average. 12 So because of the biology, the critters 13 can take a certain level of DO, you know, 14 averaged over 30 days it's down can't accept it 15 this low. Well okay, then for a shorter period 16 they can accept even worse. For an even 17 shorter, you know, for one day they can accept 18 something this bad. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Is that biologically based? 20 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 21 MS. JENNINGS: It is? 22 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. I don't know that. 24 I just know I can't hold my breath for very 25 long. I'm just wondering if a fish can. 59 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 Averaging it out just doesn't get it in certain 3 circumstances. 4 MR. SCANLON: In all of these efforts, 5 that is the biological requirement is the 6 critical one. That's what has to be met. All 7 of these efforts are to preserve the fishery. 8 And so that is the goal of all of them. 9 Now, the number that was originally 10 applied was a -- basically was a freshwater 11 fisheries number, and it was not an appropriate 12 number. 13 Then Georgia came up with another one 14 which was biologically based, and it was 15 protective of -- there was a tremendous amount 16 of work done back in the '80s on the striped 17 bass and the shortnose sturgeon. And the 18 standard that was set was based on preserving 19 the habitat for those two species, and we're no 20 longer meeting that standard. 21 MR. DYSART: Steve. 22 MR. WILLIS: Yes. Bob, if EPA does issue 23 this standard, this very restrictive standard, 24 what will be the legal consequences of that? 25 MR. SCANLON: The -- I'm not a lawyer. 60 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 MR. WILLIS: Well, what do you guess? 3 MR. SCANLON: I'll tell what they have 4 said they're going to do. They're going to 5 administratively stay all of the existing 6 permits. 7 And the impact of that, quite frankly, the 8 City of Savannah we're actually in fairly good 9 shape. We don't anticipate needing in changes 10 in our permits. 11 We're in good shape. We've just recently 12 gotten the new permit for the new waste water 13 treatment plant in under the old system, 14 basically grandfathered. 15 Port Wentworth has got serious problems. 16 Rincon has serious problems. Beaufort/Jasper 17 have serious problems, if in fact this happens, 18 because they all need changes to existing 19 permits. 20 EPA -- one of the issues they're looking 21 at, how can we deal with these? 22 Beaufort/Jasper has got houses under 23 construction, as we speak, that they need to 24 have, you know, those people expect to flush 25 their toilets and it needs to go somewhere. So 61 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 that -- that needs to be adjusted. 3 This is all separate from the harbor 4 deepening issue. I mean the TMDL issue is -- 5 they happen to be together because they're two 6 different things that impact, but there's 7 another issue is how do you issue a stormwater 8 permit. 9 Any new development -- we're talking 10 development now-- if you look at the lower and 11 middle Savannah River basins, it actually goes 12 up starting at Thurman Dam, you take a V going 13 probably up another 15, 20 miles spreading out, 14 that is the basin that's really impacted, from 15 there to the ocean. 16 You've got one of the most rapidly 17 developing or growing areas of the country is 18 in here. And right now, a zero discharge TMDL 19 could, in fact, shut down development in this 20 basin. 21 MR. WILLIS: Would the effect of that be 22 to force South Carolina and Georgia to come up 23 with suggested TMDL proposals? 24 MR. SCANLON: I think the threat is doing 25 that. 62 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 MR. WILLIS: The threat? 3 MR. SCANLON: The threat is doing that, 4 but the issue is what -- if the TMDL is, in 5 fact, issued, you know, how could a municipal 6 government, or a county government issue 7 someone permit for stormwater that's going to 8 have an impact. 9 For any kind of development, it's going to 10 an impact. It's going to have an impact for 11 stormwater, and EPA has said that's not our 12 intent. When asked specifically how would we 13 be able to do that, they couldn't tell us how 14 we, administratively, could issue a permit. 15 So there are a lot of issues that need to 16 be thought through, before they arbitrarily 17 issue a TMDL, which they know is -- one of the 18 regulators used this word, absurd, but it was 19 they're under a court order to do something. 20 And it's a case where we've got a bad 21 situation, a very, very bad situation, and it 22 could be issuing this document could make a bad 23 situation very much worse. And that's -- 24 MR. DYSART: Carl. 25 MR. HALL: This is to Judy. I think Bill 63 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 and Bob answered the biological issues of how 3 the standards are set pretty well, but of 4 course, you've got varying factors. 5 Reproduction is not just survival. You 6 have got reproductive issues, what it takes, 7 requires, more higher quality waters, whatever. 8 Like I said, most of the standards were 9 based on freshwater studies. There hasn't been 10 as many in saltwater, but where all this is 11 happening is in the area of all rivers. 12 I think sometimes people loosely refer to 13 it's the big dipper zone where you get 14 naturally declining DOs in this intertidal 15 zone and rivers, and basically, you know, have 16 not met the standards of the time. 17 But when Oglethorpe selected Yamacraw 18 Bluff to build Savannah on, this area was much 19 lower DO than up river out towards the ocean 20 anyway. 21 Maybe he could have selected a better 22 place to build the City of Savannah, but 23 unfortunately too the river is 62 miles shorter 24 than it was 50 years ago, from Augusta to 25 Savannah. 64 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 How much that's affected the assimilated 3 the ability of the river to assimilate waste, 4 you know, it's like a straight pipe from 5 Augusta down here too. 6 All that gets right here and here's 7 where it mixes. You've got the marsh effect 8 and everything else going on. It's a complex 9 issue. 10 MS. JENNINGS: 62 miles straight or 62 11 miles less. 12 MR. HALL: The river's been shortened by 13 62 miles since 1958. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Wow. 15 MR. HALL: With the barge taking off -- 16 cutting off all bends in the river. 17 MR. DYSART: Will. 18 MS. JENNINGS: That's interesting. Thank 19 you, Carl. 20 MR. BERSON: All we've heard is scary -- 21 MR. HALL: There's been an attempt -- 22 MR. BERSON: -- enough, and I guess I just 23 wanted to ask David , I know that y'all are 24 committed to mitigating the incremental DO 25 problem caused by this project. 65 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 Have y'all had discussions about also 3 addressing the other parts? I mean -- I mean 4 up to 42 feet? 5 MS. MOORER: We -- no. 6 MR. BAILEY: You have funded the ongoing 7 work. 8 MS. MOORER: Right. 9 MR. BAILEY: -- the ongoing work we're 10 doing in designing systems, designing DO 11 systems. 12 MR. BERSON: That might address -- 13 MR. BAILEY: It would address it. You 14 have funded what it would take to do that. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Isn't that the project 16 that the city had and GPA picked it up? 17 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 18 MS. MOORER: We picked up this year's 19 funding for it, the work that needed to be done 20 this year, the phase two of the project, which 21 was to scope out the size of the system needed 22 to handle the cumulative impacts of the harbor 23 on DO, and the river. 24 And so that -- it was funded by the 25 federal government, but there was the local 66 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 sponsor share left in limbo, and so we did pick 3 that up. It was 250,000, 225, it was a little 4 over $200,000, so we picked that up. It's not 5 part of the deepening project. It was just 6 something that needed to be done, so -- 7 MS. JENNINGS: I understood Bill earlier 8 to say that's the report that's due this month? 9 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. So the question that 11 that will answer is what can be done to 12 ameliorate the DO impacts from current 13 operations; that's the question you're 14 answering there or not? 15 MS. MOORER: At current depth in the 16 channel. 17 MR. BAILEY: Current depth and current 18 point source loading. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. Okay. So you're 20 looking at point source loading too. 21 MR. BAILEY: The current situation that's 22 out there. 23 MS. JENNINGS: All right. Okay. 24 MR. DYSART: Bob. 25 MR. SCANLON: I wanted to respond to that. 67 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 That project is the Harbor Restoration Project 3 which is a separate project. 4 The City of Savannah is the non-federal 5 sponsor of it. It has been funded. Up till 6 last year, it had been funded by the Harbor 7 Committee deepening to the tune of about 8 $1,000,000, by the dischargers to the harbor, 9 and that's municipal and industrial 10 dischargers. And GPA did join in this past 11 year with -- to do the continuing part. 12 MR. DYSART: David Kyler. 13 MR. KYLER: This may be a digression not 14 many people are interested in, but if oxygen 15 injection is the remedy, I would hope that part 16 of the analysis of that would include the 17 consequences of the energy used, in perpetuity, 18 to provide that injection, because that in 19 itself has environmental implications. 20 MS. JENNINGS: Right. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. It's been interesting 22 looking at the different life stages 23 biologically, and the magnitude, and the 24 intensity, and the duration, and the frequency 25 and the interplay synergism among all of those. 68 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 I think there are many people sitting 3 around the table who would claim to understand 4 a lot of what's being said, but it seems like 5 there's a pretty good job being done of laying 6 out, in laymen's terms, some of the 7 complexities to where people can understand the 8 realities and the complexities a lot better. 9 It is important for people who think they 10 aren't quite sure understanding to keep on 11 asking, because there are people who can help 12 you understand a whole lot better. You know so 13 anyway -- Will. 14 MR. BERSON: I would be interested to hear 15 if GPA has sort of a formal opinion on this 16 process, and if the city has a formal opinion 17 on this process; I mean just in general as far 18 as TMDL goes? Is there something you would 19 like -- is there a stated goal that y'all have? 20 MR. SCHALLER: On behalf of the GPA, we're 21 working through the issue, Will. 22 MR. SCANLON: On behalf of the city, I 23 think I can safely say without getting council 24 approval, we're doing the same. I mean, we 25 want people be able to be able to flush their 69 1 TMDL DISCUSSION 2 toilets, and we want new people to be able to 3 flush their toilets. We've got a work the 4 issue and we're continuing to work the issue. 5 MR. DYSART: Judy. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Having heard both of those 7 comments, and having been a Stakeholder way 8 many wrinkles ago, it's going to be very 9 frustrating for me if we watch this -- I mean, 10 we all know it. 11 It's just kind of knowing there's a 12 roadblock up there and not taking the detour at 13 the appropriate time. I mean, it just seems to 14 me like we're setting ourselves up for, 15 somewhere down the road, an administrative 16 stay, or a judicial action, or these kinds of 17 things, if there's not some, you know, come to 18 meeting -- some meeting of the minds over this. 19 I don't know how to do it, but I that hope 20 y'all are working together intensely. I can 21 just see a lot of stays, potential stays out 22 there. 23 MR. DYSART: What kind of wrinkles were 24 you referring to; technical wrinkles or 25 otherwise? I've noticed people getting grayer 70 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 and older as the process goes on, except for 3 Will -- except for Will. He's grandfathered 4 from the beginning. 5 Further comments on the TMDL issue? Okay. 6 Next how about the results of the -- it says 7 hip wake. I think it's the ship wake analysis, 8 unless somebody brought in hoola hoops or 9 something along line. 10 MR. GARRETT: I have that one -- just so 11 happens we've got those outside. I've got the 12 report here and it's also been posted for some 13 time now on the Savannah Harbor website. 14 The -- our goal was to examine, based upon 15 the fleet forecast, the increased erosional 16 forces caused by wake or draw down. 17 Dr. Steve Manor, with the Vicksburg 18 Engineering Research and Development Center, 19 put together this report based on a fleet 20 forecast, which came out of our initial 21 economics fleet forecast portion. 22 And we're in the process of redoing that 23 now. So the follow along study to this also 24 is completed in draft, which translated the 25 forces the ship forces to actual, physical 71 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 shoreline changes has been put on hold until we 3 get the new economics fleet forecast, which 4 should probably be, I don't know, a month 5 maybe. 6 MS. MOORER: About a month and may I -- 7 it's really an update more to the economics 8 than a redo of economics. It's just -- cathy 9 and I have been working gathering ship movement 10 data for 2004, 2005 and 2006, to send to the 11 economist. 12 It's just picking up from where the 13 economics reports were done and completed and 14 adding in the current data. So that's what 15 we've been locked up for hours working on 16 lately. 17 And it will probably be about another 18 month before all that data is added into the 19 economic analysis. 20 MR. GARRETT: I would encourage everyone 21 to go online and read the report, get familiar 22 with it, so when we get the final report, it 23 translates all this into actual, physical 24 features. It will mean more to you. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. Ballast water update. 72 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 MS. MOORER: That's me, I think. 3 MR. DYSART: Hope. 4 MS. MOORER: At the interim SEG meeting, 5 there had been an article that came out on a 6 decision about ballast water, and we couldn't 7 find any of the court documents, the decision, 8 or anything. 9 I finally got them last night. Someone at 10 another port was able to send it to me. We 11 were just interested because of what it was 12 doing. The court case that was decided in the 13 District Court for the Northern District of 14 California, and the court case is Northwest 15 Environmental Advocates versus U.S. EPA. And 16 what it does from what I can understand here is 17 that the -- it's saying that EPA has the 18 responsibility for regulating ship or vessel 19 discharge, including ballast water discharge, 20 under the Clean Water Act, and that EPA has -- 21 and it states it within the case -- has an 22 amount of time. 23 They didn't set up a certain amount of 24 time, but that EPA needs to revisit how they 25 are going to regulate ballast water discharge 73 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 and vessel discharge, through the NPDES 3 program, actually. 4 And so we've got these last night, and 5 from what I can read from the notes I've been 6 able to find, EPA has not -- I looked at the 7 EPA website for any information about this 8 decision. 9 Of course, there's nothing on it yet, and 10 the word is they haven't decided whether EPA -- 11 EPA has not decided whether to appeal the 12 decision. We'll take this, an d I'll get Larry 13 if he doesn't mind. I'll send him the file and 14 get him to post the court case. 15 But this is kind of the latest happening 16 in the ballast water world right now is this 17 court case saying that the EPA, and not the 18 Coast Guard, would be in charge of regulating 19 ballast water discharge. 20 And I don't know much more than that. I 21 will let you read the court case. I'll allow 22 Larry to post it. I seriously did not get this 23 till about 5:15 yesterday e-mailed to me. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Reading my mind. 25 MR. DYSART: Steve and then Will and then 74 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 Judy. 3 MR. WILLIS: This is may be more of a 4 statement than a question, but you know they 5 just had 5,000 gallons of oil dumped into the 6 Savannah Harbor. 7 People said, well, it was just because 8 they were dumping their waste water or the 9 ballast water. But, you know, right now 10 there's regulations that say you can't dump 11 ballast water in the port. 12 You've got to be, I think 500 miles at sea 13 to legally dump ballast water. So the whole 14 issue here is regardless of whose responsible, 15 or what the regulations are, if the plans for 16 port operations don't include any kind of 17 effective application of the rules, then it 18 doesn't really matter what the rules are. 19 I thought it was kind of amazing that 20 people were concerned about all this oil 21 floating down the river, but they didn't even 22 question the fact it was in gross violation of 23 the existing regulations to that dump water at 24 all. It wasn't even covered. 25 MR. DYSART: Will. 75 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 MR. BERSON: Just a question, typically 3 the Georgia Ports Authority would work with 4 their trade association, in Washington, on 5 policy like this that affects all the different 6 ports. 7 Do y'all have a -- I mean, do you 8 yourself have a policy, or does the AAPA have a 9 have a policy about their preferred way of 10 seeing this all happen? 11 MS. MOORER: I think I can answer that. I 12 got this from AAPA yesterday afternoon, and 13 they're not taking the position necessarily 14 yet. 15 I think they're working with the World 16 Shipping Council on what position to take, I 17 think, because it hasn't been determined how it 18 would be regulated, or any of the details, or 19 whether EPA will appeal this decision. 20 What AAPA has advocated is that there be a 21 federal standard for ballast water regulation 22 that's uniform, across the entire nation, so 23 that there's not a question as from state to 24 state that the ballast water regulation varies. 25 That's the position that the AAPA has taken on 76 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 ballast water. 3 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Well, and maybe this -- is 5 the Coast Guard not consistent now? It really 6 is state by state? I thought at some point in 7 time we went from the voluntary to the 8 mandatory regulation. 9 I, like Steve, I appreciate his point that 10 the oil spill -- the real sin there was dumping 11 ballast water in the river. They just happened 12 to have some oil in it. 13 LT. WEBB: I don't know all the details on 14 the ballast water program. I know we do have 15 one in place. That's something I can check on 16 and look into. 17 I'm not up to speed on the whole ballast 18 water program from the Coast Guard, as far as 19 what our requirements are. I know we have a 20 program, but I don't know the details on it. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. 22 MS. MOORER: It has been voluntary. I 23 don't think it's been finalized in mandatory 24 reporting yet. 25 MS. JENNINGS: I thought we had literally 77 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 legislation on that. 3 MS. MOORER: There is, and it's also 4 reviewed in this court document. So it will be 5 online this afternoon. 6 MS. JENNINGS: I'll read it. 7 MS. MOORER: Maybe tomorrow. 8 MR. DYSART: David. 9 MR. SCHALLER: Mr. Willis is leaving, but 10 Mr. Willis I understand -- I yield to the Coast 11 Guard who is the expert in this, but that was 12 not a ballast water discharge. 13 That was a discharge of oil from the fuel 14 tanks, an illegal one, I might add, of course. 15 But it had nothing to do with ballast water. 16 It was oil. 17 MR. WILLIS: I'm not questioning, I'm sure 18 you're correct. The paper said ballast water 19 discharge. 20 MR. SCHALLER: Secondly, the port 21 authority, as I noted in one previous meeting, 22 does have a prohibition against ballast water 23 exchanges in the port area. 24 MR. WILLIS: And dumping and releases. 25 MR. SCHALLER: Yes. 78 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 (Whereupon, there was an 3 off-the-record discussion.) 4 MR. DYSART: Back on the record after that 5 report from the CIA. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I don't know that it 7 really matters, but it -- maybe the newspaper 8 doesn't know. They must be getting their 9 information from somewhere. 10 There was a fairly detailed report about 11 how the oil moved from one tank to another. 12 David, it was my understanding that the oil 13 didn't go directly from the a leaking oil tank, 14 but the oil tank leaked into ballast water 15 exchange, and that's actually how the water got 16 dumped. That was reported in the paper, is 17 that inaccurate? 18 MR. SCHALLER: As I said, the Coast Guard 19 is the expert on this, but to my understanding 20 it was not a ballast water exchange. 21 LT. WEBB: You're correct. It was -- I 22 don't know the details on it. The case is 23 still under investigation, as far as I know, so 24 I can't and I don't have the details, but it 25 was some discrepancy in some tanks and how it 79 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 was discharged. 3 I don't know the details on that, but 4 there were some -- a crack in the tank or 5 something, that it got in there -- the oil got 6 in there. 7 MS. JENNINGS: The oil got into the 8 ballast water tanks? 9 LT. WEBB: I don't know which tank it was, 10 but it was a crack that allowed the oil to get 11 in there somehow, so from what I understand -- 12 MR. SCHALLER: I guess the story will be 13 told when the Coast Guard prosecutes the 14 violator and details emerge. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Just -- I think it's just 16 an illustration of how complicated it's going 17 to be to enforce whatever regulations ever come 18 up. No port's got the resources to be checking 19 on every ballast exchange. I don't know that 20 the Coast Guard will either. 21 MR. DYSART: Further comments. The last 22 item, status of economic tasks. 23 MR. GARRETT: Do you have any updates on 24 that? 25 MS. MOORER: I do not. We requested an 80 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 update from Mobile. The planning division 3 personnel, in Mobile, in charge of the economic 4 study could not make it this SEG meeting, and 5 we requested an update and have not received it 6 via e-mail. 7 So we don't have an update at this time. 8 We will provide one at the interim meeting, and 9 hopefully will have maybe a report, and can 10 have someone attend the next SEG meeting, from 11 Mobile, to give a more extensive update. I'm 12 sorry. We tried. 13 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Any further 14 comments or questions? David Kyler. 15 MR. KYLER: I see there's a blank on the 16 bullet. It thought I'd fill that in. Some 17 people may have seen reports on a GAO report 18 issued March 15th, 2006 entitled Corps of 19 Engineers Observation on Planning and Project 20 Management Processes for the Civil Works 21 Program. 22 From the GAO, testimony before a 23 subcommittee on energy and resources, a 24 committee on government reform, the House 25 of Representative. It's probably available on 81 1 PRESENTATION - ALAN GARRETT 2 the web at gao.gov. 3 I was sent a hardcopy of this, but it's a 4 very interesting analysis of the bias in Corps 5 -- an analysis of Corps projects leading to 6 some rather troubling conclusions, although 7 the Corps has taken steps to try to remedy 8 problems highlighted by this GAO analysis, 9 where the writer concludes there are systemic 10 problems in how the Corps evaluates projects 11 that may require extremely radical measures, 12 and how they conduct business, rather than the 13 piecemeal approach. 14 I would urge everybody in the SEG to look 15 at this, because it will hone our skills in 16 scrutinizing the analysis presented on this 17 project. 18 MS. JENNINGS: What was the date? 19 MR. KYLER: March 15th, 2006. It's GAO 20 dot 06 -- I'm sorry dash 06 dash 529 T as in 21 Tom. 22 MR. DYSART: Any further items, comments 23 questions? If not, let's -- what is your 24 pleasure so far as the next meeting date? 25 MR. SCHALLER: February. 82 1 NEXT MEETING DATE DISCUSSION 2 MS. MOORER: I don't think -- if I can 3 make a suggestion, I think that the -- we won't 4 have enough additional work completed for a 5 meeting -- SEG meeting in December. I might 6 suggest that we have an interim SEG meeting in 7 December, and have the interim group look at 8 what's then on the schedule -- 9 MR. DYSART: To make a recommendation? 10 MS. MOORER: -- to make a recommendation 11 on forward. 12 MR. DYSART: Would that acceptable? 13 MS. JENNINGS: The 5th at 1:00 o'clock? 14 MS. MOORER: The 5th at 1:00, yeah, would 15 be the time the next time period to meet. 16 MR. DYSART: Will. 17 MR. BERSON: And if you a real masochist 18 streak, I wanted to invite everyone. Those 19 meetings are open to anybody. Lots of us 20 attend. 21 They're really not so bad, but they're 22 very interesting, and you tend to learn a lot, 23 and it's a very good way to keep your finger on 24 the pulse. 25 But I just wanted to reiterate everyone is 83 1 NEXT MEETING DATE DISCUSSION 2 welcome to attend. I assume we will have at 3 Lockwood Greene's office. 4 MS. MOORER: I would echo what Will said. 5 It's a good way to keep up certainly with the 6 schedule too, because it's a time where we 7 really look at the work left to do on the 8 schedule, and try to determine what will be 9 available for discussion at the next SEG 10 meeting. 11 That's really the purpose of the meeting. 12 So it is a good way to keep up with how the 13 project is progressing. 14 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 15 MR. REES: I would just like a 16 clarification. I had the 5th written in, on 17 the basis of our last interim meeting, which 18 had been crossed out and had it entered on the 19 12th. 20 MS. MOORER: I had that too. I think it 21 was just spacing, because it's only three weeks 22 from today, but -- 23 MR. REES: Okay. 24 MS. MOORER: -- I think the 5th is fine. 25 MR. REES: Fine by me. I wanted to be 84 1 NEXT MEETING DATE DISCUSSION 2 sure I had the right date in there. 3 MR. DYSART: I want to make one comment 4 for anybody who has not been around here a long 5 time. The purpose for the interim group is to 6 focus on what agenda items are ripe, and so 7 forth. 8 It's not to have discussions in lieu of 9 having them here. So we appreciate the 10 efforts, of the interim committee in 11 investigating and working with people, to see 12 what is ready to bring here, but the principle 13 discussions are, as I understand, on the record 14 here. Any further questions? 15 MR. BERSON: And Hope always brings 16 snacks. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. No further questions, 18 I will declare the meeting adjourned. 19 December 5th will be the date for the interim 20 agenda committee meeting, and that committee 21 will forward a recommendation as to the next 22 SEG meeting, as to whether that would be say in 23 January or February. 24 MR. KYLER: Most of you already know this 25 because of the notices I gave to you, an event 85 1 NEXT MEETING DATE DISCUSSION 2 on this Saturday at the Bamboo Farm down on 3 U.S. 17 south of here, there will be a 4 presentation by Dr. Peter Verity, who is an 5 oceanographer and coastal scientist reporting 6 on human impacts of -- on water quality, food 7 webs, and implications for the future of our 8 estuaries. If you can, please make it, 5:00 9 o'clock at the Bamboo Farm. 10 (Meeting concluded 11:10 a.m.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 1 2 3 4 C E R T I F I C A T E 5 G E O R G I A 6 CHATHAM COUNTY 7 8 I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript 9 was taken down, as stated in the caption, and the 10 questions and answers thereto were reduced to 11 typewriting under my directions; that the forgoing 12 Pages 1 through 85 represent a true and correct 13 transcript of the evidence given upon said hearing, 14 and I further certify that I am not of kin or 15 counsel to the parties in the case; am not in the 16 regular employ of counsel for any of said parties 17 nor am I in anywise interested in the result of 18 said case. 19 20 This, the 15th day of December, 2006. 21 22 _______________________________ 23 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 24 Reporter, B-2041 25 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25