1 2 3 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP 4 5 6 MEETING 7 OF 8 MAY 1, 2007 9 10 11 MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 12 13 14 POOLER, GEORGIA 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 I N D E X 4 5 6 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ----------- 3 7 AGENDA APPROVAL ----------------------------- 6 8 9 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 10 By Jeff Larson --------------------------- 7 11 By Card Smith ---------------------------- 67 12 13 AGENDA DISCUSSION ---------------------------- 137 14 OLD BUSINESS --------------------------------- 141 15 NEW BUSINESS --------------------------------- 155 16 17 18 CERTIFICATE ---------------------------------- 165 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 (THE REPORTER: I am appearing today on 3 behalf of my employer, Tom Crites & 4 Associates. My office was requested by Georgia 5 Ports Authority's office to provide a court 6 reporter today at 9:00 a.m. at this address. 7 Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well 8 as at the instructions of my employer, I wish 9 to disclose that, other than accepting to 10 serve as your reporter, we have not entered 11 into any other contractual agreement with any 12 party involved in this case.) 13 MR. DYSART: Silence is beginning to 14 prevail, so we'll call the meeting of the SEG 15 to order. My name is Ben Dysart. I'm the SEG 16 facilitator, and the first thing we'd like to 17 do, while you're looking over the agenda and 18 seeing if you have comments on it, go around 19 the table. 20 Introduce yourself, indicate -- speak nice 21 and distinctly, so that madam court reporter 22 can get your name and your affiliation or 23 affiliations, whatever flag you choose to run 24 under. She always tells me which side to start 25 on, which is where she has already started. 4 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 Jeff, start us off. 3 MR. LARSON: My name is Jeff Larson. I'm 4 the Assistant Branch Chief with the Watershed 5 Protection Branch, one and five assistant 6 branch chiefs, and my main focus is the 7 Savannah and Ogeechee River basins. 8 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Army Corps of 9 Engineers. 10 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Island. 11 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, public. 12 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Brent Rothschild, Ft. 13 Pulaski. 14 MR. MICHAELS: Ron Michaels, Georgia 15 Department of Natural Resources, Coastal 16 Resources Division. 17 MS. MOORE: Kelie Moore, DNR, Coastal 18 Resources Division. 19 MR. WILLIS: Steve Willis, blue Planet 20 Projects. 21 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, U.S. Fish 22 and Wildlife. 23 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 24 Service. 25 MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of 5 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 Savannah. 3 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 4 Authority. 5 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for 6 Georgia Ports. 7 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia 8 Ports Authority. 9 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant to 10 Georgia Ports Authority. 11 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 12 Authority. 13 MS. GRAINEY: Karen Grainey, Savannah 14 Riverkeeper. 15 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, the Georgia 16 Conservancy. 17 MR. DYSART: Ben Dysart. 18 MS. McINTOSH: Mackie McIntosh, Corps of 19 Engineers. 20 MR. SMITH: Card Smith, Corps of 21 Engineers. 22 MR. GARRETT: Alan Garrett, Corps of 23 Engineers. 24 MR. WEBB: Rob Webb, Coast Guard. 25 MS. DAVIE: Kay Davie, NOAA Fisheries. 6 1 AGENDA APPROVAL 2 MS. WENDT: Priscilla Wendt, South 3 Carolina DNR. 4 MR. DYSART: Thank you. You have before 5 you the draft agenda, for the meeting today, 6 made up principally of inputs from the ad hoc 7 committee that reviews matters and decides when 8 issues are ripe for presentation and discussion 9 for the entire group. 10 And if you would look that over, are there 11 any additions or changes that anybody would 12 like to make, or move anything around in the 13 schedule? 14 Seeing no request to do so, we will 15 consider that this is the agenda that we will 16 be working from, and we will plan to adjourn by 17 the scheduled adjournment time. 18 The transcript for the last SEG meeting 19 has been posted. You've had an opportunity to 20 review that, and I would ask is there any 21 correction, that needs to be made on the 22 record, clarification or otherwise. Well done 23 again madam court reporter. 24 Got your ears on and hearing everything 25 correctly and people are saying what they need 7 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 to say. Okay. We will consider that to be 3 approved then and accepted by the SEG. 4 And so we'll move onto the scientific 5 briefing. As you know, the custom is, 6 generally, if there are outside people 7 presenting scientific material, we try to have 8 them early on in case anyone has to leave a 9 little early. So the first item here would be 10 the TMDL, and Jeff -- 11 MR. LARSON: Yeah. 12 MR. DYSART: -- why don't you kick that 13 off, how ever you would like to, sir. 14 MR. LARSON: Can I get the lights down a 15 little bit? I don't know where the best 16 cut-off is. 17 What I wanted to do, I've kind of cycled 18 this presentation a few times, based on where 19 we're at, with the update. I wanted to go 20 through the Savannah DO and TMDL situation for 21 you, give you a little bit of background, bring 22 you up-to-date to where EPA and South Carolina 23 EPD are at in our discussions. 24 This is a bald guy, not to me mean, but 25 it's bald guy confused by stuff. This road map 8 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 -- I'm not telling you anything new, but this 3 is supposed to be funny, and it depends what 4 group I'm at whether or not it's funny. 5 But it's -- it portrays me when I got the 6 job in November. The study area is this area, 7 4,360 square miles, that was considered in the 8 TMDL; 51% of that is Georgia, 49 is South 9 Carolina. The main stem link is 190 miles, 10 river miles. 11 This is the impaired section, coastal 12 fishing section, from Ft. Pulaski on up to 13 the Seaboard Coastline Railway Bridge, which is 14 up toward the top of this line. So this is the 15 27.4 river miles that's listed as impaired. 16 This is an EPA slide showing critical DO 17 zones. This is where drops have been recorded 18 below Georgia's existing standard, three 19 milligram per liter standard, critical standard 20 at that time. It's a seasonal standard, but 21 this shows the critical times, in the summer, 22 when we have had DO drops in these zones in the 23 harbor. 24 This shows an actual location, above 25 Talmadge Bridge, bottom of the column. So in 9 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 August a little bit of September, you see DO 3 drops below three. Ft. Jackson surface, you 4 see DO drops below three. 5 How did we get here? In 1989, Georgia 6 adopted our standard, coastal fishing. That 7 was based on a lot of sampling beforehand, 8 monitoring beforehand, and we felt comfortable 9 with the three milligram per liter DO standard. 10 MS. MOORER: Is that coastal fishing 11 standard for the entire river? 12 MR. LARSON: No. The way I see it, Hope, 13 it's almost the same. The impaired section is 14 the coastal fishing section, and that's 27.4 15 miles from the ocean up to Seaboard. 16 MS. MOORER: What is the other standard 17 above that? 18 MR. LARSON: Above that would be fishing. 19 MS. MOORER: Oh, fishing. 20 MR. LARSON: Now, the coastal fishing 21 standard was to get at that condition of the 22 harbor at that time. 23 EPA is always looking for fishable 24 swimmable, five to four. The condition of the 25 harbor was such that that's the way we went 10 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 with our rationale for the appropriate 3 standard. 4 Now, EPA didn't agree with that. First we 5 came out with an average standard, average for 6 the water column for three, and they didn't 7 concur with that. 8 Then we came back what was more stringent, 9 three throughout, and they didn't concur with 10 that. This is the coastal fishing standard, 11 June through October no less than three, and 12 November no less than 3.5, December through 13 April no less than four. 14 Again, it's a minimum instantaneous 15 throughout the water column, and that was 16 ultimately what we adopted. Again we felt that 17 was the informed. 18 EPA disapproves the Georgia standard in 19 1994, so five years later, six years later, it 20 was disapproved. 21 Generally, the idea was that the 22 dischargers could have done better, so the 23 standard, as alone without the dischargers 24 reducing, was not a palpable standard to EPA. 25 In 2002, it was listed in our 303-D 11 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 listing, and as the Sierra Club lawsuit 3 required, the TMDL had to be developed. So in 4 2002 we had the listing, and that meant it had 5 to be dealt with. 6 We always knew it had to be dealt with, 7 but once it was identified definitely as an 8 impaired water, a TMDL has to be developed. A 9 draft came out in 2004, heavily commented on, 10 and again this TMDL was for the impaired 11 section. But the TMDL also talks about all the 12 way up to Thurmond Dam. 13 It's not just the impaired section; it's 14 all way up to the dam. So, your Augusta area 15 is part of it. I know I'm not telling you a 16 lot of new staff, but I don't know who here may 17 not have this primmer. 18 So the TMDL November 29th, 2006 came out. 19 EPA did some tweaks to it, from the draft, 20 again from the dam down to the Atlantic. 21 The impaired section was Ft. Pulaski up to 22 the bridge. The modeling was used up to Clyo, 23 Georgia, downstream into the model extended 19 24 miles offshore, Oyster Island, to pick up the 25 navigational channel at the end of it or the 12 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 beginning. 3 Modeling covered Savannah, Front, Middle, 4 Little Back and Back Rivers, south channel and 5 again offshore. Impaired listing was based on 6 data from '97 and '99. I showed you a couple 7 of those spots on that graph. 8 TMDL based on the past 10 years of 9 modeling, if not a little more, affects down, 10 dischargers from Thurmond Dam down -- on down, 11 so it's a zero TMDL, zero similar to capacity 12 available, and that's -- that's the thing on 13 the table. 14 Both the dischargers and the deepening 15 were identified as contributing to deficits, as 16 well as many other items in the TMDL, not to 17 mention background. 18 So there were a variety of issues 19 informing the TMDL, a variety of data that came 20 into a zero similar to capacity. The TMDL 21 itself said it will not able to be obtained, 22 even if all the dischargers were removed, that 23 means the existing TMDL standard of three. 24 Without a new standard, it's likely the 25 harbor will never comply with the standard, and 13 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 the TMDL recognizes the need to revise 3 Georgia's DO standard. 4 It's written like none I've ever seen 5 before, so -- and not only the states the 6 problem, it acknowledges the issue, and it 7 acknowledges an action plan for resolving the 8 TMDL. 9 And that is likely a revision to the TMDL. 10 It's another -- that's the additional force 11 that the study groups or work groups I'll 12 discuss in a minute is actually revising the 13 TMDL. 14 Water quality study to date, you know this 15 more than I, EPA water quality monitoring went 16 into the '89 standard. We have a variety of 17 federal and state hydrodynamic and water 18 quality modeling. 19 We have the EPA biological modeling, the 20 Virginian Province and Chesapeake Bay criteria, 21 which is somewhat similar to Savannah's 22 situation, the harbor situation. 23 It's saltwater criteria. It's something 24 that's been vetted out for the biology, and I'm 25 just mentioning it as a study, as a current 14 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 situation to date that could have some bearing 3 on the standard. And then the harbor 4 hydrodynamic model work is completed and 5 calibrated by September of 2004. 6 These are just some of the studies that 7 have been going on for years between the Army 8 Corps of Engineers, EPA, EPD, and the Georgia 9 Ports Authority. This is not like -- the TMDL 10 was the ultimate subject, when people saw the 11 need for protection of the harbor. So all 12 stakeholders, based on their particular 13 interest in the harbor, were doing beaucoup 14 data during these years before the TMDL. 15 Where are we today? The TMDL came out 16 in 2006, and in response to the TMDL, the three 17 agencies immediately formed work groups. 18 I'm the project leader, for lack of a 19 better term, for Georgia. We vetted this out 20 together with South Carolina DHEC, and EPD is 21 how the work groups will be formed. I view it 22 as a very positive exercise. It unto itself 23 was an exercise of getting the agencies 24 together, as I'm sure you can relate to that. 25 But we got our working group together. We 15 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 had an initial face-off meeting in February. 3 It went real well. South Carolina is an 4 excellent partner in this. EPA is helping 5 greatly with the technical review. 6 And the beauty part of this is you get 7 this stuff up front, so you limit your time 8 lines with a work group that's facing off all 9 the time. 10 So we don't have, not yet at least, long 11 peer reviews. We have active discussion items 12 that are going on, much like yours. 13 The permitting status right now for 14 Georgia is we've administratively extended our 15 municipal and industrial permits where we had 16 to. Those coming up for expiration had to be 17 extended. 18 Ones prior to expiration, that we may have 19 issued, had enough time left on them. So they 20 will come up for expiration in 2009 and 10, 21 which will be adequate time to do what we need 22 to do with the permits. 23 Again, the subcommittees are working on 24 discharge permitting strategies. I'll get 25 into that in a minute. 16 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 Stakeholder involvement, you can imagine, 3 it's everybody; state agencies, federal 4 agencies, people in this room, dischargers, 5 Savannah River Committee, Central Savannah 6 Area TMDL Group, environmental, business group, 7 general public. So we've got, as you do, we 8 have got the full gamut. 9 This is the project schedule looking at 10 standard permitting strategy, variance 11 situation to get discussed through in the 12 summer and fall of this year, with appropriate 13 standard changes made to our rules. Again, 14 this is Georgia's project schedule. 15 So it's a 2007/2009 process with the 16 standards coming within the next 6 to 12 17 months. There will be two sets of them. One 18 will be a variance, we think, first with the 19 use attainability analysis, and also with it 20 generic language. 21 That doesn't imply that use attainability 22 will be used for the harbor. It implies that 23 Georgia is looking at needing generic language 24 for variances, and generic language for UAA. 25 Again, I want to preface this as this is 17 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 proposed from the groups. I'm being very 3 honest here. A lot of this stuff is subject to 4 change, but I wanted to make this a useful 5 presentation to y'all. So I'm getting into 6 somewhat of our business, but by the same token 7 I need to preface these things with this is 8 a work in progress as yours are. 9 So we're not -- until you see it, until 10 you see a public hearing for it, then you'll 11 know that we are actually proposing either a 12 standard or a variance or use attainability 13 language. 14 Again, work together -- I'd like to thank 15 Georgia Ports Authority for greatly helping 16 with the funding to move this along quickly. 17 We had our first stakeholder involvement 18 meeting on April 9th in Martinez, Georgia. It 19 was well-attended, good questions. 20 The next one we're thinking about is the 21 end of this month in Savannah. It might be 22 here, I've just got to figure out if this is 23 big enough. But we'll at least have -- we'll 24 at least have had two stakeholders meetings to 25 report on the progress of the teams, the second 18 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 one being right now proposed on May 31st. 3 The steering committee, the technical 4 subcommittees' work, well, there's a DO 5 subcommittee made up of a technical 6 subcommittee, made up of 15 to 18 people, 7 technical staff between the three agencies. 8 We have a permitting subcommittee, again 9 made up of about 15 to 18 people. There are 10 attorneys on it, generally EPA attorneys, and 11 the steering committee is made up senior staff 12 for the three agencies. 13 So they overview the work of the technical 14 subcommittees, and accept or give constructive 15 criticism, and plan meetings, et cetera, et 16 cetera. 17 The DO scenarios that are being considered 18 right now, I talked about the Virginian 19 province standard, the modified Virginia 20 province standard; again, those have been 21 biologically modeled. 22 10% of natural conditions, that is you 23 have to decide what your natural condition is. 24 It's another big part of our discussions, what 25 is the natural condition, can that be used in 19 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 the standard, what's irretrievable, the works 3 of man already that are there that would inform 4 that standard and cause that standard to be 5 natural. 6 South Carolina's standard is a daily five 7 minimum of four with an off-ramp of .1 8 milligram per liter for natural, of those areas 9 that don't make five and four. 10 Right now, that seems to be, at least the 11 numeric part of it, something that the agencies 12 are leaning toward. .1 is within background of 13 testing, but it does offer some relief, we 14 think. 15 I'd like to say that any one of these 16 standards selected is still going to result in 17 an extremely low, to practically no, similar to 18 capacity. So you're -- we're working toward 19 trying to see what is best protective for the 20 harbor, with the idea that maybe there's some 21 capacity there. 22 Now, keep in mind, the TMDL is a critical 23 condition TMDL. It's not a seasonal TMDL, and 24 that might be something that's looked at, as 25 time goes on, where you want to see if there 20 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 are times of the year when discharges could 3 happen, ie, wet weather times of year. 4 So these are the scenarios, site 5 specific and standard would be something we'd 6 modify between all of these, in some way, shape 7 or form. 8 These generally are the big boys, big 9 girls that are out there, that seem to fit this 10 situation. 11 Permitting challenges -- well, you can 12 imagine. We need to address existing 13 dischargers and the question of how and if you 14 accommodate new growth. 15 Some of the technologies, depending on if 16 the TMDL becomes seasonal might be hydrographic 17 control release; that is releasing after you 18 stored up during the warm months, you let it go 19 at certain times based on the stream flow -- 20 your treated discharge. 21 Reuse, reclaimed water, with a cold 22 weather discharge, these are technologies used 23 elsewhere in Georgia and elsewhere in the 24 United States. They would have dovetailed in, 25 if it's possible. They can be to whatever the 21 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 TMDL says. 3 Possibly you can have a flow increase 4 along with pollutant reductions, but it's EPA's 5 position you would have to put the money 6 primarily toward the reduction part, not the 7 flow increase. 8 If you had money left over, maybe you 9 could look at expansion, but the majority of 10 the money needs to be looking at how to reduce 11 with this TMDL. Any questions? I'm not trying 12 to -- if you have got questions, please ask. 13 Then we have the issue of how to 14 coordinate between the Georgia and South 15 Carolina permitting. You know, we'll probably 16 be watching each other rather closely. And 17 again, I think we're getting along well, and I 18 think we all are striving for the same -- same 19 protection. 20 So we just -- it would be the devil would 21 be in the details, how to coordinate that 22 permitting to ensure everybody knew what was 23 going on, and ensure that that allocation 24 between the two states was honored from both 25 sides. 22 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 Does TMDL affect stormwater? It's not 3 real clear in the existing TMDL. It's viewed 4 as a point source, and it's a non-point source, 5 but it's got these MS-4 permits, these separate 6 stormwater permits for municipalities 7 discussed. 8 So we've asked the question of EPA, could 9 you take a look at stormwater again, in any 10 revision that might come about. 11 Then we have to struggle with how to adopt 12 the appropriate variance language into the 13 rules and permits for the existing dischargers. 14 So what do we mean by variance scenario, 15 an existing discharger would define the option 16 for meeting the TMDL, the best option. If that 17 option means widespread socio-economic impact, 18 then the party could -- the state could 19 entertain a variance to the standard, 20 which is a way of seeing to the installation of 21 best available technology, economically 22 achievable, as you walk down your schedule with 23 the idea that the TMDL is what you are trying 24 to comply with. 25 It's not a use attainability analysis. 23 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 It's not a change in the designation. The 3 designation stays the same, but it is a way to 4 handle and address when you know you can't meet 5 that standard. 6 And then the states would look at these 7 schedules every three to five years and make 8 adjustments. So you're moving along at a rate 9 where you hope new technology is keeping pace, 10 and things can be done to -- to affect change 11 and reboot the schedule. 12 Where do we go from here? We complete the 13 variance DO standard discussions, again I said 14 the summer/fall of this year, 6 to 12 month 15 Georgia rule making process. First we're 16 proposing a generic variance and use 17 attainability analysis language, and second 18 would be the harbor DO standard. 19 I believe we're taking the road show 20 this May, to go over the variance and the UAA 21 language, at three locations. So that's first 22 up in the hopper. 23 We're doing that as part of what's called 24 a triennial review, and that is our way -- we 25 look at our standards every three years, and we 24 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 have changes to make. 3 So the variance in UAA language will be 4 dovetailed into even a more major look at our 5 standards, and some other housekeeping things 6 that we need to do. 7 But the variance and UAA will tag with 8 that effort, and then after that harbor DO 9 standard would be discussed with the board, be 10 discussed with the public. It already has, but 11 it hasn't been discussed as a final yet. 12 We've had presentations much like this, 13 but we have to present it to the public, the 14 actual DO that has been decided on. 15 Our rule making process involves public 16 participation, DNR board briefings, public 17 hearings, and a formal DNR board adoption. So 18 that's what Georgia would have to ensure is 19 done in the next 6 to 12 months. 20 South Carolina has a different situation. 21 They have legislative change to their 22 regulations, and that's a longer process. They 23 got to change their law. That's an 18 to 24 24 month situation. 25 Both set of standards, again, we're 25 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 leaning toward sharing a standard. That is the 3 one that's in the hopper right now that we are 4 actively discussing. 5 But regardless, both set of standards 6 would have to be reviewed and approved by EPA. 7 That's typically a 60 day process. 8 And then somewhere in this situation, the 9 TMDL, we believe, will need to be revised. So 10 that's -- probably that would happen after the 11 Georgia standard is adopted. And that's my 12 song, that's where we are today. 13 MR. FARMER: About one third of the way 14 through your presentation, you had a chart. On 15 the top line it said even if all the 16 dischargers were eliminated, you still could 17 not meet the standard. Could you explain that 18 a little bit? 19 MR. LARSON: With the current 20 configuration of the harbor, and the existing 21 dischargers the way they are discharging at 22 their current levels, all the simulative 23 capacity, based on the testing that has been 24 done, you cannot meet the three milligram per 25 liter. 26 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 So even if you took everything out, you 3 would have background situations. That was 4 such -- that would cause a violation of 5 Georgia's standard. So with the condition of 6 the harbor as it is right now, organics can't 7 go in. There is no simulative capacity for 8 the dischargers or for future harbor deepening, 9 but this is -- that's the way it is. 10 MR. FARMER: Does your definition of 11 discharger include agricultural runoff as well 12 as point dischargers? 13 MR. LARSON: That has to be clarified in 14 the TMDL. It has to do with non -- it's a 15 critical TMDL; that is, it's for the hottest 16 time, the worst time of year. And it really 17 doesn't include stormwater, but the TMDL does 18 state stormwater has some impact. 19 So it's not specifically talking ag, but 20 it does talk background levels. So one could 21 assume those background levels has something to 22 do the non-point source discharges. 23 MR. FARMER: I mean, would the big problem 24 be agricultural runoff or something else? 25 MR. LARSON: The big problem is the 27 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 discharges right now and the condition of the 3 harbor. 4 I think others have some impact, but the 5 TMDL doesn't ferret out non-point -- it assigns 6 a level, but it doesn't ferret out the 7 contributors on the non-point. 8 MR. DYSART: Ed, Will and Judy. 9 MR. EUDALY: Yeah. I was wondering on the 10 standards; one of them you mentioned was 10% of 11 natural conditions. What does that mean 12 exactly, can you explain that? 13 MR. LARSON: That we would allow, 14 theoretically, 10% below whatever the natural 15 condition would be decided on. 16 That's not likely to be approved, but it's 17 more used for a 10% variation from the 18 standard, that a certain amount of those drops 19 could be looked on and reviewed to see if you 20 violated the standard. 21 This would be actually 10% below the 22 standard. That would be, I think, the least 23 approvable by EPA. 24 MR. EUDALY: One more question too. 25 MR. LARSON: Yeah. 28 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MR. EUDALY: I've heard -- seems like I've 3 heard different stories about the amount of BOD 4 coming in from Augusta or upriver. 5 MR. LARSON: Right. 6 MR. EUDALY: What -- do you have any 7 better handle on that, any more recent 8 information? 9 MR. LARSON: Not any more recent than the 10 TMDL. The TMDL -- what is it -- 100,000 11 pounds, I think, arrives at the harbor. 12 MR. EUDALY: That's still pretty much the 13 accepted? 14 MR. LARSON: That's the TMDL right now. I 15 don't want speak for the group, but I believe 16 they're looking at what are called long-term 17 BODs. That will give you a better idea of what 18 arrives at the harbor, if anything. 19 That's a question that's actively being 20 vetted right now. And that should inform, we 21 would like to think, any revision to the TMDL, 22 but we just don't know when that's going to 23 come -- be used or be compiled. 24 MR. EUDALY: Thanks. 25 MR. DYSART: Will. 29 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MR. BERSON: You mentioned the Virginian 3 Province standard has been biologically 4 modeled, has it been modeled in Georgia or 5 Virginia? 6 MR. LARSON: Virginia. 7 MR. BERSON: Just one more, has there -- 8 when you talk about a variance for achieving 9 the standard, or the TMDL standard, would you 10 put a time limit on that? 11 I mean, it seems like you're delaying 12 compliance with the standard. I mean, once you 13 do that, is it three years, is it -- or just 14 sometime in the future we're going to get 15 there? 16 MR. LARSON: Good question. The question 17 is what happens when they have done everything 18 they can do barber 19 MR. BERSON: (Nods head up and down.). 20 MR. LARSON: I can't speak to that yet. 21 We'd have to see how's things go. It's a -- 22 you know, you can look at use attainability at 23 that time. 24 You can look at further negotiations, at 25 that time, with the discharger. It's a 30 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 difficult question to answer. 3 You could look at technologies that may be 4 for DO addition --- who knows. But right now, 5 they would have to get something that doesn't 6 break the bank. 7 That could be a land application system. 8 They could get the pipe out and get some 9 acreage, if that's doable. Well, that just 10 fixed that, but if they can't, if it is 11 economically non-achievable, then they would 12 get a schedule. 13 MR. BERSON: As an overall matter, the 14 variance is kind of a delay of the standard, if 15 I understood your explanation. 16 MR. LARSON: Uh-huh. 17 MR. BERSON: I mean, so that -- so that 18 sort just goes on. There is no time. You 19 don't set a goal for yourself within three 20 years, your variance is up, or I mean, there's 21 no sort of thought about how long a variance 22 could be authorized to go? 23 MR. LARSON: No. 24 MR. DYSART: Judy. 25 MS. JENNINGS: Ed, your first question I 31 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 understood the question mostly, but I'm not 3 sure I understand the answer entirely. The 10% 4 below natural standards, could you repeat that? 5 MR. LARSON: Would you like to talk about 6 it -- no. You have to decide what is the 7 natural condition for the harbor, and you -- 8 one could allow -- 9 MS. JENNINGS: The natural condition for 10 the harbor given -- 11 MR. LARSON: -- given the dams that are on 12 the harbor. If you looked at those as an 13 irretrievable work of man that is there, that 14 influences the DO at its present state, you 15 arrive at that DO as a natural condition. 16 You have to support it against what the 17 condition of the harbor is, and what you are 18 going to accept as irretrievable already on the 19 river. 20 The dams upstream, down to the harbor, you 21 would have to say those dams and the 22 configuration of harbor as it is is 23 irretrievable. That's way it is. 24 Therefore, it's a low DO as it is, and 25 this would -- a 10% drop, from that natural 32 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 condition, would be allowable and if it didn't 3 impact the biota or chemistry of dissolved 4 oxygen. 5 So it is a way of potentially grabbing 6 some simulative capacity by allowing a 7 certain drop below whatever per milligram per 8 liter that DO is and that natural condition, 9 yeah. 10 MR. BAILEY: I think one other, and you 11 can correct me if I'm wrong -- 12 MR. LARSON: Yeah. 13 MR. BAILEY: -- I think the 10% is also a 14 cumulative for the whole river basin, while the 15 dischargers go in. 16 MR. LARSON: That's true too. 17 MR. BAILEY: So all the dischargers 18 together, all the inputs together could only 19 drop it down 10%. 20 MR. LARSON: You would have certain a 21 poundage for all dischargers and you couldn't 22 go below it. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Cumulatively? 24 MR. LARSON: Cumulative, and so is South 25 Carolina, that's cumulative also. 33 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MS. JENNINGS: And about the stormwater, 3 the non-point source, however you want to call 4 it, I thought the last draft TMDL from EPA did 5 say that that would include -- that it would 6 have to include non-point. 7 MR. LARSON: It said the MS-4 permits 8 which were NPDS permits or for municipal storm 9 systems, it said zero for those. So as an NPDS 10 permit, it went over into the waste load side 11 of the TMDL formula. 12 That's what's a tad confusing. We don't 13 -- we're not certain whether that implies no 14 more growth, because it's looked as a zero 15 simulative capacity also for those municipal 16 stormwater permits that the cities have. 17 Now, the non-point, the rest of it was put 18 in as background, and that was assigned a 19 poundage. 20 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 21 MR. LARSON: So you have your regulatory 22 stormwater and your non-regulatory stormwater. 23 MS. JENNINGS: That was in the draft 24 document -- your final document from November, 25 yeah. 34 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MR. DYSART: Steve and then John. 3 MR. WILLIS: I've got a two part question. 4 The first part is, you say because of the 5 existing pollution and the condition of the 6 harbor that it's impossible to the meet the 7 standards now. 8 And so my question is, is right now you're 9 hitting at three parts or below now frequently 10 now during the year -- 11 MR. LARSON: Uh-huh. 12 MR. WILLIS: -- is that an incremental 13 problem; I mean, that's bad, that's terrible. 14 What if it went to two, or one and a half, or 15 one or zero, would that be -- would that be a 16 significantly worse situation? 17 In other words, you're saying it's bad and 18 there's to do about it, and so well, let's just 19 lower the standard until we can meet it. Just 20 -- I mean, that's just -- I know that sounds a 21 little crude. That's sort of what I hear. 22 MR. LARSON: No, but you're looking at 23 biology. 24 MR. WILLIS: But what happens if it gets 25 way worse, even if you give a variance. If it 35 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 just keeps going down and down, what are the 3 consequences? Is the consequence the standards 4 are not met or are there consequences for the 5 river and the life -- 6 MR. LARSON: We're trying to arrive at a 7 new standard. 8 MR. WILLIS: Right. 9 MR. LARSON: The old standard can't be met 10 as it is right now. A new standard would be 11 informed by what is currently on the river. It 12 would be informed by what the parties agree is 13 a natural condition, and that would arrive, as 14 long as it's protective of biology, that new 15 standard likely would be lower. 16 MR. WILLIS: But my question is not that. 17 My question is if it were to drop two, or one 18 and a half, or one; what would be the 19 consequence? Is it already just totally dead 20 so it doesn't matter if it goes down, or would 21 it be worse if you went down? 22 MR. LARSON: No. It would be worse if it 23 went down. 24 MR. WILLIS: Significantly worse? 25 MR. LARSON: I don't know. 36 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MR. WILLIS: Well, the other part of the 3 question is if it's already not meeting the 4 standard, not even meeting the standard that, 5 as I understand it you're considering lowering 6 it to, aren't a lot of the projects that are 7 being planned, for the river, going to make the 8 existing conditions much worse than they are 9 now? 10 MR. LARSON: We're talking the 11 irretrievable is one aspect, the dams. The 12 harbor deepening is another aspect. I don't 13 want to get into that too deeply, but that's -- 14 that's a way of mitigating what that deficiency 15 is. 16 So you have the ability to mitigate on one 17 side, and you have the ability to decide on a 18 new standard that's protective on the other. 19 They're not necessarily talking to each other 20 and informing each other, but the standard is 21 one aspect and the condition of the harbor is 22 another, from the deepening standpoint. 23 MR. WILLIS: So actions were taken that 24 lowered the minimal achievable amount, under 25 the best of circumstances, the 2, 1.5, 1, that 37 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 would be a serious deterioration over what you 3 have got now? 4 MR. LARSON: Yes. 5 MR. WILLIS: Even though what you have now 6 is unacceptable? 7 MR. LARSON: Yes. That's what mitigation 8 means. 9 MR. DYSART: John. 10 MR. WILLIS: Thank you. 11 MR. ROBINETTE: I think one thing that's 12 very confusing is when you say 10% of natural 13 conditions, that implies that 10% of the way 14 the river was, when it was functioning 15 naturally, functioning without the influence of 16 the things we've done to it like building dams 17 and deepening the harbor, I would change that 18 to 10% of the existing conditions -- 19 MR. LARSON: Yeah. 20 MR. ROBINETTE: -- or something that would 21 make it a different definition. 22 MR. LARSON: We're struggling with that 23 right now. 24 MR. ROBINETTE: Without discharge or 25 something like that, because that's very 38 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 confusing. The other thing I wanted to ask 3 was, since we're not meeting these standards 4 now, what is EPD doing to mitigate this? 5 I assume that everybody applying for a 6 permit for discharge, particularly maybe for a 7 sewage treatment plant, would be required to do 8 a land application, or required to have a reuse 9 system in that prior -- a functional reuse 10 system that could be used now -- prior to the 11 issuance of any permit? You know, I mean, are 12 you doing those sorts of things; what's being 13 done? 14 MR. LARSON: Permits have been extended. 15 We haven't -- we can't modify them right now 16 until such time as we have a reason to modify 17 them. 18 MR. ROBINETTE: I'm talking about new 19 permits. 20 MR. LARSON: Nothing -- someone coming in 21 to locate in Georgia, set up a wastewater 22 plant? 23 MR. ROBINETTE: Right. 24 MR. LARSON: Haven't had that happen yet, 25 but you couldn't put a new pipe into -- 39 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 couldn't put a new pipe into the -- 3 MR. ROBINETTE: Beg your pardon. Port 4 Wentworth is talking about building a sewage 5 treatment plant -- 6 MR. LARSON: I understand -- 7 MR. ROBINETTE: -- in the flood plain 8 adjacent to the Savannah Wildlife Refuge, and 9 you're entertaining the possibility of giving 10 them that permit to do that without a reuse -- 11 without any reuse, without any land application 12 or anything. 13 MR. LARSON: That's kind of -- 14 MR. ROBINETTE: This is a great 15 opportunity to require them to do the same 16 thing you required Effingham County to do. 17 Have you issued that permit yet. 18 MR. LARSON: For Port Wentworth? 19 MR. ROBINETTE: Yes. 20 MR. LARSON: No. 21 MR. ROBINETTE: You have a great 22 opportunity to do something about this right 23 now. 24 MR. LARSON: I understand. You were at 25 the hearing, right? 40 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MR. ROBINETTE: I certainly was. 3 MR. DYSART: Will. 4 MR. BERSON: How is it that since you're 5 -- one of the options is to pursue the same 6 standard as South Carolina, how is it that you 7 square a variance? 8 I mean, essentially, if you are both 9 pulling the same standard, Georgia just decides 10 it's not going to apply the standard to its 11 side of the river? 12 I mean, it seems to me if you are using 13 same the standard, and both cooperatively 14 working toward a TMDL, one side can't just say 15 oops, we can't get there from here. Really 16 what it means is both sides can get to have a 17 variance, doesn't it? 18 MR. LARSON: Yeah. South Carolina would 19 operate with variances also. 20 MR. BERSON: Okay. Is there -- are any of 21 these going to be coordinated, or do we just I 22 mean, one side applies for a variance and the 23 other side applies? 24 MR. LARSON: There will be a poundage that 25 can be shared. We will have to define how to 41 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 share that poundage. We're not in those 3 discussions yet. 4 Then you have to look at the technologies 5 on both sides of the river, and you have to see 6 the same ideas. Can you or can you not meet 7 that DO standard that has been derived? 8 And at that time, in order to protect that 9 poundage, ie, that poundage together protecting 10 the river and the harbor, they would be 11 operated under the same circumstances that we 12 would be operating under, getting toward that 13 standard, or those that can -- that it doesn't 14 cause hardship could go to a LAS, and could go 15 to a reuse system, something of that nature. 16 But I see it as a mirroring effect, shared 17 poundage, shared way of dealing with it. Both 18 watching or ensuring that each other is fully 19 protecting the harbor. 20 MR. DYSART: Priscilla. 21 MS. WENDT: I wanted to address a couple 22 of things. I had the same question as Will. 23 If you are planning to adopt the same numeric 24 standard as South Carolina, that's more 25 protective than the Georgia standard, it 42 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 strikes me as odd that if the consensus is that 3 you can't achieve even the Georgia standard, 4 how is that you are going to achieve the South 5 Carolina standard that's even higher, unless 6 you do have a variance? 7 And one of my questions was -- actually, 8 it's a comment, because I'm not sure exactly 9 how it works. My understanding is that a 10 variance is not open ended, in terms of time, 11 at least the South Carolina water quality 12 standards, I think there is a time limit, I'm 13 not sure what that is, because otherwise, 14 basically, you have a site specific standard. 15 I mean, what is your understanding of the 16 distinction between a variance and a site 17 specific standard, because if you have an 18 open-ended variance that goes on indefinitely, 19 essentially, you have a site specific standard? 20 MR. LARSON: I can't really answer that. 21 We're still -- we're still looking at the 22 variance language it might have it in. 23 MS. WENDT: Okay. I think there is -- 24 MR. LARSON: Again, I have to say these 25 are all proposed ideas. 43 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MS. WENDT: And in response to the 3 question about what are the repercussions for 4 diminishing the DO standard, if it's three now, 5 would it make a difference if it goes to two or 6 one, I think it would make a difference if it 7 went to two or one. 8 We know this occurs, in the bottom waters 9 in certain areas periodically, but to accept 10 that as the standard is not protective of 11 aquatic resources. 12 You can see dramatic sublethal effects 13 even below four milligrams per liter, if 14 there's no refuge for fish, and below three 15 milligrams per liter it can be lethal in 16 certain species of fish, certain life stages, 17 if they don't have anywhere to go. So -- 18 MR. LARSON: I concur with that. 19 MR. DYSART: Judy, do you have another 20 question? 21 MS. JENNINGS: Well, yeah, several. One 22 was what Priscilla just said. My question was 23 how could a new standard be protective of 24 biology, just basically what Priscilla said. 25 MR. LARSON: This would be coordinated 44 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 with the Coastal Resources Division and the 3 Wildlife Resources Division, the standard will 4 be, and that's another phase we still have to 5 do. So biology will be taken into account -- I 6 don't know if that was your question. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Well, it was the question. 8 You said the use wouldn't change. So you're 9 still trying to make site specific criteria fit 10 coastal fishing use standards? 11 MR. LARSON: You would not change the -- 12 the new standard would still be called, as far 13 as I can see, coastal fishing. And it might 14 provide some poundage for the dischargers, but 15 it would still be something -- be draconian, I 16 believe, in its extent. 17 So we would still have the variance 18 situation operating, but you would not change 19 the designation of the stream. Use 20 attainability, you can allow that to happen. 21 There's a scenario you get to the end, 22 like was said over there, no one could do 23 anything else. There's a potential to use 24 attainability and reclassify the stream. That 25 exists, and that's -- has to do with -- it's 45 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 almost the same language as the variance 3 language for use attainability. 4 So there are off-ramps that -- federal 5 off-ramps -- that are available if someone 6 cannot meet it and socio-economic hardship will 7 happen. 8 There's five other criteria that would 9 have to be met. So there -- I don't want to get 10 too terribly into the end stage of this, but we 11 are adopting a language for eventualities, if 12 they do come about. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Which would be another 14 point about economic liability, economic 15 hardship; are you talking about current permit 16 holders? 17 MR. LARSON: Yes. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Yes? 19 MR. LARSON: Current permit holders, 20 industrial users. 21 MS. JENNINGS: How would you judge that 22 hardship? 23 MR. LARSON: You look at -- from 24 municipals, you look at their rates, sewer 25 rates, and see if that's a problem. 46 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 We are -- part of the funding we have is 3 to get with a consultant to decide those 4 questions now, what is an economic hardship, 5 what available technology there is to use. So 6 that stuff is -- that's being vetted through 7 the funding. 8 MS. JENNINGS: The last comment, I 9 strongly reiterate John's comment about Port 10 Wentworth. I find it incomprehensible that you 11 would consider issuing -- 12 MR. LARSON: I would like to say Port 13 Wentworth, I'm not here to get into that 14 situation. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. But just the 16 statement to be made. 17 MR. LARSON: Yes. We're viewing that as 18 poundage reduction overall. 19 MS. JENNINGS: And I'm finding it hard to 20 believe how you're having any of these 21 conversations without discussion of mitigation. 22 You may -- I may have misunderstood you to say, 23 but I thought I heard you say that you were not 24 dealing with -- 25 MR. LARSON: Not right now. 47 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 3 MR. LARSON: That's a separate track. 4 That was even in the first TMDL, the draft 5 TMDL. It was taken out, so that's a separate 6 track. 7 MR. DYSART: Bob, Karen and Will. 8 MR. SCANLON: I put mine down. Go ahead. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. 10 MR. LARSON: Oh, that's what that means? 11 MR. DYSART: Go ahead. 12 MR. MICHAELS: Could you please go back to 13 the previous slide that shows the different DO 14 standard scenarios? Okay. 15 This is a repeat question. I guess I'm 16 just not understanding the answer. If we're 17 not meeting three, and we're sort of leaning 18 toward the South Carolina numbers based on the 19 numbers, they're talking about five and four; 20 how does this compute? 21 MR. LARSON: Five and four is pretty much 22 their fishing standard, I would assume. That's 23 generally fishable swimmable standards. 24 Where you have the Savannah Harbor 25 situation, and you can't meet that standard, 48 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 you're allowed whatever natural is. 3 I don't want to get into their standard 4 and exactly what it says; in essence, you're 5 allowed a .1 milligram drop below natural, not 6 the five and four, the five and four doesn't 7 apply in a low DO situation. 8 So that's the natural condition. So if 9 you are below .1 below cumulative, there is a 10 certain amount of pounds that's available to 11 discharge. 12 And that's considered background, 13 intestine, just a smidgen. Five and four would 14 not be applied. You would off-ramp to natural 15 condition. That's what we're dealing with is a 16 very low DO environment, or a low DO 17 environment, when you compare it to five and 18 four. 19 Another thing is you've got to almost back 20 the three milligram per liter out of your head. 21 We're coming up with a whole new stage of that 22 standard. It's not three. It's something 23 else, and it's to deal with the present 24 situation, with definitions and how that is to 25 be dealt with. 49 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 That's what we're struggling with on these 3 committees, how to define irretrievable, how to 4 define natural. So as I talk here, these 5 things will likely morph, but I wanted to give 6 you certain topics that we're dealing with. 7 MR. DYSART: Bob. 8 MR. SCANLON: I've been sitting here 9 biting my tongue a lot. I have more a 10 statement than a question. 11 I think one of the things that we need to 12 recognize is that we're talking about these 13 natural conditions as what actually exists, in 14 the river, today. 15 We've also been doing a lot of biological 16 studies on the river, and we do also know that 17 we have a recovering fishery -- true statement 18 -- is that -- I mean or thriving? 19 I mean, it's what we're talking about here 20 is creating a standard, which is going to be 21 protective of the river, and no matter where we 22 go it's probably going to be a standard that 23 does require tightening of permit limits for 24 dischargers. 25 Any one of the scenarios that we've looked 50 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 at is going to result in a tightening. The 3 comment was made about pollution to the river, 4 the pollution, and if you assume pollution, I'm 5 assuming that means these are point source 6 discharges coming into river, and non-point 7 source discharges coming into an river, are 8 only a small part of the deficit in this 9 particular situation. 10 A lot of them are these so-called natural 11 conditions, which are the alterations from 12 natural, the way God left it, you know, back in 13 the 1850s. 14 This rivers has been grossly changed since 15 the 1850s. So we're trying to establish 16 natural conditions around a situation which is 17 not the way God left it. So, I mean, these are 18 definitional issues. 19 We're trying to come up with a standard 20 which is one that will allow development to 21 continue along, on this coastal area, without 22 decreasing the quality or diminishing the 23 quality of the river as it exists today, and in 24 fact improving quality of the river as it 25 exists today. 51 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 I think that's the goal of all of this. 3 That's my statement. My other thing is, 4 Priscilla, to your comment; I understood that 5 the South Carolina standard of the .1 milligram 6 from natural conditions was, essentially, like 7 a site specific standard, not necessarily a 8 variance. 9 And I also understand it's extremely 10 difficult to get, and my friends in South 11 Carolina say it's actually never been used. 12 But is it, in fact, a -- I mean it's not a 13 variance that needs, necessarily, to be 14 reviewed every three to five years; I 15 understood it to be a site specific standard, 16 which would allow a discharge which would 17 result in one milligram per liter reduction 18 from the natural conditions in the waterway? 19 MS. WENDT: That's my understanding too, 20 that it's more often associated with a site 21 specific standard, but there are water bodies, 22 in South Carolina, where there is a site 23 specific standard and where that is applied. 24 They're generally swamp waters. They're 25 not coastal, open, saltwater bodies. They're 52 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 black water swamps. 3 So I don't think it's ever been applied, 4 as far as I know, in South Carolina in harbor 5 water basis. There are sort of small tributary 6 areas where you wouldn't except to see higher 7 DO. It's clearly a natural background. 8 MR. DYSART: Karen, why don't you go next? 9 MS. GRAINEY: Yeah. My question was back 10 to the biological things about the fisheries, 11 and are you going to be looking at how lowering 12 the standard, or adjusting the standard, or 13 having the site specific standard is going to 14 affect a lot of endangered species involved in 15 this like short-nose sturgeon? Are things like 16 that going to be considered? 17 MR. LARSON: Yeah. We'll be talking with 18 Coastal Resources and Wildlife Resources 19 Division on biology and their concerns. We 20 haven't to date, we will. 21 MR. DYSART: Will. 22 MR. BERSON. This is more of a statement, 23 but I may have this wrong, so please feel free 24 to correct me. 25 When we are talking about the harbor 53 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 project, the Corps and GPA are looking at 3 mitigating the additional incremental impact to 4 DO problem caused by this particular deepening, 5 but what kind of worries me is, if I understand 6 the description right, to the extent that we 7 were able to -- for example, if the DO 8 injection system were to be used, and we found 9 that in addition to mitigating the proposed 10 deepening, we could make the situation better 11 across the board and deal with previous -- the 12 effects of previous deepenings, what I kind of 13 hear you saying is that you're going to repeg 14 the standard at, essentially, a lower level and 15 call part of that area irretrievable? 16 But then, all the additional impact that 17 we're able to make, if we are able to make it 18 with a DO system, will buy us more wastewater 19 treatment upriver; so in effect we're buying 20 wastewater discharge from Augusta with what we 21 were hoping were actual, real improvements to 22 the water quality in Savannah Harbor. 23 That's sort of -- I mean, to the extent 24 that you are able to increase DO, since the 25 TMDL for the harbor is the driver, and 54 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 everything else upstream has to somehow meet 3 that, I'm concerned that you are never going to 4 realize real improvement to the water quality, 5 here in Savannah, because the amount that 6 you're able to -- the benefit that you seek 7 here will be spent by additional pounds 8 discharged upriver? 9 So that essentially the water quality will 10 stay the same, in Savannah Harbor, despite all 11 of our efforts and money spent on improvements, 12 it will, basically, be given to somebody 13 upstream so they can expand their discharge. 14 It doesn't seem like that gets us 15 anywhere, as far as improving the Savannah 16 water quality. 17 MR. LARSON: The implication of the 18 variance is not that. It's not to allow the 19 current pounds to exist. It's going to be 20 reduced to zero, pure and simple, but it might 21 be a little bit higher than zero, if a new 22 standard is adopted -- a new standard, natural 23 condition is arrived at, which might allow a 24 little bit of growth. 25 But it's not coming down at the expense of 55 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 what GPA or a deepening or mitigation would -- 3 they are really two separate tracks. 4 MR. BERSON: Good. 5 MR. DYSART: Steve. 6 MR. WILLIS: Administrative question, what 7 is UAA language? 8 MR. LARSON: Use attainability analysis. 9 MR. WILLIS: Where does that come from? 10 MR. LARSON: Feds, use attainability of a 11 stream. You have to fit six categories, in 12 order to reclassify a stream to a potential 13 lower use, but it's a methodology for that. 14 But it's extremely difficult to apply for 15 that. Not only does it go through a state 16 situation, it also goes through a federal 17 review. So you can imagine the difficulty it 18 might be. 19 MR. DYSART: Hope. 20 MS. MOORER: I just wanted to ask Jeff if 21 we could get a copy of his presentation to put 22 on the website? 23 MR. LARSON: Yes, no problem. 24 MS. MOORER: I think with the transcript 25 from the meeting, as well as the presentation, 56 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 it would be helpful, for people who weren't in 3 attendance, to be able to look back at it and 4 understand what's going on. 5 MR. LARSON: And if you want us to come 6 again to talk, when we get down to a little 7 more meat on the standard, and come up with a 8 selection, I can have one of the technical 9 people from the subcommittee come and kind of 10 brief you on what that looks like. 11 MS. MOORER: That would be good. 12 MR. LARSON: Whatever you need. 13 MS. MOORER: As well as if you have any 14 meetings coming up in the area, you can pass 15 them to us. We can post them on the website or 16 announce them at our meetings as well. 17 MR. LARSON: May 31st, I believe, will be 18 the next one for the stakeholder group or 19 stakeholders coming to listen to where we are 20 at. 21 MR. DYSART: Bill Bailey. 22 MR. BAILEY: I had one comment on 23 something Will just said. This project, we are 24 looking at DO injection systems. This project, 25 this expansion project, is looking at just 57 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 taking away the effect of further deepening. 3 MR. BERSON: Yes. 4 MR. BAILEY: So with that system, it would 5 just get us back to where we are right now, as 6 far as DO. 7 The Corps had a separate study looking at 8 making improvements, and that study is on hold 9 because we've had no non-federal sponsors to 10 finish the study. 11 MR. BERSON: That I got. I didn't get the 12 other part, but I got that. 13 MR. BAILEY: Okay. 14 MR. DYSART: Bob Scanlon. 15 MR. SCANLON: I just wanted to make 16 another comment about, you know, we've heard a 17 lot saying one of the answers is the land 18 application systems for discharge. 19 That isn't necessarily the answer. One of 20 the other things that's going on in this state 21 right now is a comprehensive statewide water 22 management plan. And if you put land 23 application systems on all the upstream 24 discharges, that means you've got less water 25 flowing down. 58 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 Believe it or not, folks, we drink 3 Augusta's wastewater. That's an important part 4 of our water supply, and that's true statewide. 5 So you can't just say okay, we'll have a 6 zero discharge TMDL. We're not going to allow 7 any discharges into a waterway. That doesn't 8 square with, you know, water management for 9 the water supply systems. 10 I mean, that volume is part of it. I mean 11 they're not -- I feel pretty very sympathetic 12 for Jeff. These are not easy questions. They 13 sound like oh well, just don't put it back. 14 Well, we all like to flush our toilets, and 15 it's an important thing. 16 We need to work through this, and I just 17 want to reiterate what I said earlier, what 18 we're looking at in coming up with a standard, 19 a standard that is achievable and attainable is 20 better than having a situation where you are 21 not meeting a standard, and you're frustrated 22 and not being able to really say to somebody, 23 this is what your target is. It's something 24 achievable, because the situation we have right 25 now is if you took all the discharges out of 59 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 this river, from Thurmond Dam to the ocean, the 3 impact that it would have on the DO problem is 4 probably just a little bit more than what would 5 be the lost in the noise of the model. 6 It's really the so-called natural 7 conditions, in this harbor, are significantly 8 greater than the combined impact of all of the 9 dischargers. 10 So, I mean, it's a very difficult thorny 11 -- I really did appreciate your first line, 12 Jeff, the bald guy, not quite as bad as you, 13 but a lot of people have been scratching their 14 heads over this issue since actually 1988 -- 15 MR. LARSON: Yeah, it started in '88 or 16 '87. 17 MR. SCANLON: -- when they came up with -- 18 it's been very, very frustrating. We're closer 19 to an answer, but we're not at an answer, and 20 it's frustrating. 21 MR. DYSART: Judy. 22 MR. SCANLON: I'll shut up again. 23 MS. JENNINGS: I find you very 24 enlightening, Bob. Jeff, you keep saying 25 harbor deepening is on a different track, and 60 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 Bill I heard you say we had a study for past 3 harbor deepening impacts, but it doesn't have a 4 sponsor in there for no money, right? 5 But Jeff, even though you say different 6 tracks, I'm assuming you mean different tracks 7 as in the harbor deepening proposal. But since 8 we have now taken, you know, an hour and a half 9 or so to talk about this at a harbor deepening 10 meeting, I'm just wondering, you know, how do 11 you guys talk about the harbor depth, when you 12 discuss it? 13 Do you just say this is what we've got and 14 this is it, or do you go back and think about 15 the study that Bill mentioned that doesn't have 16 any money? 17 MR. LARSON: I would think that whatever 18 happens with the mitigation, or the DO 19 injection situation that they're doing in the 20 summer, Georgia Ports Authority, you know, 21 might have bearing. We'll just have to see 22 what the outcome of that is. 23 Again, EPA discussed it in its first draft 24 TMDL. It was taken out of the second. It was 25 not -- 61 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MS. JENNINGS: I noticed that. 3 MR. LARSON: -- it was not a sure bet. It 4 wasn't looked on as that -- that DO panacea to 5 make up the deficit. So that's what I mean by 6 separate tracks. 7 It might be that it does inform what 8 happens, but we don't know that yet. It's not 9 looked on as an actual influence to the TMDL. 10 MS. JENNINGS: But my point is skip harbor 11 deepening, when you sit there and you talk 12 about the dischargers, and clearly some of them 13 are, you know, we -- society -- we have to have 14 them; where does current harbor depth fit in 15 your discussions? 16 MR. LARSON: It's not in our discussions 17 right now. 18 MR. DYSART: Bob. 19 MR. SCANLON: I'd like to respond to 20 Judy's question. We were -- actually, the 21 Savannah Harbor Committee and City of Savannah 22 were, in fact, the non-federal sponsor that has 23 -- really, the reason that the group decided 24 not to continue funding is exactly the TMDL, in 25 that there was a hope, as Will pointed out, 62 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 that was in fact the hope early on in the 3 process was that if we could do a joint 4 mitigation project, and it could the in fact 5 account for or accommodate the discharges and 6 allow the continued discharges, but when it 7 became very clear that that was not going to 8 happen, that the funding source for that which 9 was the hope that we could have kind of a 10 common mitigation, when that didn't look like 11 it was going to work, and everyone was going 12 to have to spend their own dollars doing their 13 own mitigation at their own site, and I'll tell 14 you having very, very little impact on the 15 actual problem in doing that, the decision was 16 made, you know, we're going to have spend our 17 dollars elsewhere. 18 That was the reason that the funding has 19 not continued, but I personally believe that's 20 still a good, viable answer is to address the 21 impact of the existing harbor, which is 22 significantly greater. 23 People will argue with the numbers. I've 24 heard numbers anywhere from three to five times 25 is the ratio of the impacts of the depth of the 63 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 harbor versus the impact of the dischargers 3 from Thurmond Dam to the ocean. 4 But by far the point source dischargers 5 are significantly smaller, their impact is 6 significantly smaller than the impact of the 7 existing harbor. I mean that natural harbor 8 out there, that river, the way God left it, 9 before we started messing with it in the early 10 1800s, it was 12 to 20 feet deep. 11 And now we've got a 42 foot deep channel, 12 which we all need. I mean, that is very, very 13 critical to the economy in this part of the 14 country. And it's important, but it's what we 15 have to deal with. 16 We're not dealing with natural conditions. 17 We're trying to come up with a standard that is 18 going to result in an improvement, in the 19 conditions that we have in the river, even 20 though numerically it's going to be lower than 21 the standard that we currently cannot meet or 22 are not meeting. It will be higher than what's 23 actually out there. 24 MR. WILLIS: When do you say you lost the 25 common mitigation funding plan or -- 64 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MR. SCANLON: When the TMDL -- it was 3 based on the participants decided if we are 4 going to have spend big bucks on their own -- 5 this was most, wasn't all, but they said, we're 6 going to have spend our dollars in our own 7 facilities. This common idea that we thought 8 we were going to be able to make work wasn't 9 going to work, they said, we're going to have 10 to put our dollars into our own facilities, 11 rather than looking at a common solution, which 12 probably could have been a better solution, and 13 I think actually resulted in a greater water 14 quality improvement, in the harbor, than what 15 you will get if we wind up with each of the 16 individual point source dischargers. 17 If they can eliminate, totally eliminate 18 all of their point source discharge, it is not 19 going have as big an impact as if we had gone 20 ahead with the restoration project. 21 MR. DYSART: Seeing no more cards up, I 22 have a brief comment, then we're going to take 23 a break. This notion of what's natural and 24 what's irretrievable, this, that and the other 25 has been around, sort of, forever. 65 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 I did my first work in the field on 3 Georgia rivers 44 years ago. It's just kind of 4 hard to believe, I just made the calculation. 5 In addition to kind of everything being 6 kind of hard to find an answer, and always 7 dead ends and so forth; I think it's worth 8 saying as an aside that the literature is full 9 of case studies where there are innovative 10 situations, incentives, net cost savings things 11 where you want to get off of dead center on 12 things. 13 And I hope those will be considered, you 14 know, not only in this project but in the whole 15 water quality management challenge that I think 16 is on the table here -- much broader than this 17 project. 18 But anyway, it's easy to feel like you're 19 kind of stuck. There's some unique approaches 20 that can be cost effective and can produce 21 results. 22 They are sometimes not -- not actively 23 pursued as much as others. Why don't we take a 24 10 minute break and come back. We appreciate 25 your presentation. We appreciate your making 66 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 it available. 3 Along with the transcript, I think this is 4 going to be very helpful to a lot of people. 5 Thank you Jeff. 6 MR. LARSON: Sure thing. 7 (Short Break) 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. If you'll have a seat, 9 please, we'll continue. As we -- okay. Why 10 don't we also -- on the record, those who came 11 in after we introduced ourselves, share with us 12 your name and your affiliation. Let's start 13 with Judy. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia 15 Sierra. 16 MS. BOWERS: Gail Bowers, League of Women 17 Voters 18 MR. DYSART: And let's see -- 19 MS. COLLINS-RAHN: Lucille Collins-Rahn, 20 Sierra Club. 21 MR. DYSART: Did you move? 22 MS. COLLINS-RAHN: There are two blondes 23 over there. 24 MR. DYSART: That's everybody -- I somehow 25 thought you were down here. Okay. Thank you 67 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 very much. Let's proceed now, the next item on 3 the agenda is the final aquifer report update. 4 Card Smith from the Corps of Engineers, and are 5 you ready, Card? 6 MR. SMITH: Yes. 7 MR. DYSART: Welcome back. It's always a 8 pleasure to have you with us. 9 MR. SMITH: It's a pleasure to be here. 10 It's been a while since we were here last, and 11 when we were here last talking about the 12 aquifer studies, we had a great discussion. I 13 really enjoyed it. 14 So it's been a few years and here we are 15 again, and hopefully we've come a ways since 16 then and we have. After about eight years of 17 not continually working on the aquifer studies, 18 but at least since we started things, so what 19 we would like to do this morning is give you an 20 update on where we are. 21 We are getting there. Believe me, we're 22 getting there. It's a good feeling after a 23 long time. A lot has gone on. What we'd like 24 to do this morning is, before we get into kind 25 of where we are at the moment, we'd like to do 68 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 a brief review of how we got here. 3 And believe me, it will only be brief, 4 because as you remember from the last time we 5 were here and talked, we went on and on and on. 6 There were a lot of great questions, and 7 we tried to explain things the best we could, 8 but this time we're going to kind of rapidly go 9 through some of the higher points of the 10 aquifer study, just to maybe retune you to the 11 aquifer study situation. 12 Maybe you missed the last presentation, 13 and at least you'll get to see some of the 14 highlights, hopefully, today, so that's where 15 we'd like to go. 16 Okay. This is our -- one of my favorite 17 old slides here just because it represents kind 18 of the total picture for the harbor deepening, 19 but yet when we look at it as a geologist, we 20 see this picture. 21 This is to us where the real interest 22 lies. Of course, what we're looking at is a 23 simple schematic of the bottom of the river, 24 and this zone we call the confining layer or 25 the miocene confining unit. 69 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 Here's the yellow -- in yellow is the 3 limestone of the Floridan Aquifer. And here is 4 a pretty important feature, of which we have 5 numerous ones in the channel called 6 paleochannels, ancient stream change that have 7 been refilled with subsequent material. 8 This is just kind of to set the stage for 9 what our aquifer studies entail. Okay. A 10 little block diagram to kind of put things in a 11 3D perspective of what we just looked at in 12 this section. 13 This is actually a block model, based on 14 actual data from our GIS studies we did as part 15 of the aquifer studies. So it may not look 16 Like it, but there's some real data in here. 17 By that I mean elevation, everything has 18 been exaggerated on the vertical, so that we 19 can get the graphics to suit our purpose. 20 All we're trying to show here, as we come 21 in down around Ft. Pulaski here, and we cut out 22 a notch out of that area in the channel, we cut 23 out a stair step notch out of that big block, 24 we're just trying to show the natural or the 25 dredge channel as it is today. 70 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 And these are the surficial materials that 3 over lie the confining layer, which in turns 4 over lies the Floridan Aquifer down here. 5 We're just trying to show the relationship 6 of some of the paleochannels, which are 7 particular evident in the Ft. Pulaski area and 8 between Ft. Pulaski and Tybee, how these 9 paleochannels, if you notch down here and if 10 you can think in 3D, use your imagination a 11 little bit, hopefully you can visualize how 12 these paleochannels pass underneath the 13 navigation channel. 14 For instance, this paleochannel here, with 15 daylight over here on the side of the model, 16 showing how it is cut down into the miocene 17 confining layer. Here's another one that's 18 taken a little bit different course. 19 Again, these are just ancient -- some of 20 these could be precursors of the ancient 21 Savannah River as it made its way to the coast 22 at different stands of sea level. 23 Okay. Very quick review of the ground 24 water situation in Savannah, how got to where 25 we are today with ground water in Savannah. In 71 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 pre-development or before pumping in Savannah, 3 pumping started about 80 or so years ago, 80 to 4 100 years ago, we started pumping in Savannah. 5 Of course, we started out fairly lightly, 6 and ever since we've increased a good bit in 7 the pumping rate, but the important thing to 8 realize is that before we started pumping in 9 Savannah, we had artesian conditions. 10 So the aquifer would yield water. When 11 you drilled into the aquifer, and we're just 12 trying to show here in a little cartoon, the 13 natural flow would come out of these wells out 14 of the aquifer, so artesian wells. 15 So anytime anywhere along here that you 16 drilled a well into the aquifer, water in that 17 well would rise to this blue line right here, 18 which is the water level or the hydrostatic 19 line in the aquifer. 20 So anytime you drill into the aquifer, 21 water rises to this level. Okay. So look, 22 water is coming out of the aquifer, going up 23 the confining unit, exiting into the river 24 channels, the ocean, anywhere it can daylight 25 out. 72 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 But in modern day conditions, where we 3 have been pumping now at a rate which today is 4 around, I think, 70 million gallons per day -- 5 at one time a few years ago it was higher. It 6 has been reduced some in the past 5 or 10 7 years, but now that we're pumping, look what 8 has happened to this hydrostatic line, whereas 9 if we drill well into the aquifer, water will 10 rise to this level, okay, as we come closer to 11 Savannah where pumping is more concentrated, 12 that cone of depression, it's kind of an 13 imaginary thing but yet anywhere you drill down 14 into the aquifer, this is approximately the 15 water now rise to in the aquifer or in the 16 well. 17 And that's because of pumping in Savannah. 18 So now instead of artesian conditions where 19 fresh water is trying to flow out of the 20 aquifer, now water is trying to come into the 21 aquifer through the confining unit. In areas 22 over laid by saltwater, it's saltwater that's 23 trying to come into the aquifer. 24 Also, we'll make note of this, this is a 25 different situation. Laterally, there is a 73 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 wedge of saltwater coming from offshore where 3 these -- where the Floridan aquifer is exposed 4 offshore, saltwater is trying to come in. 5 Where the pressure in the aquifer was 6 higher, it was holding out this saltwater wedge 7 trying come towards Savannah, but now with 8 pumping in Savannah that wedge is slowly 9 creeping its way toward Savannah, because 10 there's less pressure to hold that wedge out. 11 Okay. If you want to remember an 12 important slide, as go on through this 13 presentation, I would ask you remember this 14 one, because it is extremely important to what 15 we're going to talk about. 16 This is map or this a layout of the 17 contours in the cone of depression we just 18 mentioned. Here's the zero contour. Okay. 19 This red line is very important, because 20 everything inside that red line, every drop of 21 water inside that red line in the Floridan 22 Aquifer is headed guess where -- to Savannah. 23 Okay. It's being pulled in from 24 everywhere, if it's within zero contour. Okay. 25 So that means that within zero contour, 74 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 remember the previous little schematic where we 3 showed the saltwater trying to come in, just 4 roughly if you say that about 40 or so percent 5 within that zero contour is over lain by 6 saltwater in one fashion or another, either 7 the ocean or the rivers or the marshes, okay, 8 so that's where saltwater is trying to come 9 vertically. 10 It's being pulled vertically down towards 11 Savannah. It's first of all being pulled down 12 through the confining unit vertically, with 13 maybe a little bit of an angle toward Savannah. 14 But when it comes through that confining unit, 15 whatever miniscule amount it is that comes 16 through, when it gets in the Floridan Aquifer, 17 it's making a beeline to Savannah, almost like 18 a direct conduit to Savannah. 19 So remember this slide. We can come back 20 to it if we need to. Okay. So our focus in 21 these supplemental studies, that we began after 22 the 1998 report, we started the supplemental 23 studies to supplement that original report, 24 gather more data and do some modeling, and the 25 main focus of this supplemental effort was to 75 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 focus on the effect of dredging on the chloride 3 content of the Upper Floridan Aquifer. 4 Okay. Just to show you again the project 5 area, of course the project area starts 6 offshore here at about minus 85, and comes on 7 in station zero is about here where the jetties 8 meet the shore. Then we start increasing 9 stations all the way up to 105, 109, something 10 like that, I think all the way up to the 11 Houlihan Bridge. 12 As far as the project itself is concerned, 13 the dredging project, notice this area in 14 yellow marked out, this is an area that's 15 always been a focus for us or an area of 16 concern, because this is where the confining 17 unit has been -- is naturally thin. 18 The top of the limestone in the aquifer is 19 higher in elevation. This is also where we 20 have a concentration of these paleochannels 21 that have cut down into the confining layer. 22 This is an area we try to concentrate on 23 with more borings. Okay. Here's just a quick 24 and a simple schematic. When we talk about 25 dredging, what are we really talking about; 76 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 what are we talking about affecting; what would 3 dredging do to these geologic elements that 4 we're talking about? 5 So if we superimpose the proposed dredging 6 prism, in a typical fashion in the harbor area, 7 we have the existing river bottom here, much of 8 which is -- is miocene confining material, 9 exposed on the bottom or slightly covered on 10 the bottom. 11 Here's one of these paleochannels that 12 we've been talking about, that further thin 13 paleo -- I mean this confining unit. The old 14 paleochannels have cut through and removed the 15 confining unit in these areas and replaced them 16 with subsequent sediment, sand, silts, and even 17 some clays. 18 So what these paleochannels do, and we 19 keep harping on them and talking about them, 20 is they effectively reduce the thickness of 21 the confining layer. 22 Okay. So this is what we're talking 23 about. We're going to dredge down. We're 24 talking about removing some confining material, 25 some areas more, some areas less, depending on 77 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 where you are in the harbor. 3 We're also dealing with these 4 paleochannels, and we will be removing the tops 5 of some of these paleochannels. Some of these 6 paleochannels are up to a half mile wide. They 7 are not insignificant little features. 8 Okay. We have some key elements, in the 9 supplemental aquifer studies, that after a 10 quite involved process with the SEG Aquifer 11 Committee, and a lot of meetings, and a lot of 12 discussion, and input from South Carolina DHEC, 13 and Georgia EPD, and USGS, we arrived at some 14 elements that we felt were critical to 15 furthering our studies on the aquifer. 16 They were just briefly, we wanted to do 17 some more seismic survey to better define the 18 paleochannels areas. We knew where the 19 paleochannels were. We wanted to make sure we 20 didn't miss any paleochannels, and we wanted to 21 better define the vertical extent of some of 22 these paleochannels. 23 And if we could, we wanted to map them out 24 in 3D, just really wanted to slice and dice 25 them with seismic work -- just do the best job 78 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 we could to do that, even if it was in 3D, if 3 we could do that. 4 One of the most important elements of 5 these additional studies was additional core 6 sampling. We had already done a lot of core 7 sampling, but now we had new element of core 8 sampling, and that was porewater analysis. 9 The credit for that should really go to 10 Camille Ransom with South Carolina DHEC and Jim 11 Landmeyer with USGS. Those two guys have been 12 working with porewater sampling, and felt like 13 they could really help us out with our 14 questions on the harbor. 15 So we decided that we would go back and 16 drill some fill borings in between some we 17 already had, and do what we had not done 18 before, because it wasn't available then in 19 porewater analysis, where we simply get the 20 cores, squeeze those cores, squeeze the 21 porewater out of the cores and analyze it for 22 its chloride content, which is what we were 23 really interested in, what were chlorides 24 doing, in relation to the confine layer in the 25 aquifer due to pumping in Savannah. 79 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 Okay. In the process of all that, we also 3 created or enhanced our geographic information 4 system, which aided greatly in constructing the 5 model, in better understanding the local 6 hydrogeology. 7 We also developed a 3D ground water flow 8 and transport model. That was a big element of 9 our additional studies. And then lastly if we 10 could, we wanted to try and conduct a trial 11 pumping test on some exist wells, to determine 12 the feasibility of performing aquitard test on 13 the miocene confine unit. 14 All that means is we wanted to see, 15 generally, if you are going to run a test like 16 this, it's called a pump test. You go out and 17 put a well in. You pump the daylights out of 18 it. You monitor it, with nearby wells, how you 19 are pulling down water in that zone, just like 20 that cone of depression I showed you earlier. 21 If you pump that well enough, it will 22 start to affect the surrounding geology and 23 hydrogeology, and that ground water, and it 24 will respond to the pumping. 25 Well, we had the modelers run like a 80 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 virtual pump test, in the model that we were 3 running, and it was determined that to do a 4 meaningful pump test, in the real world, go out 5 and drill a well, or put in some nearby monitor 6 wells or check wells, we would have to pump the 7 Floridan Aquifer for about three months at 8 1,000 gallons per minute. And then we would 9 only affect water in the confining unit maybe 10 one or two inches. That's what the model was 11 saying. 12 It doesn't mean that the model was 13 perfectly right, but it gave us an idea about 14 what a pumping test or aquitard test would do. 15 So we decided to forego the trial pumping 16 test, because we felt like it was too involved 17 to do that, and we would also, for one thing, 18 pump a tremendous amount of ground water that 19 would have been wasted. 20 Okay. So to kind of summarize all the 21 elements in the supplemental aquifer studies, 22 we took all these different elements and fed 23 them into one our end goals which was our 24 model. 25 We used our seismic data to better refine 81 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 the layering in the model. We used our 3 porewater date and additional core samplings to 4 better refine the model, as well as give the 5 model some real data to plug in and use; not 6 what if data but some real data as it is out 7 there now -- at least as it was, when we 8 collected this data, several years ago, and 9 then to also use our GIS to help us, as I said, 10 better understand the geologic layering or 11 stratigraphy in the harbor area, and use that 12 to enhance the model. 13 Okay. Now, I'm not going to dwell on 14 this, believe me, but this is just a quick shot 15 of all of these porewater borings that we did 16 along the harbor here. You can see we 17 concentrated in this area we said was an area 18 of concern. 19 Notice that some of these borings are in 20 paleochannels, and some of them are in between 21 paleochannels. Okay. I'm going to zoom in 22 here and the red lines indicate the chlorides 23 that were detected from porewater samples in 24 those borings. This red line goes with this 25 boring. 82 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 In fact, let me enhance that one time. 3 Okay. So here we are. This is just offshore 4 at Tybee, to put you in perspective, in the 5 navigation channel or right next to the 6 navigation channel. And this is about where 7 Fields Cut is. That's the distance. This is a 8 large distance that we're covering here. 9 So the density of data in here is not as 10 dense as it might appear in this slide, because 11 there's a good spacing in between here. But 12 one of the key things we learned, for instance, 13 this curve right here goes with this boring in 14 the paleochannel. 15 There's our paleochannel. We drew a line 16 down through it. About every 5 or 10 feet, we 17 pull out a sample. We squeezed it and checked 18 it for chlorides. 19 Well, here we are at the start of about 20 14,000 parts per million chlorides, and then we 21 start coming back within the paleochannel. 22 Look what happens. It peaks out in the 23 paleochannel, and at the bottom of the 24 paleochannel, the chloride data shot out. 25 And then as got below the paleochannel, it 83 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 started coming back more and more. This is a 3 consistent theme in the paleochannel area. 4 Sometimes you get a good spike, sometimes not 5 so much comes on down till we get to the bottom 6 of the paleochannel. Then the chlorides really 7 start producing. 8 Well, so what? Why is that so important? 9 Okay. It's important because we wanted that 10 data to plug into the model. We needed some, 11 as I said before, some real data. 12 Let me say right here, this model I'm 13 about to speak about for a second here was not 14 the ultimate, end goal of all the work we were 15 doing. 16 It was, from the beginning, intended to be 17 a tool to help us better understand the 18 hydrogeology, and what was going due to pumping 19 in Savannah, and also what might happen if we 20 dredge the harbor; what would the effects be 21 from dredging? 22 Okay. So we plugged the data in, the real 23 data from the porewater data that we had, and 24 we used that in the model. The first thing we 25 did, with the model, was to see if the model 84 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 could replicate where we stand today. 3 If you take that porewater data and plug 4 it into model or let me back up. If you take 5 the saltwater conditions, in the harbor itself 6 in the river, and you plug that into the model, 7 can that model replicate where we are today, 8 because of pumping that's gone on for 80 or so 9 years? 10 The model did a good job. It didn't do a 11 perfect job, but it did a good job of showing 12 us it could replicate very well through 80 or 13 so years. 14 If you started with certain salinity in 15 the river, and you started pumping at the 16 pumping rate, the actual pumping rates that we 17 used, as near as historical records could show 18 us, we didn't just plug in one number and pump 19 that rate the whole time. 20 We started out low, and we built up higher 21 and higher and higher, to make the model 22 realistic. The model did a good job of 23 replicating the actual porewater values that we 24 receive from chlorides. 25 So we knew that we had something that was 85 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 worthwhile. Okay. So at that point we took 3 that and ran the model forward 200 years. 4 Okay. So what happens if we that model, with 5 some of that real data, and run forward 200 6 years? 7 All right. What we wanted to do was run 8 that model 200 years with no dredging, and run 9 again run it forward with dredging. What we 10 ended up with you, from where you are sitting, 11 will not be able to tell any difference from 12 these dredging and no dredging situations. 13 If you got up real close, you could see 14 some minor distinctions and differences, but 15 basically what the model showed us is that 16 between dredging and no dredging, there is some 17 effect but not much. 18 We have not said and we would never say 19 there is no effect from dredging. If you go 20 out and you remove a fraction of an inch, from 21 the bottom of the harbor from dredging, you 22 have changed the hydrologic situation. You are 23 going to enhance the chlorides coming down, but 24 how much? That's the question. 25 Okay. So to conclude all of this work, we 86 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 got a lot good information from the -- from the 3 additional seismic surveying that we did. It 4 helped us define the paleochannels much better 5 than had ever been done before. 6 We talked about the core sampling, the 7 porewater analysis, and how valuable that data 8 was. It also reiterated to us -- we didn't 9 really need it reiterated to us, because it was 10 always -- was already common knowledge that 11 pumping in Savannah has created a cone of 12 depression. 13 That is changing the ground water regime 14 around Savannah, it is certainly now we know, 15 as well as from work others have done, that 16 that cone of depression in Savannah is pulling 17 saltwater through the confining unit down into 18 the aquifer. 19 We -- we suspected, knew it almost had to 20 be happening, but now we have actual data that 21 it is happening, not just from a model, real 22 data that says that is what is happening. And 23 the ground water model indicates there would 24 be, as I said, an increase in flow of saline 25 water or chlorides due to dredging, but it 87 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 would be a minor increase. 3 Now, to give you an idea of what I mean 4 by a minor increase, if -- when we plug in the 5 model, this model -- I'm going to speak a 6 little more on the model in a minute when we 7 get to peer review. 8 But we plugged in this model. The model 9 indicated that the total flow, from the river, 10 the total downward contribution from the 11 Savannah River, within the area of this project 12 to the aquifer, to the Floridan Aquifer, 13 according to the model ranges from about 50 to 14 250 gallons per minute. 15 We're not talking about a little specific 16 area. We're talking about the whole channel. 17 Okay. It's kind of mindboggling to me. When I 18 think about it, I would have thought it would 19 have been more contribution than that, but this 20 is what the model says. 21 Okay. Does that mean if we used a 22 different model, and plugged in some of the 23 same numbers we used, we wouldn't come up 24 something different? No. We would probably 25 come up with something different, because the 88 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 models aren't all going to agree with each 3 other. 4 But the feeling is that if you use 5 a different model, you might have 500 gallons a 6 minute, okay, but it is still a minor 7 percentage of the total water from pumping. 8 By that what I mean is here's pumping in 9 Savannah. In the Savannah area, the 10 contribution from the Floridan Aquifer, if you 11 say -- what did we say, Mackie, what pumping 12 rate? 13 MS. McINTOSH: 75 is average. 14 MR. SMITH: Okay, about 75 million gallons 15 per day, the contribution from the Upper 16 Floridan Aquifer is about 52,000 gallons per 17 minute. Okay. So think about it. 18 Every minute in Savannah, in the whole 19 area within that cone of depression, if you are 20 pumping at around 75 million gallons per day, 21 you are pulling in about 52,000 -- just say 22 50,000 gallons per minute from the Floridan 23 Aquifer. 24 Okay. So what I'm getting at is if -- if 25 as our model says, if the difference -- our 89 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 model said 27 gallons a minute increase if you 3 dredge. It might be 20 or it might be 30. 4 We're not hanging our hat on these numbers 5 right here, but what we are hanging our hat on 6 is that we got a range, or a good feeling for 7 the contribution of what the river itself is 8 contributing to the situation, within the cone 9 of depression in Savannah. 10 Why do we keep harping on that? The 11 reason is there are undoubtedly things going 12 on, in the cone of depression, that are outside 13 the river channel. 14 We are not denying that, but our mandate 15 from the beginning was to try to determine only 16 what the river was contributing, and only what 17 dredging would affect. 18 Okay. So let's get into peer review, the 19 process that we've been in for a while here. 20 We started with an independence technical 21 review, and this was -- you see a couple of 22 corps of Engineers designations here. 23 These two guys were actually at the Corps 24 of Engineers' hydrologic Engineering Center in 25 Davis, California which has, traditionally, 90 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 done a lot of good work and reviews for the 3 Corps of Engineers' projects. 4 So these guys are without doubt considered 5 internal. Okay. But you notice some other 6 names here, John Clarke with USGS, Jim 7 landmeyer with USGS, Bill McLemore, who was a 8 past state geologist for Georgia, and Camille 9 Ransom of South Carolina DHEC. These folks 10 reviewed our report, for mainly just technical 11 content, to make sure that we hadn't left out 12 anything drastically, and we were generally 13 headed in the right direction. 14 I should also point that these four folks 15 participated in meetings with us, from time to 16 time, to also help make sure we weren't 17 operating in a black box. 18 They offered suggestions, let us bounce 19 ideas off of them, that we were doing the right 20 things in our studies. 21 These guys participated in several 22 meetings. So we completed this independent 23 technical review, and then we moved on to the 24 external peer review. And if you have 25 participated in SEG for a while, you know that 91 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 we went through a process whereby we had names 3 nominated for these reviewers. 4 These are folks that had nothing to do 5 with the Corps of Engineers. They had nothing 6 to do with project. They are totally 7 independent reviewers. 8 One of them was recommended by the USGS. 9 Another one was this Dr. Burbey recommended by 10 the Aquifer Committee. Chris Schuberth worked 11 on this. One professor, one academic, I 12 believe from Arizona State was recommended to 13 begin with. He couldn't do it, so we went back 14 to Chris asked him to try to find another 15 person which he did. That's where we got 16 Dr. Burbey from Virginia Tech, and also Larry 17 Hayes, who is retired USGS, now a private 18 consultant. These are the three external peer 19 reviewers. 20 Okay. Just to again highlight what our 21 independent technical review -- we actually had 22 kind of two simultaneous reviews going on. We 23 had the hydrologic engineering center reviewing 24 and also had the cooperating agencies that we 25 saw while ago, Georgia EPD and South Carolina 92 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 DHEC and USGS. 3 As I said, they reviewed the technical 4 approach and methodology. Whenever they made 5 suggestions or revisions, we tried to 6 incorporate those. 7 Okay. External peer review, the external 8 peer review, for the aquifer study, the 9 management and the documentation of that 10 external peer review is being done by the 11 Corps' National Deep Draft Planning Center of 12 Expertise, which is actually in Mobile 13 District, okay, hereafter referred to as 14 DDNPCX. Okay. These -- as I mentioned these 15 three independent ground water technical 16 experts had no previous affiliation with the 17 Corps. As far as I know, they had no 18 affiliation with any other Corps project. 19 I wouldn't guarantee that, but I think 20 that's correct. A charge was provided to those 21 reviewers. You might say what does that mean? 22 In the center or in the terms of a review like 23 this, when you ask for technical experts to 24 review a document, you give them a charge which 25 has some specific questions in that charge 93 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 about this is what we would like you to answer. 3 A couple of those things were do you feel 4 -- I think there were six -- six charges. A 5 couple of them were do you feel like there are 6 any major omissions from this report? 7 Do you feel like there are -- is there any 8 academic work or studies, that were not 9 referenced or included in this work, that you 10 feel like should be included? What was another 11 one, Mackie? 12 MS. McINTOSH: Is there documentation 13 appropriate to support the conclusions of the 14 report? 15 MR. SMITH: In other words, do you feel 16 like the report has enough to document the 17 conclusions that we have in the report? Okay. 18 so then, the CX, forwarded that external 19 peer review -- forwarded the external peer 20 review comments -- let me back up. 21 The reviewers did their thing, generated 22 extensive comments, and supplied those back to 23 the CX. The CX, in turn, sent those back to 24 us. 25 Again, the CX is meant to be an 94 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 intermediary to keep us out of the peer review 3 process, totally out of it. No discussion -- 4 we have no discussion with the peer reviewers, 5 no linkage with them at all. 6 Okay. We responded to these comments from 7 the three peer reviewers. And we -- we 8 responded to every single comment. Mackie, 9 bless her heart, did, and it took a lot of work 10 because believe me, you cannot imagine how in 11 the weeds some of these comments got. 12 If you go to the project website and go to 13 these technical peer review, which was more 14 like the internal peer review, you will get a 15 favor of what those comments are like. They're 16 in there on a spreadsheet Mackie created. 17 She did the same thing with the external 18 comments, but they were quite detailed. So we 19 had to decide how we were going to handle these 20 comments. 21 In other words, we're certainly going to 22 respond to these comments, but how are we going 23 to reflect these comments in the final report? 24 Well, it was better for us to make some 25 revisions, where we could in the main report, 95 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 but there were some things that the reviewers 3 commented on that were just too large. 4 In other words, they wanted more data, 5 some more model runs, and you can imagine 6 trying to go back revise the report for that. 7 So instead of doing that, we put those in 8 an appendix, in the back of the report, to 9 cover those. 10 Then also, we created a general response. 11 We answered a lot of individual comments, 12 comment by comment, comment response, comment 13 response in detail. 14 But there were some, what we've been 15 calling for lack of a better term, some 16 recurring themes and general themes across 17 those comments that we felt were better 18 addressed in what we're calling a general 19 response. 20 That's just several stand-alone pages at 21 the beginning of -- of this appendix -- yeah, 22 the beginning of this peer review appendix. 23 It goes into a little more detail on the 24 history of how we got to where we were with all 25 the Aquifer Committee meetings, and the back 96 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 and forth to try to make the studies better. 3 We talked about modeling. We talked about 4 2D modeling. We talked about 3D modeling, but 5 just kind of how we got there to give the 6 reviewers -- the reviewers thought our approach 7 to modeling was maybe a little unorthodox. 8 Okay. So we wanted to explain why we 9 choose the method for modeling we did. I'll 10 get into that in one second. 11 Okay. As I said, we addressed the 12 comments with these recurring or somewhat 13 overlapping themes in our general response. 14 Okay. And then we returned our response 15 to the CX to be returned to the reviewers. 16 Okay. But first I want to hit on some of these 17 recurring or overlapping things from the 18 reviewers. 19 When you have a model, whether it's a 20 ground water, surface model, surface water 21 model or whatever; believe me, if you don't 22 already know you will know before all these 23 studies are over that they are ripe for 24 comment. 25 Everybody has his idea of exactly how a 97 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 model should be set up and run. Okay. Some of 3 the concern over our model was that we -- it 4 wasn't detailed enough in some respects. Well, 5 as we explained in our responses, our model was 6 never intended to be that detailed. 7 It was meant to be used as a tool for us 8 to plug in some extreme values, and get a feel 9 for just what was going on with how did pumping 10 in Savannah affect the studies, how did the 11 thickness of the miocene confining unit affect 12 the studies, how did salinity affect the 13 studies? 14 So we tried to do a good job of explaining 15 all that, filling in the background of a lot of 16 that information back to the reviewers. 17 Okay. One of the things that kept 18 cropping up from reviewers was why did we use 19 a regional domain? What does that mean? It 20 means why did we use, instead of zeroing in our 21 model and creating all new data in only the 22 savannah area, why did we start out using a 23 regional USGS model. 24 We did because it was already existing. A 25 lot of time and money had been spent on it. It 98 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 was calibrated. It was approved. It had been 3 through a USGS peer review process which was 4 very extensive. So it was a good place for us 5 to start. 6 So it doesn't mean that we used -- that 7 model was -- their flow model was a MOD flow 8 model. That's a particular type of flow model. 9 And our modelers used a similar model, but a 10 different model. 11 So they plugged in all of our data. Lo 12 and behold their model did a very good job of 13 replicating the USGS model. 14 The main thing we were looking for was 15 could our new model replicate draw down? You 16 say we're pumping at certain rates, does the 17 new model show the same rates, does the new 18 model show the same sort of draw down contours 19 around Savannah that the USGS model did? 20 And it did very well. So we knew then 21 that we had a good model. We had something 22 worth using. 23 Okay. They further commented they would 24 have rather seen us go through more rigorous 25 calibration in our model. What does that mean, 99 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 what is calibration? 3 Calibration is when you take actual field 4 data, not what I theorize is going on, but I 5 take real data, water level and salinity data, 6 and plug those things into the model and see 7 how the model behaves with those. 8 Can you then match those real world 9 things? Can the model then match those real 10 world things to, you know, to in the model? 11 Can the model make it appear like what you are 12 seeing now? 13 Okay. Well, for the most part, as I said 14 as far as the flow model -- what you need to 15 understand is there are two models. Basically, 16 it was a flow model and a solute transport 17 model. 18 All the solute transport model did was 19 after you work out the flow model, and you show 20 that you've got the right flows, you plug in 21 the saltwater and see where it goes. 22 Okay. All right. So in our mind the flow 23 model was just -- you know, might as well -- as 24 far as we were concerned, we didn't calibrate 25 it. USGS calibrated it. Ours matched theirs 100 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 very well. 3 Okay. The chosen value for hydraulic 4 conductivity was K V that we plugged into our 5 model. All that means is how fast does water 6 come down through the confining layer. 7 That was always the concern. It was 8 always the greatest discussion, is nobody 9 really knew, and still nobody really knows an 10 exact value for how fast due, to pumping in 11 Savannah, that is water flowing down through 12 the confining layer. 13 Okay. What we did with our model was we 14 bracketed some values. We took mid -- we took 15 low, mid, and high values, plugged those into 16 the model, and we looked at the model response. 17 We said, even though we don't know exactly 18 what the value is, we can put it within this 19 bracket. Well, in some models that may not be 20 enough, but in our model we felt that it was 21 enough, because from one extreme, the high to 22 the low, it showed that -- if you want to say 23 it's anywhere between the high and low, the 24 value that we used was reasonable. 25 It made the model operate correctly. It 101 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 made saltwater penetrate the confining unit, 3 very much like the data we collected from 4 porewater values showed. 5 Okay. And another concern they had was 6 why did you only consider chloride from the 7 river itself, why did you not go out and use 8 chlorides from the surrounding area? 9 Well, that is a very legitimate question, 10 and it is certainly going on, but if we had 11 done that, and our purpose in the beginning, 12 as I said, was to only concentrate on the 13 channel, if we had gone outside, that outside 14 influence from chlorides may have and 15 undoubtedly would have masked any influence 16 from dredging. 17 If we had gone in and used all the 18 surrounding data outside the channel, and 19 looked at what chlorides were doing, it was 20 hard enough to see any influence in chlorides 21 the way did it, but if we had considered 22 everything, we probably would never have been 23 able to see any change between dredging and no 24 dredging. 25 We focused only along the river, and we 102 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 used our chloride source as only the river. In 3 our response we tried to explain that to the 4 reviewers. 5 Okay. And this is -- we've already seen 6 this one before, but it's just to reiterate. 7 The main point we put this in here for was to 8 show you again this, the model results as you 9 step through time is only based on a source of 10 saltwater from the river. 11 If you had all these other sources out 12 here, you can use your imagination and think 13 about what this would look like. It certainly 14 wouldn't look like a snake going down the 15 river, would it? Might be more of a front 16 coming towards Savannah. 17 Okay. So where are we? The CX is still 18 documenting and leading the peer review 19 process. Our quite lengthy response was given 20 back to the reviewers for feedback. And as of 21 today, we do not have any feedback from those 22 reviewers on our response. 23 Okay. So where will this go from here, as 24 far as comments back from reviewers? If -- if 25 we get comments back from reviewers that just 103 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 -- let me back up a second. To make a summary 3 of the review comments, we feel like, in total, 4 the external peer review comments do not -- 5 they do not disagree with the overall judgment 6 or conclusion that we've made on the project, 7 as far as the effect of dredging on the 8 aquifer. 9 In other words, the bottom line, the 10 reviewers seem to feel that we were on the 11 right track. What did -- what they did also 12 feel was that we might could have enhanced the 13 way we went about that. 14 Of course, that was mostly do to modeling, 15 but we might have enhanced it at the cost of 16 several more years and a lot more dollars also, 17 which we didn't feel like were necessary. 18 But again, the bottom line from the 19 reviewers comments -- in other words, we didn't 20 have anybody that just said you guys are just 21 totally off base. You've blown it. You've 22 missed it. 23 Okay. So -- but in the event that we had 24 a situation like that, what if it went back to 25 the reviewers and the reviewers just 104 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 dramatically disagreed with some significant 3 part of the studies that we've done? 4 Well, it's not going to be a situation, at 5 least as far as we know now, where we would 6 just keep going back and forth with the 7 reviewers. We would -- the CX would document 8 the -- any disagreement or rebuttal that those 9 reviewers would have. 10 And then the functional technical chief, 11 and that means for Mackie and I the chief of 12 engineering division in Savannah, and possibly 13 the chief of engineering division in the 14 Wilmington District, now because of the 15 relationship we have with those folks, would 16 make an ultimate division on our response or 17 our end conclusions in our report. 18 So where we are right now is we are -- 19 Mackie is working on assembling the final 20 report, and we are, hopefully, at the end of 21 the game or very close to it. That's it. 22 So -- 23 MR. DYSART: Thank you very much. 24 MR. SMITH: Any questions? I'll be glad 25 to -- 105 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MR. DYSART: Steve. 3 MR. WILLIS: Maybe you answered this 4 earlier, but does the -- is there saline 5 intrusion underneath the confining layer, as 6 you go on the continental shelf? 7 MR. SMITH: There is. There is. The 8 Floridan Aquifer limestones daylights out 9 there, so to speak, out there along the 10 continental shelf where there is drastic change 11 in elevation. Those somewhat horizontal beds, 12 although they're dipping somewhat towards the 13 coast all the time, they daylight or are 14 exposed out there. 15 So that's where saltwater is entering the 16 aquifer. It may also be entering the aquifer 17 in areas where the confining material has been 18 totally removed. 19 We know there are some areas offshore 20 where the confining unit is totally missing due 21 to scouring or removal from different reasons. 22 MR. WILLIS: Human reasons? 23 MR. SMITH: No, natural. 24 MR. WILLIS: Natural? 25 MR. SMITH: Right. 106 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MR. WILLIS: And that wedge intrusion, how 3 far does go, is it moving? 4 MR. SMITH: Well, USGS has done studies on 5 that. Mackie, do you remember how far they 6 have -- 7 MS. McINTOSH: No. 8 MR. SMITH: Let me say, the problem with 9 that is you need a lot of offshore data in the 10 aquifer to map out that wedge as it's coming. 11 I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying this, 12 even though my slide may have indicated 13 otherwise, that that wedge has not come 14 onshore. 15 It's offshore somewhere, and we've done 16 some work, with USGS and other state agencies, 17 some interesting work. That work will 18 determine where that wedge was. There is a 19 very good report out, right now, that I'll be 20 glad to give you more information on. That 21 discusses where that wedge is. 22 You have to drill down 500 feet or so 23 before you start encountering that wedge. so 24 that wedge has not come ashore, but we keep 25 pumping, it will come as ashore. 107 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MR. WILLIS: It is moving because of 3 pumping? 4 MR. SMITH: It is moving. The work that 5 was done offshore, as far as I know, that USGS 6 and the state did, I don't think is enough 7 information to say at what rate it was moving. 8 It was just to really define a point that 9 it has reached underneath the ocean, or 10 underneath the confining unit, in the aquifer, 11 as comes toward Savannah. 12 Let me say this, that's really not -- what 13 we learned now, what we did in this work, what 14 the State of South Carolina, DHEC and Camille 15 Ransom, and Jim Landmeyer with USGS, we don't 16 feel that that wedge coming this way is -- it's 17 a problem, but it's not the problem that we 18 should be concerned about. 19 We feel that a more imminent concern is 20 this vertical thing that's happening. Okay. 21 So -- and there are folks that might disagree 22 with that. 23 MR. WILLIS: Two more quick things, maybe 24 not so quick. Was there any consideration, or 25 do you know of any effect of pumping from other 108 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 significant cities, that are upland in the 3 aquifer pumping out of the aquifer, or if the 4 overall pumping has changed like at the point 5 of entrapment, the level that is going down 6 there? 7 MR. SMITH: The answer is yes, and I vowed 8 I wouldn't get into this at this presentation. 9 But no really, as I'm sure most people in this 10 room are aware, South Carolina and Georgia are 11 trying to work together now on the effects of 12 pumping from Savannah on Hilton Head. 13 There does seem to be some disagreement 14 about how much effect one or the other is 15 having on the condition. 16 But even -- even beyond -- for instance, I 17 think maybe this might apply to what you are 18 saying, within the general Savannah area, if 19 you go over to Jesup where there is a large 20 paper mill, you will see a distinct cone of 21 depression there. 22 USGS has documented that cone of 23 depression. So wherever you have large 24 centers of pumping, there are cones of 25 depression. They don't overlap with Savannah's 109 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 cone of depression. 3 When they start overlapping, that's when 4 you have a problem. I mean, you can have a 5 problem otherwise, but you would rather not see 6 them overlap. 7 But the concern about Savannah and what's 8 going on over around Hilton Head is how those 9 two cones of depression have interacted with 10 each other, and what is the influence of one on 11 the other. Okay. Does that answer your 12 question? 13 MR. WILLIS: That's getting there. It's 14 obviously a complicated thing. The final thing 15 is, I know that you've probably been over this 16 a million times, just one more time. 17 There was concern when the river was 18 dredged down to 42 feet, a lot of concern 19 about the possibility of rupturing the aquifer 20 or the confining layer. Was that considered in 21 this; do you consider that to be a problem? 22 MR. SMITH: It is definitely considered, 23 and the reason that we try to go to such great 24 lengths with a lot of seismic material, we did 25 a lot of borings, but you can never have enough 110 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 borings. 3 Borings are horribly expensive to do. 4 Seismic work is miniscule in cost, but you need 5 them together to compare one against the other. 6 The reason we did so much seismic work was to 7 determine had we missed any areas, any possible 8 areas, where the confining unit was completely 9 missing underneath the river? 10 In other words, where it has been scoured 11 out by paleochannel -- remember, the 12 paleochannel is not a void channel. It has now 13 been filled, through thousands and thousands 14 of years, with other sediments that filled back 15 in that paleochannel. 16 They have some impermeability on their 17 own. It's not like, you know, we have the 18 impression, from some of the earlier talks and 19 report that we did, some folks thought if you 20 went out and you dredged the harbor, you cut 21 the top off of one of these paleochannels, it 22 would be pulling the drain out of the bathtub. 23 Saltwater would come pouring in, but 24 that's not the case at all. It wouldn't even 25 be the case if there were no confining 111 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 material, because in Port Royal Sound in South 3 Carolina that is exactly the case. 4 There is very little to no confining 5 material, in a large area over there, and 6 saltwater is coming in, directly into the 7 aquifer over there. 8 But to answer your question, in all the 9 work we've done, we have found no place that 10 the confining material was totally removed by 11 paleochannel. 12 We have found an area out near -- within 13 the jetties, I think, that there is according 14 to the drilling and the seismic work we've 15 done, there is less than 30 feet of confining 16 material. 17 It doesn't mean what else is in this -- 18 it's because of the deep paleochannel cut. 19 Well, that paleochannel, thousands of years ago 20 cut down and removed confining material. 21 But as I said and I keep saying, it's been 22 filled with material again. So it doesn't mean 23 there is only 30 feet between saltwater and the 24 aquifer. It means there is only 30 feet of 25 really impermeable material from the aquifer. 112 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 Okay. So in answer to your question, we 3 have found nowhere in the river -- there has 4 been a lot of work done in the river, offshore 5 seismic work, that shows out between Hilton 6 Head Island and the end of Tybee, five or so -- 7 5 or 8 miles offshore, where these ancient 8 rivers came together out there one time, they 9 did a lot of scouring. 10 The seismic data shows that the confining 11 material out there is almost completely 12 removed, if not totally removed, in a fairly 13 large area. 14 The reason those are a concern is those 15 are the places where saltwater is going to 16 enter, it has entered, and it is entering as we 17 speak as it comes toward Savannah. 18 Remember that zero contour I showed you, 19 some of these areas that I'm talking about are 20 within that zero contour. Any saltwater that 21 comes in those things is headed this way. 22 But again, we're not talking about a rate 23 that once that saltwater comes in, 10 days it's 24 in Savannah. We're talking about the different 25 models people have done, and showed, you know, 113 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 before things. 3 Like our model showed saltwater in the 4 aquifer or chlorides in the aquifer coming down 5 the river towards Savannah 50 years, 100 years, 6 200 years; you can see how they do change. 7 This is not a fast thing we're talking 8 about. But if you were to increase pumping, 9 you're going to increase the rate. Dredging 10 the harbor is going to increase the rate 11 slightly. 12 Pumping, you know, if we don't get 13 anything else across, everybody needs to 14 understand that pumping is driving force. 15 Pumping is what it makes it all -- that's what 16 going on down there. 17 Pumping is pulling everything -- it's 18 almost an unbelievable effect that it has on 19 ground water pulling through there toward 20 Savannah. It may be slow and tortuous, but it 21 has an effect on every bit of water that comes 22 into that zero contour. So -- 23 MR. DYSART: Judy Jennings and then Will. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Card, you talked about the 25 reviewers. One of the recurring themes was why 114 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 consider the navigation area only. 3 Your answer made sense to me, that it 4 would have masked the influence of dredging, 5 but why did -- why was it so important to them? 6 MR. SMITH: Mackie. 7 MS. McINTOSH: I'll say -- yeah, this is 8 where it kind of helps. I'm a relative 9 newcomer to the studies. I've only been 10 working on it for four years. 11 The reviewers, rightfully so, they kept 12 getting, you know, they see this miniscule 13 effect from dredging. 14 We're talking about if the extension cord 15 is the river, the cone of depression goes all 16 the way around that, why are y'all focusing 17 on something that seems so small, when you look 18 at the pig picture and problems in Savannah. 19 However, the history of the aquifer 20 studies, we knew our intent from the outset was 21 to somehow isolate the effects of dredging. 22 Even though we felt these effects were going to 23 be relatively small, superimposed on the large 24 cone, it's going to be very hard to discern 25 them from the entire big picture, that was our 115 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 entire objective, just to isolate the effect of 3 dredging which we did. 4 The reviewers, however, they see it -- I 5 think they understood our objective, but at the 6 same time, so what. There's this huge regional 7 picture going on, and we don't understand why 8 you didn't model the rest of the source area to 9 see -- to see how the hydraulic conductivity 10 would be affected by that. 11 I think in doing that, like you said, the 12 increase of 2 to 7 gallons per minute, if you 13 can imagine you're finally able to discern that 14 relative to 56,000 gallons per minute, but 15 imagine modeling the entire source area outside 16 of that, and then try to see 2 to 7 gallons per 17 minute, and you just wouldn't see it. 18 It would just completely be lost in the -- 19 in the cone. That was the only way we could 20 isolate the effects of dredging. 21 MR. DYSART: Will. 22 MR. BERSON: I apologize for my lack of 23 map skills. 24 MR. SMITH: Probably poor maps. 25 MR. BERSON: No. I was just curious 116 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 upstream, where does the zero contour hit? 3 MR. SMITH: Let's go back. Okay. Now, 4 this is in 2000, okay, at the pumping rate that 5 led up to the year 2000, this is where -- look 6 where zero is up here. 7 I wish we had the counties on here. See 8 zero up here, way up here. Look here though. 9 You know, here's one thing I like to consider, 10 and that is our area of concern within the 11 channel. 12 We are somewhere between minus 40 and 13 minus 30. So that's, you know, we're well in 14 the cone, and well within influence. Of 15 course, as you come out of here, as I'm sure 16 you understand, as you come out to the edge 17 there's less and less pull. 18 As come towards Savannah, the closer you 19 get to Savannah, it may be from this direction, 20 this direction, or wherever; the closer you get 21 to Savannah, the stronger the pull is and the 22 more draw down. 23 At one time, if I remember right, the draw 24 down in Savannah was as much as 130 feet below 25 natural or the artesian condition. 117 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MR. BERSON: Would you -- because it's 3 such a small -- I mean if it were larger, I 4 know 7 to 10 gallons is small in the overall 5 scheme, if it were much larger, would you 6 expect to see the zero contour move outward 7 further? Is that one of the results? I know 8 this is -- 9 MR. SMITH: If what were much larger? 10 MR. BERSON: I appreciate the 7 to 10 11 additional gallons is relatively small, but it 12 is analogous to more pumping in a sense, isn't 13 it? So -- 14 MR. SMITH: It is directly and exactly 15 related to pumping. Okay. 16 MR. BERSON: So you would expect, just for 17 the sake of simplifying, the more pumping you 18 do the further out the zero? 19 MR. SMITH: Cone's going to expand, it has 20 to have content, a supply of water. That's 21 exactly right. If you -- and the opposite 22 point is extremely important. 23 If you decrease pumping, zero comes in 24 more and more. And so it has less chance or 25 less desire to pull in saltwater. I mean, if 118 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 you could run zero contour in here somewhere, 3 which it's not going to happen. 4 MR. BERSON: I'm not holding my breath 5 either. 6 MR. SMITH: That's it exactly. The 7 pumping is the driving force, you know, pumping 8 -- if you decrease or increase pumping, you 9 literally change this -- this zero contour. 10 MR. BERSON: Are we talking Effingham, 11 Screven, I mean where on that is -- 12 MR. BAILEY: Effingham. 13 MR. SMITH: At least Effingham. 14 MR. SCANLON: Roughly 119, it's basically 15 that's where the number comes from. 16 MR. GARRETT: On the Ogeechee there was an 17 artesian well. It was right there, right 18 through that line. 19 MR. SMITH: I've heard there was good ones 20 up there. There are some artesian wells on the 21 coast of Georgia -- not in Savannah though. In 22 Savannah, 80 or so years ago, water would rise 23 30 to 40 feet above ground level. 24 If you went into the aquifer, before we 25 started pumping, natural flow, didn't have to 119 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 have a pump or anything. You put the pipe down 3 and it would come out of there like a gusher. 4 Because of pumping, instead of 30 to 40 5 feet above, we're kind of in the middle of the 6 cone, 30 to 40 feet below ground surface. 7 MS. McINTOSH: We have -- this is the same 8 figure that's there's. It's got the county 9 lines on it. I'm looking at the zero contour. 10 You can see where it comes through -- what is 11 that? 12 MR. BAILEY: Looks like from another map 13 I've got, it's somewhere 6 to 9 miles upstream 14 of 95 -- 95 bridge. 15 MR. SCANLON: It's roughly -- basically, 16 the reason for in the water plan Highway 119 17 through Effingham about splits Effingham 18 County. That is the basis for the red zone in 19 the water plant is -- corresponds with that 20 line. 21 MR. BERSON: Sorry to take up your time on 22 how to read a map. Sometimes it's good to 23 know. 24 MR. DYSART: John Robinette. I thought it 25 was important to get the location in the 120 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 record. I appreciate the expertise around it. 3 John. 4 MR. ROBINETTE: Card, what I think you're 5 telling us is that if we have an intrusion, 6 a saltwater intrusion into this area, the 7 closer you are to the center of that cone, the 8 more rapidly it moves into the aquifer or the 9 faster it moves into the aquifer? 10 MR. SMITH: That it is an excellent 11 question, but it is a little more complicated 12 than that. In very simple terms, you're 13 exactly right. 14 Everything we're saying, if the thickness 15 of the confining unit were the same all the way 16 from -- this is really -- that's a great 17 question. 18 Let me show it on this one. It's not the 19 best one. John, if this thickness were -- you 20 can see here it's not the same. It is even, in 21 reality more exaggerated than this graphic 22 shows. 23 If that thickness were the same out here 24 at Tybee, for instance, and in Downtown 25 Savannah, what you are saying is exactly right. 121 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 As you come closer to the cone, the center 3 of the cone, that rate would be faster. Boy, 4 it's got a lot more pull on it trying to make 5 up that elevation different. 6 But the interesting thing and the quirk 7 in geology in this area is that it becomes 8 thicker. Out here at Tybee we're looking at 9 about an average -- I hate to use an average, 10 but anyway, around 50 feet or so of confining 11 material, whereas you come down to Downtown 12 Savannah you're looking at about 160 feet of 13 confining material. 14 So, almost three times the confining 15 material, which really helps thwart that pull, 16 because it's harder. Even though there's more 17 pull, it's harder for that water to come 18 through that greater thick of confining 19 material. So that's a saving grace. 20 MR. ROBINETTE: The other question I had 21 was, have you seen any change in the salinity 22 penetration over time? 23 I mean, the last deepening we had was '92 24 I guess it was -- '94, did you look at the -- 25 you didn't do the core samples and porewater 122 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 back then, I guess? 3 MR. SMITH: No. I wish we had. 4 MR. ROBINETTE: You may not have had that 5 data. Do you think it's increasing over time, 6 continuing to increase? 7 MR. SMITH: All the modeling shows, John, 8 that's what has to happen. It's -- it's 9 increasing. A really interesting study South 10 Carolina DHEC's Camille Ransom did really 11 beautiful, good work, he's got an excellent 12 slide or a graphic in there where in very 13 simple terms, in a very simple model, they have 14 modeled this vertical movement of chlorides, 15 through the confining layer, in an area larger 16 than just the river like we have done. 17 Okay. What they have done in there is 18 they have stepped their model ahead and they 19 let their model tell them, okay, based on the 20 thickness of the confining layer, the depth of 21 draw down of the cone in that area and other 22 factors; how soon would you expect what you're 23 talking about to happen? 24 What happens is -- what we feel like, 25 everybody, chlorides are coming down through 123 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 the confining layer. They aren't just coming 3 down at some level and they break through. 4 When I say level, that concentration of 5 chlorides is now headed toward Savannah. When 6 they first break through, they are at one 7 time, a lower concentration. Then as more come 8 down and down, then the level probably increase 9 more and more. 10 But when those chlorides come into the 11 aquifer, the aquifer flows as orders of 12 magnitude higher than the vertical flow in the 13 confining layer. 14 So the water, coming horizontally to 15 savannah in the aquifer, is flowing at a much 16 higher rate, and a higher volume. So there's 17 a dilution effect for any chlorides that come 18 through the confining layer of the aquifer. 19 So the question is, you know, how soon do 20 any wells, in the Savannah area or wherever, 21 start showing chlorides? 22 Well, in South Carolina, there's wells 23 that have already had to be abandoned because 24 of this situation. So yes, and look at their 25 report. It's good information on that. 124 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MS. McINTOSH: That goes back, I'd like to 3 get into that if I could, that goes back to 4 Judy's question. In the dredging while it's a 5 very important question and we feel we've 6 adequately answered it, there's a larger 7 regional issue that is a lot of the reason 8 behind why our model is so focused, why we only 9 used that one source area. USGS, South 10 Carolina DHEC, they are involved in studies 11 that have been going on for years as well, 12 years and years. 13 It was very important that we be able to 14 separate our study from this regional issue. I 15 mean, there's two separate issues that we have 16 to separate, in order to relate it to the 17 Savannah Harbor Expansion. 18 Pumping in Savannah although is the major 19 driving force behind everything we saw in the 20 field, that was not our mandate to try and 21 address the pumping in Savannah. It was to 22 discern the effects of specifically dredging. 23 MR. DYSART: Any further comments or 24 questions? Okay. We really appreciate your 25 presentation, both of you. 125 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 This, of course, will be available to go 3 on the website, right? Okay. The next item on 4 the agenda is the modeling update, Bill Bailey. 5 MR. BAILEY: In general, the modelers have 6 slowed down their work. They have completed a 7 lot of it and have produced reports. Now we're 8 starting to look at those things to figure out 9 what they tell us. 10 We are looking at plans reached, depth 11 alternative, mitigation plans for each depth. 12 We distributed the results for the wetland 13 impacts to their resource agencies, and talked 14 with you folks about those before. 15 Marsh secession models, we decided not to 16 use those for mitigation plans, and Priscilla 17 and Kelie, I'm going to put you on the spot. 18 I'm not -- my question is have we 19 coordinated, have I sent that stuff to you 20 guys? 21 MS. WENDT: Yes. 22 MR. BAILEY: I've forgotten. Okay. So we 23 have coordinated. Basically, the marsh 24 secession model was a decision the federal 25 agencies made and, I guess, we have coordinated 126 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 that with the state agencies. 3 We talked about it a little bit before 4 here. We had a problem with the marsh 5 secession model, when we went to look at the 6 mitigation runs. 7 It wasn't working as we expected. We went 8 back and got a proposal from USGS. We 9 developed the portion that was causing the 10 problem. 11 They gave us a proposal and we looked at 12 it and talked about it as federal agencies and 13 decided it wasn't worth doing. What we may end 14 up with, after doing this modification, we 15 weren't sure was going to be any better than 16 -- it was really going to be any better than 17 what we had. 18 We decided not to do it. We coordinated 19 that with -- informed GPA we didn't think it 20 was necessary and informed the states we didn't 21 think it was necessary. 22 So we're going to use -- the main impact 23 assessment tool to wetlands is going to be the 24 EFDC hydrodynamic model, and the movement, at 25 least what that tells us about salinity 127 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 movement of the .5 feet contour. 3 We will be using the marsh secession 4 models for impact assessments, just a straight 5 deepening without any mitigation. We'll be 6 using those, looking at those results, and 7 comparing them to the EFDC results to see how 8 they compare to each other. 9 Hopefully, they're the same or similar 10 results. That would give us more confidence in 11 the EFDC results. 12 We have got the fisheries results for 13 impacts and mitigation and have given those to 14 the agencies. Water quality impact results are 15 done. We've given those to the agencies. 16 The modelers are still working on water 17 quality mitigation runs, still doing those. 18 Those runs take longer, so it's -- that's -- 19 they're not done with those yet. 20 We have distributed the chloride results. 21 We have a report on that. We've given that 22 to the resource agencies and the city. We'll 23 be talking a little more about those chloride 24 results a little bit later. 25 The next steps, we'll be meeting with the 128 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 resource agencies to talk about all these 3 different reports and what they say. Then 4 we'll be selecting the best path for the 5 mitigation plans. 6 Remember, we were looking at the 7 mitigation plans down two different paths. 8 We'll pick the best one and then do some more 9 modeling work. We're looking at a couple of 10 other alternatives. 11 This was just a review. This is those 12 different paths that we had in there. It's 13 coming down through here adding pieces to come 14 down to this point. This combination, the 15 other path, was starting at C and adding a 16 little bit different way to come down to this 17 point. 18 Then once we make a decision, we'll look 19 at adding those two mitigation features. 20 So that's pretty much where the modeling is. 21 We produced results, and now it's up to 22 the biologists and the water quality folks to 23 see what they -- see what all those things say. 24 Questions. 25 MR. DYSART: Comments, questions? Judy 129 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 Jennings, please. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, you're going to have 4 help me about not -- not using the marsh 5 secession model in the mitigation. 6 Okay. I've asked about this bunches of 7 times. I've barely gotten it, but what I 8 thought the issue was not so much the marsh 9 secession model, but the M to M model when you 10 put various mitigation alternatives into it. 11 MR. BAILEY: Yup. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. All right. The M to 13 M model is actually different from the marsh 14 secession or EFDC? 15 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Yes. And what the M to M 17 did was that it extrapolated salinity across 18 the marsh, is that right? 19 MR. BAILEY: Very good, yes. You did 20 learn. 21 MS. JENNINGS: I actually have a question 22 coming here. Okay. All right. This is pretty 23 blunt, but did we decide not to fix that 24 because of time or -- or was it science? 25 You said the federal agencies signed off 130 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 on it; but isn't that part of what we're trying 3 to figure out, how the salinity affects the 4 marshes? 5 Are we really that concerned about the 6 salinity in the navigation channel? Isn't the 7 whole deal how the tidal creeks feed, and won't 8 some of these mitigation efforts change that, 9 and wouldn't that part of the model be 10 incredibly important? 11 I know that you're just one of the federal 12 agencies. There are others here, and maybe 13 they can explain to me why we dumped that. 14 MR. BAILEY: We started off -- 15 MS. JENNINGS: Remember, I had it right up 16 to a certain point. Pick me up where I lost 17 it. 18 MR. BAILEY: We were trying to develop 19 three different tools to look at wetland 20 impacts. We were going to use EFDC was one, 21 and we were going to try to develop two other 22 marsh secession models. 23 Basically, we found out that we had 24 trouble with the marsh secession models of 25 getting them to work. The M to M, that link 131 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 there like you said, that was the problem. 3 So we had a problem, technically, trying 4 to figure out how to get models to work 5 correctly, to be able to put a certain salinity 6 in a portion of the marsh. 7 The marsh secession models, we were 8 comfortable with those. If we knew what the 9 salinity was, at a given location in the marsh, 10 the marsh secession would tell us what kind of 11 plant life is there. So that part we're 12 comfortable with. 13 It was knowing what salinity is at a 14 certain location. And we -- the model, the M 15 to M right now wasn't working well with the 16 mitigation features that rerouted the flows. 17 It changed the flows a lot. 18 It didn't handle that well. What we -- 19 what we, the federal agencies, considered was 20 that they looked at this proposal and said 21 well, yes. We could spend $110,000 in a year, 22 but we're not sure it will be any better at the 23 end of that. So -- 24 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I can understand 25 making that decision, but isn't one of the 132 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 pivot points of what we've been chasing all 3 this time is to know what the salinity value, 4 at any given spot in the marsh, would be? 5 I mean, you say that once we know that we 6 can predict what's going to grow there, but if 7 we don't know what the salinity value will be 8 then we can't make any prediction at all. 9 MR. BAILEY: Wetlands and wetland impacts 10 are very important in this project. We have a 11 tool -- 12 MS. JENNINGS: I think that's the number 13 one reason I started talking about it 10 years 14 ago, so -- 15 MR. BAILEY: We have a tool that we 16 believe we can use to determine impacts to 17 wetlands, and that's the EFDC model. We have 18 one tool. 19 We started off trying to do three. We 20 have one that we're comfortable with. That one 21 works. The other two, we were having problems 22 with. 23 MS. JENNINGS: But you don't have a tool 24 to predict salinity in the marsh. 25 MR. BAILEY: The EFDC will tell us where 133 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 the salinity is, in portions of the river, 3 tells us in the river, and from that we know 4 what sections of marsh would be affected by 5 that river water. 6 In the model, the EFDC model included not 7 only the river, but also water that spilled out 8 into the marsh. It would go up -- right now, 9 it goes up certain tidal creeks and fans out, 10 floods over a big chunk of marsh. 11 MS. JENNINGS: I remember those pretty 12 pictures. 13 MR. BAILEY: That part is in the model 14 and that's what the model will tell us. When 15 it gets to a certain point, then the salinity 16 will go out over a area of marsh. That average 17 is in the model. 18 So it will tell us then that .5, the 19 change in that contour, if that affects given 20 chunks of marsh. 21 MS. JENNINGS: Even to the roots, the EFDC 22 can tell you that? I thought that's what marsh 23 secession was working on? 24 MR. BAILEY: Marsh secession would be more 25 detailed, that's correct. 134 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MS. JENNINGS: Did Fish and Wildlife sign 3 off on dumping this? 4 MR. EUDALY: Yeah. 5 MR. DYSART: Ed. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Oh, I'm sorry. 7 MR. EUDALY: I was going to try to explain 8 a little bit about how that worked. The model 9 to marsh, I'm very disappointed we're not going 10 to be able to use this apparently, although I 11 did support the decision. 12 The model to marsh was configured based on 13 the current channel patterns, the current 14 configuration of the harbor, all the channels, 15 and so forth. 16 And it was based -- it was supported by 17 data from various stations around the harbor, 18 not too many -- I think there were five, 19 basically. 20 In some cases, only a few of those 21 locations the data was used to come up with a 22 relationship between the channel and the marsh. 23 When you start closing off channels, running 24 flows, those sorts of things, the relationships 25 broke down. The -- 135 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 MS. JENNINGS: We've talked about that 3 being an issue from day one. 4 MR. EUDALY: Well, yeah. The problem is 5 the available data to build new relationships 6 localized on various channels, because if you 7 sort of isolate -- isolate a factor, Back 8 River, you need to build a relationship from 9 the stations to Back River, the marsh and Back 10 River. 11 The data we had available is fairly 12 limited. So that's one problem. Another 13 problem was, well just the relationship between 14 the channels when you start rerouting flows and 15 so forth, it's very uncertain. 16 The USGS proposal is very forthcoming 17 about there was a great deal of uncertainty, 18 even if we went down this route of trying to 19 modify the model, that there would still be a 20 lot of uncertainty. 21 A lot of it was based on there was an idea 22 to use a team of people, from various agencies 23 knowledgeable about the river, to try and focus 24 these relationships. Well, we can sort of use 25 that approach with EFDC too without going 136 1 BRIEFING - LARSON 2 through this. 3 I think the decision really wasn't, on our 4 part, based on any consideration about the time 5 and so forth. It was just the level of 6 uncertainty, you know, when you start linking 7 all these models together, obviously there's 8 going to be a lot uncertainties. 9 MS. JENNINGS: But from day one the 10 concern has been -- 11 MR. EUDALY: Well, you have to wonder, you 12 have to make the judgment is it worth it, in 13 the decision-making to go down this route and 14 still have a lot of uncertainty, or do we work 15 with more basic information, look at the 16 salinity contours and try to come up with the 17 best professional judgment on what the impacts 18 are there. 19 So the decision was made to go down that 20 route. I'm not sure that's a real clear 21 explanation, but that's kind of a summary, I 22 think. 23 MR. DYSART: Let me interject something 24 here. Time is getting along here, and do we 25 want to -- how do we wish to proceed? 137 1 AGENDA DISCUSSION 2 What needs to be done today? We have an 3 item from the Beach Erosion Committee, they 4 were invited and directed to look at and bring 5 some discussion back to us. 6 It would seem like an action item. I'm 7 sure Hope has got some things that she needs. 8 I'm just wondering is there -- we need to focus 9 on things where there is some time sensitivity. 10 Does anybody have any thoughts there? Not 11 meaning to interrupt the discussion -- 12 MR. BAILEY: The chloride report, the 13 chloride thing we can put off to the next 14 meeting. 15 MR. DYSART: Any objection to that? Okay. 16 MS. MOORER: My couple of things are very 17 quick. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. I just didn't want us 19 to get crunched. Bill, how long would you 20 guess you will want to have presentation and 21 discussion? 22 MR. FARMER: Less than five minutes. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. Why don't let's wind 24 this, the modeling -- I did not mean to 25 intervene or break into this discussion. Were 138 1 AGENDA DISCUSSION 2 you through, Ed? 3 MR. EUDALY: Yeah. 4 MR. DYSART: Judy? 5 MS. JENNINGS: I'm at a loss, so I'll 6 shut up over it. 7 MR. DYSART: I didn't ask you to shut up. 8 I'm not directing you to be at a loss either. 9 MS. JENNINGS: My first view was I am at 10 a loss as I think I've heard another expression 11 of regret. 12 MR. DYSART: Steve. 13 MR. WILLIS: Real quick question, even 14 though you weren't satisfied and didn't accept 15 the finding of the model, when you did run 16 them, did they seem to be better or worse than 17 you anticipated they should be? 18 In other words, were they -- did they just 19 seem to be like so minor that they must be 20 wrong, or were they so bad you figured that 21 they must be wrong? 22 MR. BAILEY: The -- when they were applied 23 for mitigation runs, they were producing runs 24 that were opposite to what we were expecting. 25 The salinity model was -- in those cases, 139 1 AGENDA DISCUSSION 2 the salinity model was saying the salinity was 3 going down with a certain mitigation run. So 4 that was the input to the model is the salinity 5 is going down. 6 The output from these other models was 7 that vegetation that required a higher salinity 8 is what they were giving answers. The input 9 and output were opposite. And that's not what 10 we like to see. 11 So in those situations, where we were 12 changing flows from one river to the next, it 13 wasn't working right. 14 MR. WILLIS: Thank you. 15 MR. DYSART: Will, Morgan. 16 MR. BERSON: Can you -- half of this is 17 asking the right questions, so I've been 18 thinking how to do this. What is it that we 19 have -- that we won't know as a result of these 20 models not working and deciding not to pursue 21 them? 22 MR. BAILEY: You won't have a level of 23 detail, distinction of which -- which plant 24 species would -- would be affected at a given 25 location. 140 1 AGENDA DISCUSSION 2 You won't know that, but you will have the 3 change from a fresh water -- freshwater 4 community to a saltwater community. We will 5 know that. 6 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 7 MR. REES: Yeah, I'd just like to remind 8 folks that there's a general comment that 9 applies to this specific discussion. 10 When we plan a project and there are lots 11 of unknowns, we recognize there are lots of 12 uncertainties. With this specific issue, over 13 the years, in many other projects there have 14 been these same kind of discussions. 15 We don't know, with any sufficient level 16 of precision, what's going to happen. So this 17 concept of adaptive management evolved 15 years 18 ago, and it continues to evolve. 19 And in fact, in the current version of the 20 Water Resources Development Act that the House 21 just passed and the Senate is considering, 22 there is an explicit provision for putting 23 adaptive management of mitigation into Corps' 24 projects. 25 Now, the Corps has been doing that for 141 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 some years. We've agreed and decided to do 3 that here. 4 The point is that's the evolution of 5 thinking about this particular issue. There's 6 a recognition you're never going to know as 7 much as you want to know about something, and 8 how mitigation is going to work. 9 But there are provisions, required to put 10 some money in for monitoring, and a time 11 period, and a monitoring plan, and a 12 requirement for doing an adaptive management; 13 when you find out more details of how things 14 actually work in the real world. 15 So, you know, maybe we don't know as much 16 as we'd like to know, but I think the process 17 is available to address that uncertainty, when 18 you are developing a mitigation plan. 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Further 20 comments or questions? Okay. We'll reschedule 21 the chlorides. What about the economic 22 analysis? 23 MR. GARRETT: I have a statement from the 24 Mobile/Savannah Planning Center. They're 25 devoting their time to updating the benefits 142 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 model to reflect rapidly changing real world 3 conditions. 4 Thanks to a great deal of work effort by 5 Cathy and Hope and the pilots' office, we now 6 have the 2006 vessel traffic data. That data 7 is being formatted and analyzed for inclusion 8 into the benefits model. Mobile is also 9 revising the vessel call projections, based on 10 the planned expansion of the Panama Canal. 11 That is the status of economics. 12 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Questions, 13 comments? Hope. 14 MS. MOORER: I just want to say that data 15 collection and data ground-truthing is -- 16 they're going through and checking to make sure 17 of what's in the database Cathy and I put 18 together. 19 To make sense of what's sometimes on 20 the draft, on the pilots' cards, we're having 21 to go back and look that up. It's just very -- 22 it takes a lot of time, and we're still going 23 through all this data. 24 MR. DYSART: Hope, I think you're next. 25 MS. MOORER: We have finalized the 143 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 contract with MacTec for the demonstration 3 project, and it will take place in August in 4 the critical time for DO. 5 It will be on barges. I have talked to 6 them, and they are trying to work, within their 7 plan, to put together kind of a plan, for when 8 this is underway, and trying to work it in 9 there for visits, for any SEG members that 10 would like to go, as well as any agencies that 11 would like to go that aren't members of the 12 SEG. 13 So you will be able to visit the site. 14 That will be forthcoming. So you can see what 15 these things look like and how they operate. 16 I was very thankful that they have agreed 17 to do that, because that means more time for 18 them down here, and building it into the safety 19 plan and everything, which is what they're 20 working on. 21 They will be doing that, in addition to 22 having the stationary signs, data collection, 23 they will also be doing the horizontal and 24 vertical profiles weekly, so throughout the 25 session, and the pre-monitoring, prior to the 144 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 starting of the running of those systems. 3 At the end, they will be producing a 4 report of what they find out. They are also 5 working with USGS to get the gauge data, for 6 the data monitors that are out there in the 7 river channel, to include in the report as 8 well, so -- and EPA on how they're collecting 9 data throughout the water column so that it 10 is useful, and EPD and DHEC. 11 It will be useful to the decisions that 12 will ultimately be made, with regard to these 13 systems, or any other uses of these systems. 14 But what's out there will be recorded and 15 there's ongoing data collection on ph, on 16 temperature of the water, and salinity. 17 Then they will be looking at other data, 18 from the cones, when they do vertical and 19 horizontal profiles. 20 MR. DYSART: Questions, comments? Next 21 topic is milestone. 22 MS. MOORER: Milestone, right now the 23 milestone have not changed. There are the ones 24 that were posted. And the schedule has not 25 shifted right now, thank goodness. Any of the 145 1 BEACH EROSION 2 milestones posted online are still valid right 3 now. 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. Okay. Committee 5 reports. Aquifer Committee. 6 MR. SCANLON: Thanks to Card and Mackie. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. I'll tell you. Bill, 8 would you like to proceed with -- with this 9 action item under your committee report? 10 MR. FARMER: Yes. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. 12 MR. FARMER: Attached to your agenda, the 13 final two pages, is a motion from the Beach 14 Erosion Committee for the SEG to consider. The 15 process of the committee report and such is 16 that the committee makes the recommendation to 17 the SEG, and we are making a recommendation as 18 outlined on the final two pages here. 19 One minute of background, the Beach 20 Erosion Committee, from its beginning about 10 21 years ago, had as its objective the beneficial 22 use of some of the dredged materials. 23 We recommended certain studies to be 24 accomplished to support such action. The Corps 25 of Engineers has undergone studies for the last 146 1 BEACH EROSION 2 several years, and they have come up with a 3 report that does exactly what the Beach Erosion 4 Committee had hoped it would do, namely plan to 5 use quite a bit of sand, from the ocean 6 channel, to be placed near the shoreline of 7 Tybee Island. 8 In fact, it's about 8,000,000 cubic yards 9 of dredge material that is hoped to be used 10 beneficially to help the shoreline of Tybee 11 Island. 12 So coming to the motion on the final page, 13 basically it says what I have just said, that 14 the Corps has come up with a document called 15 The Nearshore Placement Plan of the Dredge 16 Material Management Plan. 17 In that document, the substance of it is 18 outlined in the body of the motion there. It 19 basically says to utilize about 8,000,000 cubic 20 yards of sand to be placed near the shoreline 21 of Tybee. 22 So I would recommend to the SEG that it 23 formally accept this motion that is shaded on 24 the final two pages of your agenda. 25 MR. DYSART: As I understand, this has 147 1 BEACH EROSION 2 been posted. This has been distributed. What 3 are the views of the SEG members, or other 4 members of the committee who were there, or 5 what would you like; what is your pleasure in 6 discussing this? 7 MS. JENNINGS: Just a question. 8 MR. DYSART: Judy. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Is this part of the harbor 10 expansion project or would it be financed 11 separately? 12 MR. FARMER: This would be taking the 13 dredge materials, as part of the harbor 14 expansion project, that would come out of the 15 ocean channel portion, plus a little bit of the 16 channel that goes upriver by about 4,000 feet 17 from the mouth. 18 They have taken a lot of test borings and 19 found out the material would be useful, and 20 beneficial, and good for beach renourishment, 21 and beach protection, and shoreline protection. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. So this is directly 23 part of the harbor expansion project. Any 24 other views, or -- so what you would like, 25 Bill, for the group having heard this, reviewed 148 1 BEACH EROSION 2 this, so forth; do we have a consensus of 3 supporting the views of the committee report, 4 right? 5 MR. FARMER: Yes, and to have the 6 recommendation sort of adopted by the SEG, the 7 shaded area of the final two pages here. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. Kelie. 9 MS. MOORE: I happened to represent the 10 state. The state Coastal Recourses Division 11 has not completed their review of these 12 reports. The state would abstain from any 13 voting that may occur today. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. What's the pleasure of 15 the body. Do you wish as to adopt the 16 recommendation, or identify with them, or what 17 -- what wording would you like? 18 MR. BERSON: Kelie, is that something 19 under 401, I guess? 20 MS. DAVIE: I'm reviewing it. 21 MR. BERSON: Is that something that will 22 be done shortly? I mean, is there a reason for 23 us to wait on the today's action? Obviously, 24 it won't happen if you don't concur. 25 MS. MOORE: I can't speculate. We haven't 149 1 BEACH EROSION 2 finished the review yet. This is not any 3 specific action we're taking. It's not a 4 federal consistency action, or water quality 5 certification. 6 It's -- I haven't finished reading 7 the report. It's more of an opinion than any 8 kind of action, the committee would need to 9 wait for. 10 MR. DYSART: Is it desirable that a 11 decision be made at this meeting? Is there 12 anything -- I think Bill Bailey or someone was 13 mentioning, at a previous meeting, that there 14 with a desire to have input from SEG on this. 15 What's the schedule on this, Lou, Bill? 16 MR. OFF: I would just like to reply to 17 Kelie that this plan was put together with 18 Mr. Brad Gayne (phonetic) from DNR, and also 19 the Tybee beach consultant. 20 So both of those folks are well aware of 21 what's going on. From what I gather from the 22 City of Tybee is once we know this is going to 23 be adopted, by the SEG as a part of the 24 project, they will give their final blessing. 25 There's a couple of minor tune-ups, but 150 1 BEACH EROSION 2 nothing that affects the whole project as a 3 whole. 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any views around the 5 table I haven't heard a lot of views. Ed. 6 MR. EUDALY: Well, I haven't had an 7 opportunity to look at the report. I know -- I 8 think one of our refuge representatives went to 9 the meeting. 10 To me, it doesn't seem like there's any 11 pressing need to approve this right now. I 12 suggest we wait till the next meeting to give 13 people plenty of opportunity to review the 14 report, and then make a decision at the next 15 meeting. 16 MR. DYSART: Bill. 17 MR. BAILEY: I just wanted to say that the 18 substance of the placement plan, I presented to 19 this group two or three meetings back, so 20 that's what we're talking about. 21 MR. FARMER: Just in summary again, at 22 this stage of the whole process, this is a 23 plan. I think from this point onward there's 24 an EIS that gets developed and so forth. 25 There's various others stages. So I think 151 1 BEACH EROSION 2 what the Corps would like would be a feeling, 3 from the SEG, as to whether it is happy and 4 content with the plan. 5 And then further work continues on to 6 various other stages of approval and 7 implementation. 8 MR. DYSART: Would it be useful if this 9 body were to say that we are supportive of 10 beneficiary use of the sand and so forth, that 11 we're interested in this, and that we are 12 supportive of this general direction? 13 MR. FARMER: I think the motion as stated 14 is that the SEG would be in favor of the plan, 15 basically, and again, it's probably years away 16 before the plan comes into effect. 17 MR. DYSART: Bob and Will. 18 MR. SCANLON: Quick question. What are 19 the implications of the delay at this point, 20 what are the implications to the project timing 21 or something potentially not getting done? 22 MR. BAILEY: Probably have no direct -- no 23 direct effect on the schedule of the project. 24 I guess I see it more as trying to find out 25 what the SEG -- trying to get a position from 152 1 BEACH EROSION 2 the SEG. 3 Before we gave a presentation and said, we 4 were asked to do studies by the SEG. We 5 presented the results of the studies, and the 6 group decided, essentially. 7 So it's -- we can either continue to go 8 along and put out that proposal, in the draft 9 EIS, but if there's something -- if you know 10 now there's something in it you don't like, we 11 can change it now. The longer things go, the 12 more -- the harder it is to change. 13 MR. DYSART: Will. 14 MR. BERSON: In other comments that the 15 Georgia Conservancy has made on other projects, 16 we've been kind of critical of CRD for 17 indicating they approve of things, when the 18 elements of review were still out. 19 In trying to be consistent with that, I 20 would prefer to wait to get a signal from the 21 state that this is acceptable and there aren't 22 any red flags raised, before we -- I don't see 23 any problem with this. 24 I realize that we asked you to meet 25 quickly to do this. I appreciate you doing it. 153 1 BEACH EROSION 2 I'm sure it will help the state to dot its Is 3 say and cross its Ts. 4 It seems to me appropriate order to wait 5 on them, and then we move forward, especially 6 since there's not a penalty for delay, in 7 taking that step, at the moment. 8 MR. DYSART: Priscilla. 9 MS. WENDT: I guess since this would occur 10 in Georgia waters, really South Carolina DNR 11 doesn't have a specific interest in this 12 particular plan, so we would probably abstain 13 from voting on it. 14 I'd say in general we're in favor of a 15 beneficial use of dredge material, barring no 16 evidence of habitat endangerment, or anything 17 of that nature, that would be impacted. 18 So I guess we would -- oh, the other thing 19 I wanted to mention is I wouldn't object to SEG 20 generally endorsing this plan, providing it 21 doesn't imply endorsement of the deepening per 22 se. 23 I would say, and I've not read the 24 language carefully enough to make sure that's 25 not the implication, but certainly any 154 1 BEACH EROSION 2 beneficial material generated out of any 3 deepening, I don't think we would object to it 4 being used beneficially. 5 We would probably encourage that, but I 6 wouldn't want that to be interpreted as an 7 endorsement of the deepening. 8 MR. DYSART: Judy. 9 MS. JENNINGS: I think Priscilla's point 10 is well made, and I also heartily support 11 a beneficial use of any material, but this 12 recommendation has numbers in it. 13 It says 48 feet. It says 50 feet. And I 14 don't think we have any agreement on those 15 numbers. So I would absolutely cringe at the 16 thought of -- I mean, this sounds like apple 17 pie, but it's got a revolver hidden in it. 18 So I don't like it. 19 MR. DYSART: Let me suggest I hear a lot 20 good talk about beneficiary use and so forth. 21 From Bill, I understand, there's not as Will 22 said a time penalty here. 23 I also do not hear a broad consensus. I 24 think the people would like to have an 25 opportunity to study the recommendations that 155 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 we asked the committee to bring. 3 Why don't let's reschedule this for 4 further consideration next time? I think this 5 has been helpful, and obviously we can do a 6 better job, you can do a better job next time. 7 Without objection, we will reschedule that 8 for further discussion next time. We thank the 9 Beach Erosion Committee for promptly responding 10 and bringing us something to stimulate this 11 discussion. 12 Okay. Thank you. Okay. Dredging and 13 Disposal -- Fred. Economics Working Group, 14 Judy. 15 MS. JENNINGS: I'll be waiting to talk to 16 Alan. I will discuss it, with Alan and Bill, 17 when the time is right, and I'll ask for a 18 presentation to the SEG on economics. 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. Operating Guidelines 20 Committee is going to be meeting immediately 21 after this to be taking some action, right? 22 Joel Fleming, Striped Bass -- okay. New 23 business, Hope what do we have about the 24 governors' announcement? 25 MS. MOORER: At the interim SEG meeting, 156 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 the attendees wanted to place on the agenda 3 this item for discussion. 4 In case any of you haven't heard, the 5 governors of South Carolina and Georgia 6 announced that they were in agreement, and have 7 put out a term sheet with all these steps on 8 it, of how to move forward in trying to develop 9 a terminal in Jasper County. 10 At the interim committee, there were a lot 11 of questions with respect to what we would do, 12 in the project, to address any concerns with 13 that development as well, and how that 14 announcement impacted our project. 15 And so that's -- I was here to introduce 16 it. It was discussed at the meeting, and Bill 17 and the Corps of Engineers took it over, 18 because the Corps directed, so I'll let Bill 19 take it over -- well, okay. I was going to get 20 you there. 21 How the project had planned on handling 22 this was in the formulation of alternatives, if 23 it were considered as a with project condition, 24 that it fell out, and the project was already 25 completed the formulation of alternatives, and 157 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 it was addressed in there as a potential and 3 did not -- it was much more expensive to build 4 the terminal, as part of the project, and 5 deepen through there than it was to deepen to 6 Garden City, and including mitigation, things 7 like that, a very basic estimate of a 8 mitigation number for that. 9 In the economics analysis, it was going to 10 be addressed, kind of uncertainty analysis, if 11 that -- if the terminal were to be built, if it 12 were to be approved and built and completed, 13 how would that impact the project on an 14 uncertainty level in the future estimate of 15 date, and how much further that cargo that 16 might take from going to Garden City, and would 17 there still be a project going to Garden City. 18 The Corps is evaluating how we were 19 handling it, how we might should be handling 20 it, and Roger Burke from the Mobile District, 21 is in charge of planning, is evaluating this, 22 and is coming up with a proposal, a plan of how 23 to evaluate this, in terms of our deepening 24 project, the Jasper situation, in terms of our 25 deepening project, and will vet that with 158 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 headquarters of the Corps. 3 And that is kind of where it stands now. 4 It's not finalized how it's going to be 5 handled. Right now we're still moving forward 6 with the scenario kind of based approach, and 7 certainly the analysis, until Roger has come up 8 with a plan, and given that to division and 9 headquarters, and making sure they concur with 10 it. Is that how -- is that a good explanation, 11 Bill -- 12 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 13 MS. MOORER: -- of where we stand? 14 MR. BAILEY: Yes. We had a procedure that 15 Hope described, a procedure for how we would 16 evaluate Jasper County in the expansion 17 project. And this governors' announcement, the 18 question is how does the governors' 19 announcement change what we're going to do. 20 So we are still considering that. On the 21 face of it, the governors' announcement doesn't 22 necessarily mean that what we are doing has to 23 be changed. We're still looking at that in our 24 agency. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. Hope. 159 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MS. MOORER: One thing I can offer, we can 3 post on the -- in case any of you haven't seen 4 the term sheet, a lot of you saw articles about 5 the announcement, that kind of summarized what 6 the governors, the steps that the governors 7 proposed the states to take on the path 8 forward. 9 So we can post the term sheets so you can 10 see what they signed and agreed to. That way, 11 you can kind of see what has been proposed. 12 MR. BAILEY: At the interim meeting, the 13 interim SEG meeting, I know Will, we had 14 discussions on what should be done. I don't 15 know if you want to -- I'll put you on the 16 spot. 17 I don't know if you want to, but I know 18 you had some concerns with what the Corps was 19 doing in response to the governors' 20 announcement, and just what studies or what 21 effect you thought that that announcement 22 should produce. 23 MR. BERSON: Well, I mean, I think -- I 24 don't want to speak -- my perception is that 25 Jasper as a result of the governors' meeting, 160 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 and issuing the press release, and discussing 3 the new future for the site is a lot more 4 substantial and likely than sensitivity 5 analysis in the project would probably reflect. 6 I take them at their word that they mean 7 to develop this site. They went to a lot of 8 trouble to exchange ties, exchange neckties, to 9 show that they really meant what they were 10 saying. 11 I think that one of the issues that I 12 mentioned in this meeting that, as far as the 13 Georgia Conservancy is concerned, this offers 14 the potential, to limit the amount of 15 additional dredging, by a substantial distance 16 between the Jasper terminal site and the Garden 17 City site, and that from a national 18 perspective, since that's the way these 19 projects are analyzed, you could foresee moving 20 the same amount of containers over a distance 21 that's substantially less dredged than what we 22 are looking at, in this project, as a whole. 23 I appreciate that in some respects what 24 we're looking at is a proposed project Garden 25 City to the sea, but I can't overlook the fact 161 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 we've had two governors stand up and say, 3 there's an alternative site that they're 4 looking to develop, that could serve the nation 5 as well, with potentially less impact to the 6 river, the National Wildlife Refuge, and other 7 resources including mitigation modes. 8 So I think that there's a fairly -- I 9 there's a fairly -- I think you can't overlook 10 this as a very real alternative that needs to 11 be evaluated, in a direct comparison between 12 the two potential impacts from the two 13 potential projects. 14 MR. DYSART: How much further -- those of 15 you that have been involved in this -- does 16 this need to go today? 17 Is this information -- I presume that 18 there has been preliminary discussion. It's on 19 the table. It will be posted, and probably 20 there will be more time to talk about next 21 time. Do I hear a consensus? Yes. 22 MR. WILLIS: Excuse me. Is there any time 23 frame at all when this Roger Bush (sic) plan is 24 expected -- the Roger Burke plan on how to deal 25 with the -- 162 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MR. DYSART: Hope. 3 MS. MOORER: I don't think there's any. I 4 don't think there's any firm time frame, but in 5 relation to the project and how we're moving 6 forward with the studies, he's, I think, trying 7 to get it done quickly. 8 Because vetting that and getting 9 concurrence through the Corps takes time as 10 well, so I think he's moving forward on those, 11 but this was kind of just decided, I guess last 12 week, that he would take a look at what we're 13 doing, take a look at the announcement, and go 14 forward from there. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. 16 MS. MOORER: And certainly whenever that's 17 been done, it will be shared with the SEG as to 18 what the plan forward is. 19 MR. DYSART: In my view, we've worked our 20 way through the agenda, with thanks for moving 21 along promptly there. 22 What about our next meeting date or 23 tentative next meeting date? Would two months 24 -- obviously, it will depend on the 25 recommendation from the interim group? 163 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MR. BERSON: I would say June. 3 MR. DYSART: June? 4 MR. BERSON: I don't know what the first 5 Tuesday is. 6 MR. DYSART: June or July? 7 MR. BERSON: I'm sorry, July. 8 MS. GRAINEY: July 3rd, the day before the 9 4th. 10 MR. DYSART: The 10th is the recommended 11 here, if we go with that month. Why don't we 12 tentatively set that? 13 And, as usual, we'll wait for the feedback 14 from the interim committee meeting to see 15 whether they concur in that, and whether we 16 have enough substance and so forth. 17 MS. MOORER: So the meeting date is the 18 first Tuesday in June for interim SEG at this 19 point. 20 MR. BERSON: That would end up being the 21 3rd. 22 MS. MOORER: I'm going to look real quick 23 -- June 5th. 24 MR. BERSON: Yes. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. June 5th would be the 164 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 interim committee meeting, scheduled for the 3 first Tuesday of June, June the 5th, and we 4 will await their advice, input on the 5 formalizing or confirming the next meeting 6 date. Will. 7 MR. BERSON: One last. You'll notice on 8 the end that we are going to have an Operating 9 Guidelines meeting immediately following this 10 meeting. Please save me from myself, because 11 if people don't come up with a good suggestion 12 for a new chair, I'm going to be it. Please do 13 attend. I would more than happily defer my 14 candidacy. 15 MR. DYSART: Sounded like a campaign 16 speech to me. Okay. I declare the meeting 17 adjourned. I thank you for your participation, 18 and we're particularly thankful for the 19 presentations of the speakers. 20 21 22 23 24 25 165 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 139 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 2nd day of April, 2007. 21 22 _______________________________ 23 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 24 Reporter, B-2041 25 166 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