1 2 3 4 5 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6 7 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 8 9 MAY 2, 2000 10 9:00 A.M. 11 MIGHTY 8TH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 12 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 I N D E X 5 6 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3 7 FACILITATOR'S COMMENTS ------------------------ 6 8 BEACH EROSION --------------------------------- 72 9 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES --------------- 96 10 MTRG ------------------------------------------ 96 11 STRIPED BASS ---------------------------------- 119 12 PRESENTATION ---------------------------------- 123 13 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 177 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 MR. DYSART: Next time I'm going to bring a 3 bell. It is now eight minutes after 9:00, and I 4 call the meeting of the Harbor Improvement 5 Project Stakeholders Evaluation Group to order. 6 The first item of business will be 7 introduction of SEG members. I'm not a member, but 8 I'll set a good example by saying that I'm Ben 9 Dysart. I'm the SEG facilitator's. We'll start 10 oh, left, right. Start off Jack. 11 MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not a member either. I'm 12 Jack Phillips, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 13 MR. DYSART: I might say the criteria for 14 being a member of the SEG is that you walk through 15 that door over there. 16 So you are an interested party. You're 17 welcome as a new member. Next. 18 MR. PARROTT: Dan Parrott, U.S. Army Corps of 19 Engineers, Savannah District. 20 MR. DYSART: Everybody speak up so the 21 official court reporter will get your comments and 22 names memorialized for eternity. She will 23 appreciate it, and she won't have to speak sharply 24 to you. 25 MR. PLACHY: Doug Plachy, Corps of Engineers, 4 1 2 Savannah District. 3 MR. DRAKE: Sam Drake, U.S. Fish and 4 Wildlife Service. 5 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 6 Service. 7 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, U.S. Fish and 8 Wildlife Service. 9 MR. WESLEY: Rick Wesley, Savannah Pilots. 10 MR. MERONEK: Tom Meronek, Georgia Department 11 of Natural Resources. 12 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens, Georgia DNR 13 Coastal Management. 14 DR. HENRY: Jim Henry, Georgia Southern 15 University. 16 MR. KYLER: David Kyler, Sustainable 17 Development. 18 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, City of Tybee 19 Island. 20 MR. STAFFORD: John Stafford, Ogeechee Audubon 21 Society. 22 MS. LEFFEK: Teri Leffek Fife and Clydesdale 23 Plantation. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia Sierra. 25 MS. PERLING: Florence Perling, League of 5 1 2 Women Voters. 3 MR. HEITZKE: Ken heights Hilton Head Island. 4 MR. GREENWOOD: Darrell Greenwood green see 5 her club 6 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for GPA. 7 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant for GPA. 8 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, GPA. 9 MR. THOMAS: Paul Thomas, EM Industries. 10 MR. JUE: Harry Jue, City of Savannah. 11 MR. SAWYER: John Sawyer, City of Savannah. 12 MS. REESE: Patricia Reese, Georgia Ports. 13 MR. FOYLE: Tony Foyle, Georgia Southern 14 University. 15 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers 16 MR. BROWNELL: Press Brownell, National Marine 17 Fisheries Service. 18 MR. RACKLEY: David Rackley, National Marine 19 Fisheries. 20 MR. CALHOUN: Andy Calhoun, Colonial Group. 21 MR. PHILLIPS: John Phillips, Georgia DOT. 22 MR. ZADACH: Steve Zadach Georgia Stevedore 23 Association. 24 MR. McCURRY: Jamie McCurry, Georgia Ports 25 Authority. 6 1 2 MR. PARSONS: Keith Parsons, Georgia DNR. 3 Environment Protection Division. 4 MS. KRUEGER: Gail Krueger, Savannah Morning 5 News. 6 MR. DYSART: Anybody else come in since we 7 started introductions? 8 MR. McINTOSH: Neff McIntosh, Coastal 9 Environmental Organization. 10 MS. McINTOSH: Patty McIntosh, The Georgia 11 Conservancy. 12 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo 13 MR. MacBETH: Ben MacBeth, Citgo Asphalt. 14 MR. DYSART: A couple of people have noticed I 15 brought some wonderful, home-baked chocolate 16 cookies today. I was trying to figure out who was 17 going to bless them and make them go around. I'm 18 going to abstain from them because they're so good, 19 but I may give them out as prizes. 20 I need help from my trusty helpers; Bill 21 Farmer, and Press Brownell, this is instead of just 22 attaboy, you get a chocolate cookie today. We'll 23 hope that they get used up and everybody does good 24 things. 25 We're trying to start on time this morning. 7 1 2 The second item on the agenda, which is already 3 handed out is my comments and any initial focusing 4 exercises which will very brief, briefer than 5 usual. 6 Last month I handed out a handout dealing with 7 the mission of the SEG. If you weren't here, I 8 have a few extra ones. I'll be happy to provide 9 you with one, because we need to know what it is 10 we're trying to do, and that helps keep us on the 11 mark. 12 I would note this is the 17th month of the 13 existence and functioning of this Stakeholders 14 Evaluation Group. My last comment is that I would 15 urge you to all think about as you're 17 months 16 into this, how are you progressing toward 17 accomplishing the mission of the body. 18 Something that is exciting to me in the 19 relatively exact and concise agenda that we have 20 today is that there are some very important 21 presentations. One is Morgan Rees is going to be 22 talking about what GPA is doing and an overview. 23 That is very important to everybody around this 24 table. 25 Another thing is that Bill Bailey and all of 8 1 2 his colleagues, who chair the science committees of 3 the SEG, will be making a substantive presentation 4 about how -- what has been done in the way of 5 specifying studies that need to be done to match up 6 with the issues that you, this body, have 7 identified. 8 In other words, how do you stand at this point 9 in time in making progress in specifying and 10 designing the studies that are needed to determine 11 what the impact will be, how to mitigate them, and 12 whether they can be effectively mitigated, which is 13 part of output of SEG that was dictated. 14 So anyway, has anybody else -- anyone who has 15 not introduced themselves so far this morning -- 16 David, why don't start? 17 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia Ports 18 Authority. 19 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia DNR. 20 MR. DESA: Chris Desa, Jonaro Technomar. 21 MR. DYSART: Bo, have you introduced yourself? 22 MR. ELLIS: Bo Ellis with ATM. 23 MR. DYSART: I want to make sure everybody 24 knows who was here. Okay. You have the agenda 25 before you, the draft agenda that has been posted. 9 1 2 I would suggest that you look at this briefly. If 3 you have any changes that you desire to make, speak 4 up. This reflects all of the inputs, all of the 5 contacts with me since the last meeting about 6 agenda items, changes, so forth. 7 I'm not aware of anything as of sometime 8 yesterday afternoon that anybody wanted changed, 9 but it's your meeting, and it's your agenda. Teri. 10 MS. LEFFEK: Yes. On the back part of the 11 agenda, the back page under impact of proposed 12 deepening project on adjacent South Carolina 13 properties, I did speak to Mr. Harrison. He has 14 nothing to present to the SEG at this time. That's 15 not an item we'll be dealing with today. That can 16 be removed from the agenda. 17 Also, I had a question. I noticed that the 18 old transcripts, the old meeting minutes are not on 19 here. Have those been dealt with, or is that not 20 happening yet? I assume by them not being on here 21 they have been approved. 22 MR. DYSART: I had a request that that item be 23 deleted since nothing had been done on that. 24 MS. LEFFEK: Can I request we put it back on 25 to deal with maybe under the Communication 10 1 2 Committee report? 3 Since Ben's not here, he can't speak about 4 it now. Can we put that under the Communication 5 Report? 6 MR. DYSART: That -- sure. And that is, as I 7 recall, that was in October referred to the 8 Communications Committee for action. So that would 9 presumably be the proper place for it to be. 10 Thank you. Any other comments? Morgan. 11 MR. REES: I would like to reverse the order 12 under new business, our presentation should come 13 after the aquifer discussion, simply because the 14 machine is already set up to do the aquifer. Then 15 we were going to switch it over to my presentation. 16 So I'd like to reverse that order, and we 17 would need a break between for whatever planning 18 purposes. 19 MR. DYSART: So that would be after what is 20 now shown as the third bullet under new business? 21 MR. REES: Yes. 22 MR. DYSART: Before the item that Teri just 23 deleted? 24 MR. REES: Correct. 25 MR. DYSART: Any other suggestions? Patty. 11 1 2 MS. McINTOSH: Just real quick on the aquifer 3 agenda, because there was some discussion over the 4 past month about putting that presentation off, 5 which I see it was not done, and because we didn't 6 receive the study until -- I didn't get it until 7 yesterday, that we had talked about forming 8 questions out of this study, I did not pursue any 9 speakers from USGS to be here. Fortunately, 10 Dr. Jim Henry is here. 11 MR. DYSART: Jim Henry is here. USGS is not. 12 I will say I was not aware of discussions about 13 deleting that. No one contacted me. I would been 14 happy to delete it. 15 Any other suggestions, moving things around, 16 clarifications? Then I would presume that the 17 agenda, as modified by your suggested changes, is 18 acceptable. Any questions? 19 The fourth item is approval of the April 20 transcript. Does anybody have a copy of the 21 transcript with them? 22 MS. VAUGHN: I have one. 23 MR. DYSART: Has everybody who cares to review 24 the transcript from the last meeting done so? We 25 won't ask how many have actually. Morgan Rees is 12 1 2 raising his hand. 3 MR. REES: Do I get a cookie? 4 MR. DYSART: Yes, Morgan, you get a cookie. I 5 suspect I would probably have cookies left over for 6 everybody who read it start to finish, but anyway, 7 yes, Morgan gets a cookie. Help me remember Morgan 8 gets a cookie. Is there a feeling that the 9 transcript should be approved as the official 10 record of the last meeting? 11 You don't have to review it to say -- nod your 12 head. Is there any objection to accepting the 13 verbatim transcript from the April meeting? Seeing 14 no objection, everybody saving their enthusiasm for 15 exciting scientific matters, we will deem it has 16 been accepted and approved by this body. 17 The next item is old business, and the first 18 item there is the Science Committee Chairs Joint 19 Report on, basically, the adequacies stated here of 20 existing issues coverage, how that matches up with 21 the mission and how things fit together. 22 Bill Bailey has assumed responsibility for 23 pulling this together, and I presume you will be 24 leading the presentation, and may very well be 25 joined by other people, other chairs, so forth. 13 1 2 This is, I think, something that is extremely 3 important, and I'm delighted that you can pull this 4 together for us, Bill. 5 MR. BAILEY: I was delegated the opportunity 6 to make the presentation. I've got a packet that I 7 passed out, about 12 pages. 8 MR. McINTOSH: What's the title, Bill? 9 MR. BAILEY: Savannah Harbor Expansion. 10 There's two sections in it, 10 pages. Then the 11 last two pages -- don't look at the last two pages 12 yet. We'll get to them. We'll go all the way 13 through it. Committee chairs got together twice 14 and talked about these things, and this is the 15 results of those meetings. 16 We tried to go through all the issues. We 17 went down through the matrix list of issues. The 18 way it is arranged here is committee by committee, 19 and what studies have been recommended, what 20 studies the SEG has recommended to GPA. 21 As the note on the top here says, these things 22 are not an exhaustive description of these studies. 23 There were some things in there that we didn't put 24 in, things like the boundary and limitations of the 25 study. Those are the things that are supposed to 14 1 2 be in the project or in the study definition, study 3 scopes of work. 4 If you want to see those things, you can go to 5 the SEG web site and look at those things for each 6 individual study. 7 The way it's organized here for -- take the 8 first page, Beach Erosion Committee, these 9 essentially describe the main points, and the 10 sections of each study down at the bottom of the 11 page, I've got status. 12 And then over on the next page, number three, 13 there is kind of -- it's just the assessment of the 14 need for additional studies. So that's how it's 15 arranged, and it's setup that way for each 16 committee. 17 First one is Beach Erosion Committee. They 18 have two studies that have been recommended. 19 There's, you know, the main points -- four main 20 points there, and the status is it's approved and 21 funded and underway. 22 The second page is the second study for 23 evaluation of the coarse fine sand ratio. That has 24 to do with near shore placement of dredge material. 25 And then there's the status of that one. 15 1 2 I think the one -- I guess the point is for 3 you to be looking through. I don't expect you to 4 read all this while I'm talking, but look kind of 5 at the last item for each of these committees, and 6 that's really what the committee chair saw as are 7 there future studies out there, is there additional 8 work out there that the committee chair thought may 9 be looming, or are these studies that they have 10 already recommended, is that basically it. 11 That's what that third item is supposed to 12 answer. Sometimes it answers that more clearly 13 than others. 14 On this one for the Beach Erosion Committee, 15 it says comprehensive benefit cost ratio study. 16 Mr. Farmer has a recommendation he'll be making in 17 a little while concerning that. 18 Page three, Dredging and Disposal Committee. 19 This committee made no recommendations for specific 20 studies. Number two there says, recognizes that 21 there are some things going on outside of the SEG 22 that this committee is interested in. Those are 23 being -- are being conducted, and the committee 24 will look at them when they're available. 25 MR. BREWTON: Bill, if we have questions, do 16 1 2 you want to us to wait until you finish all these? 3 MR. BAILEY: Jump in. 4 MR. BREWTON: I guess this would be for Fred, 5 on the Dredging and Disposal, I know a couple items 6 are of interest to me. I'm wondering how and where 7 they're being looked at. 8 One is, you mentioned the sediment quality and 9 chemical and geotechnical aspects of sediments; 10 particularly of the type and quality of those 11 sediments change as we go to a lower depth. 12 Will that information be brought back to your 13 committee, then back to the SEG, or is there any 14 coordination on that? 15 MR. BEASON: Ben, I talked to Larry about 16 that. Part of the overall program will be a report 17 that they will generate after they run some models. 18 It will show where the proposed shoaling is going 19 to occur in the New River at the various depths. 20 When that data is developed, the committee is 21 going to look at it. We're looking at it with 22 respect to where the shoaling will then be pumped; 23 what's the closest upland disposal site, and will 24 that compromise or overload the existing 25 capacities. 17 1 2 And if it will, then we want to look at that. 3 If it changes and puts this material where it will 4 go into the shoaling patterns, we'll put the 5 material so it will go in the upland disposal sites 6 where it can be utilized, then that's the issue 7 that we'll look at. 8 Along those lines, we're also looking at 9 beneficial uses, and I'll give a report on that. 10 As far as the sediment quality -- 11 MR. BREWTON: Yeah, particularly the 12 composition of the sediment; that is, that it may 13 be of a different composition from 42 to 48 feet. 14 It was up to 42 feet. I'm wondering if GPA, 15 or Lockwood Greene, or somebody is looking at that; 16 if so, when will that report be done? How will 17 that be transmitted back to the SEG? 18 MR. BEASON: I don't have an answer for that 19 one, Ben. 20 MR. BREWTON: Looks like Morgan might. 21 MR. REES: Yes. That's part of our 22 presentation of what else is going on on the 23 project. Sediment analysis, the results will be 24 available. The specific timing, we're not quite 25 sure yet. We have a general time. 18 1 2 MR. BREWTON: You're going to talk about that 3 later today? 4 MR. REES: Yes. 5 MR. BREWTON: The second concern, Fred, which 6 part of it has to do with the additional dredging 7 necessary for the proposed project, part of it, I 8 guess, is ongoing maintenance. 9 We keep hearing that there's specific finite 10 time frames for which the GPA, or the Corps, so 11 forth, are looking at handling of dredge material, 12 yet the dredging is basically a perpetual activity. 13 I'm wondering, is your committee looking at 14 not just a 5 year, a 10 year, a 20 year or even 50 15 year disposal of this dredge material; is anybody 16 looking at it on a perpetual or sustainable basis? 17 MR. BEASON: Ben, we did look at that. We are 18 continuing to do that. I will tell you that the 19 committee met. One of the members is John 20 Phillips, who is with Georgia DOT, who is 21 responsible for the upland disposal sites. 22 And part of the data we researched indicates 23 the New River, whenever that's created, the O and M 24 operations will not increase significantly. 25 In fact, it was less than probably 50,000 19 1 2 yards annually change, and that's based on 3 historical data. 4 The applicant does have, in their proposal, 5 guidelines to replace a one for one ratio for 6 upland disposal sites that are used for the new 7 works. 8 So at the end of the day, there will be as 9 much capacity there after the new work is completed 10 as there was before. 11 The O and M is an issue that has been out 12 there, and it was addressed by the 50 year plan, 13 and we're reviewing that to see where we're going. 14 The answer then and the answer now is we need 15 to research and find a beneficial use for the 16 material, so that we can extend the life of those 17 upland disposal sites without having to create new 18 ones. 19 MR. BREWTON: Okay. Well GPA, or the Corps, 20 or DOT is doing something outside or with your 21 committee on this? 22 MR. BEASON: The future use and extended 23 life of the upland disposal sites was addressed by 24 the Corps of Engineers and Georgia DOT through the 25 LTMS through the Corps of Engineers. 20 1 2 MR. BREWTON: Well, I guess my question is 3 really -- maybe I'm not asking the appropriate view 4 related to dredging issues. 5 Everything I've seen so far has to do 10 year, 6 20 year, 50 year projections. Like I say, this is 7 a perpetual, ongoing thing. If you take 50,000 8 yard a year increase over the 500 years, that's 9 25,000,000 yards. Over 1,000 years, that's 10 50,000,000 yards. 11 Unless we're going to fill the channel back in 12 or close the harbor down at some point, it is a 13 perpetual problem. I'm just wondering, is anybody, 14 is any agency, the DOT, the Corps, the GPA looking 15 at that on a sustainable, perpetual basis? 16 MR. DYSART: Does anybody have an answer to 17 that question? Dan. 18 MR. PARROTT: Dan Parrott, Corps of Engineers. 19 The LTMS looked at the present means in the harbor 20 and the uses of the disposal areas. 21 Most of that 50,000 cubic yards is offshore 22 and related to the extension of the channel further 23 offshore. Therefore, the 50,000 cubic yards is 24 related to -- will be placed in the offshore 25 disposal area, if that helps. 21 1 2 MR. DYSART: Further questions? 3 MR. BREWTON: Okay. Well, I do. I'll defer 4 it to later. 5 MR. DYSART: Before we reassume Bill's report, 6 why don't we have late arrivers introduce 7 themselves. 8 MR. BREWTON: Ben Brewton, Coastal 9 Environmental Organization. 10 MR. SCHUBERTH: Chris Schuberth, Chatham 11 Environment Forum. 12 MR. ROGERS: Larry Rogers, Georgia EPD. 13 MR. ALEXANDER: Mark Alexander, Skidaway 14 Institute. 15 MR. DYSART: Bill, would you resume your 16 report, please? 17 MR. BAILEY: Okay. That's pretty much it with 18 the Dredging and Disposal Committee. Fisheries 19 Committee had three studies. The first one listed 20 there, the status is the first one in this list 21 that is -- the first study effort that has been 22 completed. 23 So it was recommended and approved and funded 24 and it's done. And it's now being reviewed back by 25 the Fisheries Committee, and they will meet later 22 1 2 -- plan to meet later this month to talk about 3 that. 4 The next page, item four additional studies, 5 basically the Fisheries Committee didn't see any 6 other studies out there, you know, other than 7 whatever may come up from the results of study 8 number one, but there's no other issues out there 9 we're aware of. MTRG had a whole list of -- 10 MR. STEVENS: Again, if I might, I don't know 11 if this is even appropriate. If you need to tell 12 me to shut up, please do, Bill. I was wondering 13 if the Fisheries Committee, what steps they have 14 taken, if any, related to the central fish habitat. 15 MR. BAILEY: Studies number two and three were 16 designed to produce the information to -- that 17 would allow ATM to do an essential fish habitat 18 evaluation. 19 MR. STEVENS: Well, is the committee aware 20 that South Atlantic Council took a very strong 21 position in opposition to the Charleston Harbor 22 project related to the central fish habitat? 23 I think you can rest assured the council will 24 be looking very closely at this project. We need 25 to make sure that is being considered, the impacts 23 1 2 to the central fish habitat. 3 MR. BROWNELL: I note we didn't mention in 4 this report about the ongoing short-nose sturgeon 5 study already approved and in a sense ongoing. 6 Okay. It's in there. 7 MR. DYSART: Other questions? 8 MR. BAILEY: Okay. What Press is referring to 9 is the study of short-nose sturgeon. That comes 10 under MTRG, next committee page four. MTRG had a 11 lot of scopes of work. Some of those have been 12 completed. 13 That first group, the field data collection 14 efforts, a lot of that's been done and they're now 15 into the second group of model development. 16 So -- and the next page five tidal amplitude, 17 we talked about that as a committee, and as the 18 SEG, and that's something that is being reviewed by 19 GPA. They're preparing task statements on that. 20 MR. BREWTON: Bill, a question on that. I see 21 the description of that study refers to basically 22 historical changes. I don't see anything about 23 the projection or modelling of what might occur 24 with the deepening. Is that part of that, or is 25 this only a look at the historical -- 24 1 2 MR. BAILEY: I think -- I believe what we 3 recommended was just a historical look to try to 4 get a perspective on if it was a big issue in the 5 past for past deepenings. There will be, I think, 6 there you guys can help me out. 7 MR. REES: We need a clarification. We don't 8 understand. 9 MR. BAILEY: Can I give a clarification? 10 MR. REES: Can you go back over it? We're not 11 connecting with what you are asking or Ben was 12 asking. 13 MR. DYSART: Who do need a clarification from? 14 MR. REES: Well, I don't know. 15 MR. BAILEY: Top of page five. 16 MR. BREWTON: We'll repeat that whole 17 sequence. Bill can do his. I'll do my question. 18 MR. REES: Okay. Tidal amplitude. 19 MR. BAILEY: Tidal amplitude, it's written up 20 as being a historical review, and Ben wanted to 21 know if tidal amplitude was going to be looked at 22 for projection of future deepening. 23 MR. BREWTON: I thought that was what the 24 question that had been raised was; what affect this 25 project might have on tidal amplitude, and part of 25 1 2 the way that y'all are going to get there was 3 looking at the historical trend, but I thought the 4 end result was going to be to give us some 5 feedback, the SEG some feedback, on whether there 6 would be additional amplitude changes expected 7 connected to the project. 8 MR. REES: I think what we've said is we are 9 evaluating the issue, and that the model that's 10 being developed can address tidal amplitude 11 changes. 12 We have not made any decisions yet on what the 13 nature of the model runs will be to address that 14 issue. 15 It's just too soon. We haven't finished the 16 analysis. To say yes we're going to do this, or 17 yes, we're going to do that depends on the analysis 18 of an issue as it was raised in the first place. 19 That's not completed yet. 20 MR. BREWTON: Okay. I can accept that. The 21 only thing I think should be noted is I don't want 22 to see it where this description becomes the 23 guideline, and there's no effort or no 24 consideration of looking at the effect of the 25 current project. 26 1 2 What you are saying is basically that's not 3 yet decided, as opposed to you're not going to do 4 it. 5 MR. REES: Correct. 6 MR. McINTOSH: I had a question about that. 7 MR. DYSART: Neff. 8 MR. McINTOSH: Neff McIntosh. At the risk of 9 being completely irrelevant here, I've missed the 10 last two meetings, if I recall correctly there was 11 a commitment by Bo, I think, to sort of amplify the 12 insignificant comment of three or four months ago 13 about the tidal amplitude as it did move forward 14 past the project, not a historical context. 15 These notes were borne out of the meeting that 16 we all attended of the MTRG meeting, and this was 17 going to happen. And then it was going to be sort 18 of rolled into a view, and if the model could 19 accommodate it, some sort of sense of the tidal 20 amplitude post the project. 21 MR. REES: Yes. 22 MR. McINTOSH: It should really reflect that, 23 I think, if we're talking about data review of 24 tidal amplitude, that notion of post the project 25 what the significance really would be of additional 27 1 2 tide levels in the harbor. 3 MR. REES: Just as another -- that's a good 4 clarification, Neff. Thank you. As another 5 clarification to that, the MTRG was not developed 6 with respect to doing analysis of those kinds of 7 things. 8 The members of the MTRG are modelers. They 9 are able to tell us whether or not this model can 10 handle that issue. But in terms of going beyond 11 that, they have not been charged with anything 12 further. That's not to say it's not going to 13 happen. 14 But if you look at the organization of this 15 paper, that's the part that's dealing with the 16 MTRG. Just because it's not addressed in this part 17 of the paper doesn't mean the issue has gone away. 18 Does that help? 19 MR. McINTOSH: I mean, there was a commitment 20 by the committee that day, and by Bo specifically 21 at the follow-up SEG meeting, which happened within 22 a couple of weeks of that MTRG meeting, that this 23 would not only be looked into, it would be 24 presented back to the SEG in some sort of 25 scientific way to say, we've looked at it, we've 28 1 2 talked about it, we've talked to USGS, we've got 3 the historical data, and what we think it says, 4 given the model under these conditions, the model's 5 going to predict this kind of problem or 6 significance or insignificance. That's what I was 7 looking for when I brought it up four, five months 8 ago. 9 MR. REES: And that's still the case. All I'm 10 saying is I'm not certain the specific members of 11 the MTRG are the ones to make that kind of analytic 12 step in the process. 13 MR. McINTOSH: Then we can count on GPA to 14 find the people that would be able to make that 15 analytical leap? 16 MR. REES: Yes. 17 MR. McINTOSH: Okay. 18 MR. DYSART: More questions. Ben Brewton. 19 MR. BREWTON: Yeah. I'm under the impression 20 too the report would be given to us would be looked 21 at -- the report given at the SEG meeting 22 subsequent to the MTRG that Neff mentions. 23 I guess what concerns me is since the MTRG is 24 reporting on the scope of the work, in relation to 25 tidal amplitude, and it's reported only in historic 29 1 2 terms as opposed to any kind of projection on 3 there, sometimes things get written down, and then 4 that becomes the frame of reference, when the frame 5 of reference really should be the commitment made 6 in the MTRG report. 7 So if this is a report that's going to be 8 laying around, posted on the web site, distributed 9 and so forth, I'd certainly like to see some 10 clarification put under number two that if the MTRG 11 isn't doing that, that GPA will look at future 12 projections for tidal amplitude changes related to 13 the present project, or use this information. 14 Can we get some commitment adding that line 15 somewhere in the future printing of the report? 16 Where does it say that, Dave? 17 MR. SCHALLER: It says it's under review by 18 GPA, the status. 19 MR. REES: Status. 20 MR. BREWTON: Yeah, but it doesn't say 21 anything about -- what it says is under review is a 22 data review of historical tidal amplitude changes. 23 I think what we're looking for is a 24 confirmation of the commitment to look at tidal 25 amplitude changes that may or may not be connected 30 1 2 with this project. 3 MR. DYSART: What do you mean, may or may not 4 be connected with this project? 5 MR. BREWTON: Well, I shouldn't have said it 6 that way -- may be connected with this project, or 7 if there are to be expected tidal amplitude changes 8 connected with this project. 9 MR. REES: Shall we write it in blood, Ben? I 10 mean, it's been said it's under review. I 11 commented on your question earlier, we're looking 12 at it and it will addressed. The specifics of how 13 it will be addressed are not yet known. I don't 14 know how else to say it. 15 MR. BREWTON: Okay. Okay. Let me respond to 16 that comment, because I think we're getting to the 17 very base of something. 18 We come here and we talk about something and 19 we agree on something. We raise an issue. People, 20 I know Professor Schuberth and Professor McIntosh 21 went to that committee meeting. It was an 22 extensive discussion. 23 They came back and reported to the SEG it 24 would be looked at. The next time we see something 25 in writing, it is not even mentioned. Yes, maybe 31 1 2 you do need to write it in blood. 3 MR. REES: GPA didn't prepare this report. 4 GPA was not involved in the preparation of this 5 report. Raise the issue with whoever wrote the 6 report. 7 MR. BREWTON: Well, I'm raising the issue. 8 GPA's environmental consultant and committee chair, 9 Bo Ellis, handled this. He's also the one, and 10 it's also the same committee where the discussion 11 took place and the report came back to the SEG, 12 saying it would be looked at. 13 I don't recall any distinction that day 14 between the MTRG and ATM and GPA regarding who 15 would look at that. As a matter of fact, the issue 16 was referred to the MTRG. All I'm saying, Morgan, 17 is let's just somewhere keep the tracking of that 18 commitment here and don't let it -- don't let it 19 fall out. 20 MR. REES: We don't have any problem with 21 that, Ben. I would refer it back to the folks who 22 wrote the report. 23 MR. DYSART: Mr. Eudaly has been raising his 24 card. Ed 25 MR. EUDALY: It seems to me this could be 32 1 2 cleared up, look at the last bullet on page five. 3 That addresses the model runs will be made. If a 4 statement was simply added in there that tidal 5 amplitude would be one of the factors addressed 6 through the output, then I think that would solve 7 the problem, it seems to me. 8 Up here you're talking about some of the 9 analysis that would be done to make sure the model 10 is performing correctly, or the design of the 11 model. 12 But I think what Ben is talking about is 13 output. It will evaluate output, tidal amplitude. 14 So I think if you just put a sentence in that last 15 bullet that tidal amplitude would be part of the 16 output analysis, then that would seem to solve the 17 problem to me. 18 MR. BREWTON: That's a good suggestion. 19 MR. McINTOSH: Would it have to be in blood? 20 MR. EUDALY: No. 21 MR. BREWTON: Black ink would satisfy me or 22 red. 23 MR. DYSART: Further questions. Bill, 24 proceed, please, with your report. 25 MR. BAILEY: Okay. I can go ahead and add 33 1 2 that in here somewhere. 3 MR. DYSART: You're starting on which page and 4 which item to remind us where we are? 5 MR. BAILEY: Page five. I guess I'm on number 6 three. The MTRG didn't see any -- didn't see any 7 other studies in the -- on the horizon for 8 preparation of the model. 9 Number four, there's three paragraphs there. 10 At this point, these are things for you to think 11 about relating to the model. 12 The first one talks about defining critical 13 conditions. MTRG will probably, as it says, the 14 MTRG will probably work with the agencies to define 15 those, but that's -- that is important in the model 16 and use of the model. 17 The second paragraph, there are currently no 18 plans for post-project verification of a model and 19 that's -- we're just kind of saying -- saying it, 20 you know, there it is. That is generally not done 21 for a feasibility project for Corps' projects. 22 And the third paragraph talks about use of the 23 model afterwards. The third line there, there's no 24 mechanism to maintain the model or maintain it in 25 a ready to use status. These are just things for 34 1 2 the seg to think about. 3 MR. BREWTON: Question, two questions 4 actually, Bill. One, I corresponded with you by 5 e-mail, and I thought there was going to be some 6 clarification in here. 7 The phrase used in here, at least twice, is 8 the calibrated and approved three dimensional 9 hydrodynamic model, is this meaning that referring 10 to the model at some such time as it is calibrated 11 and approved, or is there an implication here it is 12 already calibrated and approved? 13 MR. BAILEY: Turn back a page in number one, I 14 did a change. 15 MR. BREWTON: Okay. I see to develop a 16 calibrated -- 17 MR. BAILEY: Read the next couple of sentences 18 there. 19 MR. BREWTON: Right. 20 MR. BAILEY: Read through those and see if it 21 answers your questions. 22 MR. McINTOSH: Bill, is this the wrong time to 23 ask about that second paragraph? You say it's 24 for consideration and thought down the road. 25 Should we let it go and worry about it later? Is 35 1 2 that the idea here, to get through this? 3 MR. BAILEY: I think everybody ought to read 4 the whole thing in the next month. This may be one 5 of those things. This may be a longer term. This 6 is not something you have to decide today or next 7 month. 8 It's something to keep in mind. You can talk 9 about it whenever. If you want to say something 10 now, I'm not going to say no. 11 MR. McINTOSH: You know, item two, the no 12 plans to confirm the projections of the calibrated 13 and approved blah blah blah, seems to me one of the 14 things the SEG ought to do, I guess I'm adding this 15 to the thought process in the next month or two, we 16 simply ought to put the model to the test after 17 it's done if, in fact, the project is approved and 18 goes forward. 19 That's one of the great mysteries of the prior 20 harbor deepenings is, how good did the model do, 21 how well did it predict the behavior of the channel 22 once it was moved from 36 to 42? 23 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton's card is up. 24 MR. BREWTON: In reading that first paragraph, 25 I see where it says tier one mode is being refined 36 1 2 and calibrated by GPA and ATM, and then will be 3 reviewed by the MTRG. 4 As technical experts, the MTRG would review 5 the model performance. Now, my understanding, at 6 some point, when the MTRG has agreed on a 7 calibrated model, that that model, that whole 8 concept would be presented back to this SEG; is 9 that right or is this saying it would not be? 10 MR. BAILEY: The model becomes the basis for 11 all the impact evaluation. 12 MR. BREWTON: Right. I understand it would 13 be the basis. What I'm saying is, after you finish 14 your work on the model with the MTRG, are you going 15 to make a presentation back to this group for the 16 SEG as a whole to approve this calibrated model? 17 MR. ELLIS: That has not been discussed in the 18 MTRG. 19 MR. BREWTON: Well, all the other task 20 statements have come to the SEG for approval. And 21 it seems to me this model, since it is the 22 fundamental thing underlying all the reports, there 23 does need to be some reporting back to the SEG 24 before that model is considered to be calibrated 25 and approved. 37 1 2 MR. ELLIS: Some presentation, yes. 3 MR. REES: Yes, the answer is yes. 4 MR. BREWTON: The answer is yes. Okay. All 5 right. Maybe if we could add that in here, you 6 know, at that time, the model will be presented to 7 the SEG. 8 MR. SCHALLER: Would you repeat what you just 9 said? I didn't hear the last part. 10 MR. BREWTON: I asked if we could add that yes 11 into this description, to confirm that the model, 12 the ultimate approval, the ultimate presentation of 13 that model will be to the SEG. 14 I don't think we have any other committees 15 that -- in other words, all the other committees, 16 all other tasks come back to the SEG for reporting 17 and approval. 18 I don't think that we should consider this 19 model to be an SEG approved model, an SEG 20 sanctioned model, so forth, until that committee 21 has completed their work, and have it the way they 22 want it, and present it back to the SEG for 23 approval. 24 MR. DYSART: Let me ask for clarification. 25 Would this imply that also this body would approve 38 1 2 all of the tools, techniques, and procedures, say 3 in the biological area that the University of 4 Georgia researchers are doing? 5 Does this body want to approve all tools, 6 techniques, procedures, that are used by 7 specialists and experts? 8 MR. BREWTON: That wasn't my question. My 9 question was about one specific tool, which is 10 the one that underlies all of the projections and 11 all of the other studies, which is the model that 12 will be used for projections of the chloride, the 13 dissolved oxygen, the marsh salinity, so on and so 14 forth. 15 MR. DYSART: David Judy. 16 MR. SCHALLER: I'm speculating here a little 17 bit that perhaps Ben's definition of approval is 18 different than the one I'm thinking of. 19 The hydrodynamic mechanic model, once it's 20 completed, if you will, by the MTRG Committee will 21 be presented to the SEG, but not for approval in 22 the sense that I think you perhaps mean. 23 If there are problems, once the model is 24 presented to the SEG, those problems will be 25 addressed and resolved. It's not a question of an 39 1 2 approval in the literal sense of yes, you may 3 proceed, no, don't go. 4 MR. BREWTON: Well, I have to say I am talking 5 about the approval in the literal sense. I was 6 assuming when Morgan said he was saying yes as 7 well, the idea that the SEG would specify studies 8 that we wanted done, but -- but be cast in -- cast 9 into a role we have to accept the methodology that 10 GPA develops, that that is not subject to the SEG 11 approval, I think is just dead wrong. 12 I don't see how this body can function if we 13 have no say. So if we have no approval over the 14 way the model is being put together, the way the 15 model is being used, and the way these things are 16 run, I think it is inherent in this SEG that we 17 have to have some review and approval rights over 18 the one thing that is the fundamental basis for 19 every environmental study this group is going to 20 review. 21 MR. DYSART: Judy's card is up and then back 22 to David. 23 MS. JENNINGS: I continue to be the a little 24 overwhelmed by the technical nature of work of the 25 MTRG. I want to reaffirm, and if I'm incorrect I 40 1 2 want somebody to tell me. ATM and MTRG are 3 synonymous terms. 4 I'm assuming from the MTRG meetings I've 5 attended in Savannah, I wish more of them were in 6 Savannah, but I see a broad representation of 7 technical expertise. 8 If that isn't happening, then I'd like to know 9 from the MTRG. It is my assumption and observation 10 that it is, that there is a broad representation of 11 technical expertise on the MTRG, and there is 12 extensive scientific and technical debate in that 13 committee. 14 Then, when it comes to us, it will be 15 technically fully technical and have been fully 16 debated and researched. So if I'm incorrect in 17 those observations, tell me. I think I'm correct 18 because I have observed the meetings. 19 MR. BAILEY: I know the Corps has attended 20 those meetings. Participants have made comments, 21 have had things changed because of those comments. 22 Other agencies are also represented. 23 MR. DYSART: Are there other views on what 24 Judy just said, her views and assumptions, so forth 25 are accurate or not? I think she was asking 41 1 2 knowledgeable people here to speak on that. 3 Anybody else other than Bill? David. 4 MR. SCHALLER: Yes. Her assumptions are 5 correct. 6 MR. DYSART: John. 7 MR. SAWYER: As a part of the MTRG, what 8 Judy is saying is correct. There are a number of 9 different people that are part of the MTRG 10 including myself. ATM, is not a part of the MTRG. 11 They are not GPA. They are not synonymous. They 12 are another part of MTRG. 13 I hear what Ben's saying, although I would 14 suggest that when you take the stand of approving 15 that kind of a model that you take great care, 16 because once you approve it, and you make the 17 assumption or, at least I would if I'm approving 18 something, I make the assumption I understand what 19 I'm approving, that whatever the results of that 20 model, you're pretty much going to be bound by 21 them. 22 You leave yourself with very little out, 23 because now you've already approved. I mean, we're 24 using what you approved. I would just suggest you 25 take care in being able to veto or make a blanket 42 1 2 approval of something that you may or may not 3 understand. 4 As far as the presentation of the model, 5 personally, I think -- I think it would be a great 6 idea. I'm not going to understand it all. I'm not 7 a modeler, so I'm not going to understand it all. 8 Everybody else in here might. I'm certain Bo 9 and his folks can go into that, to any level of 10 detail that anyone would like to see. If you want 11 to approve it, that's fine. If not, that's fine. 12 If you're not going to approve it, you have to 13 have some basis for not approving. I would suggest 14 you can get yourself fired up on a whole lot of 15 things that are really not pertinent. 16 MR. DYSART: Chris. 17 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think the discussion 18 probably centers around what is sort of lurking in 19 the side wings a little bit. In all due respect to 20 the qualify of the work MTRG is doing, it's packed 21 with individuals who know their business and know 22 their business very well, they present it. 23 It's now said we have to be careful because 24 once you approve, based upon best judgement, you're 25 left with no out. So what mechanism do us 43 1 2 illiterates have who are not knowledgeable in this 3 area of expertise to say, well you know, there 4 really is another viewpoint. You don't have that 5 mechanism. 6 I mean this can with anything. I can present 7 a paper, say this is my viewpoint, and I believe in 8 it very firmly. Then there are going to be five or 9 six people saying, in all due respect, you've done 10 a wonderful job, however, you've overlooked this, 11 you've overlooked this, you've overlooked that; 12 therefore, your results have to be modified 13 accordingly. 14 MR. DYSART: Ed, David, Bill, Judy, then Ben 15 Brewton. 16 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 17 Service has not participated directly in MTRG. We 18 do have Dr. Paul Conrad, USGS, representing us on 19 that group. 20 We're very comfortable with his expertise. 21 You know, I think the MTRG is probably going to 22 have to do the bulk of evaluations of the model. I 23 believe if anyone in this body, the SEG, can 24 identify things that they have overlooked and flaws 25 in their analysis, then I think they should bring 44 1 2 those up and get a response from the appropriate 3 people to address those. I think that would -- I 4 hope that would make most people very comfortable. 5 MR. DYSART: David. 6 MR. KYLER: I was not at the last meeting, so 7 I'm working a little bit on hearsay, but as I 8 understand, there was some discussion that shed 9 some light on the unpredictability or lack of 10 consistent opinion about the current work of ATM, 11 minority opinion being from Chuck Watson, I 12 believe. 13 So, that would suggest, at least at this 14 point, in the development of the model there are 15 some serious questions being raised about the 16 accuracy or acceptability of the model being done. 17 When the report is made on the final model, it 18 seems to me it would useful to have a third party 19 opinion, who has some expertise in this area, who 20 can advise the rest of us of what was done, 21 consistent with what Ben's talking about. 22 I also think we have to have a clear 23 understanding about what standard of -- what is the 24 standard of acceptability; that is, what degree of 25 confidence can we put in the results of the model, 45 1 2 likewise, what are the marginal costs of developing 3 the model further so we know how much confidence we 4 can put in the implications that this model has to 5 all kinds of other impacts to the project. 6 MR. DYSART: Bill Farmer, please. 7 MR. FARMER: The SEG operating guidelines 8 indicate that our function is to recommend 9 scientific studies, and I don't believe there's 10 anything in the operating guidelines that say the 11 SEG then approves the study results, or models that 12 are used, or whatever. 13 Now, whether or not the SEG should be in that 14 business, I would suggest we refer that issue back 15 to the SEG Operating Guidelines Committee, and see 16 if they would like to recommend change in the 17 operating guidelines, which would include some sort 18 of approval or review or something like that. I 19 don't think we'll solve it here. I think it's a 20 committee study to come back to the SEG. 21 MR. DYSART: Judy. 22 MS. JENNINGS: My comments basically are a 23 reflection of Ed Eudaly said, if you have concerns 24 either enable yourself of the expertise or find 25 somebody and send them to the committee. 46 1 2 We have to put some degree of faith in the 3 work that comes out of our committees, and part of 4 that is our responsibility in committee. 5 MR. DYSART: David. 6 MR. SCHALLER: Just -- just I would also echo 7 Mr. Eudaly's and Ms. Jennings' comments in that 8 regard, and with respect to Mr. Kyler's comments, 9 there are 12 to 16 experts who are involved in the 10 MTRG, highly regarded professionals, very competent 11 individuals. 12 For those who are concerned that they are 13 overlooking something, missing something, they 14 ought to be concerned about a different 15 perspective, please make those facts known to the 16 MTRG now, so that they can be considered and 17 the product they produce is the very best it can 18 be. 19 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 20 MR. BREWTON: Well, I think we've got to look 21 at a few things here. One, we've had reported to 22 us several times that the MTRG has had a rather 23 unconventional way of working. I think it was 24 noted several time, they don't keep records of 25 certain types of correspondence and comments and 47 1 2 communications. 3 Also, the MTRG, Bo has said, does a lot of 4 its work over the phone and e-mail, but doesn't 5 keep records of those things. And the model is 6 undergoing constant tweaking, and adjustment, and 7 so forth, through the work of these various folks. 8 Of the 12 or 16 people that are on there, 9 I'll ask this question for the sake of clarity. 10 John Sawyer, I know he's a participant. He's a 11 scientist of some sort. 12 He just told us he's not a modeler. Bo, how 13 many people participating in the MTRG are modelers 14 by training and profession? 15 MR. ELLIS: Probably about half. 16 MR. BREWTON: So six people? 17 MR. ELLIS: Approximately six to eight. 18 MR. BREWTON: Could you tell us who the people 19 that are modelers are in MTRG? 20 MR. ELLIS: Besides ATM? 21 MR. BREWTON: Yeah, besides ATm. 22 MR. ELLIS: I'll tell you the organizations. 23 Wes, the Corps of Engineers, EPA, EPD, USGS, DHEC, 24 Skidaway, and your representative. I don't know if 25 they're modelers or not. 48 1 2 MR. BREWTON: DHEC people from South Carolina 3 have a modeler, because they have told me -- 4 MR. ELLIS: Yes. 5 MR. BREWTON: -- anybody here from South 6 Carolina today? They told me they did not have a 7 modeler on the staff. 8 MR. ELLIS: They do modeling. She is 9 considered a modeler. We do a lot of work with 10 them. 11 MR. BREWTON: A lot of people are 12 participating, as you've said, are not modelers. 13 The group has not produced a product that has 14 really come back in a tangible form. 15 I would say it's kind of a black box of sorts. 16 A lot of us don't know what's in it. We have sent 17 somebody on occasion, somebody to participate in 18 a meeting and tried to follow it, and our plans 19 were at such time that you had a finished product 20 or what you considered a finished product to 21 present to the SEG, we would also engage someone to 22 review that and give us some comments on that. 23 One of the things we've been waiting on is the 24 data collection report, which was going to be ready 25 several months ago. Hopefully, you'll report on it 49 1 2 today. 3 There is nothing -- sure, we can make 4 comments, as Ed suggested, along the way. We don't 5 know at any given time where the model is, how far 6 it is from being finished. What's being tweaked, 7 what's not. 8 It's just a lot of discussion right now. I 9 think at some point there does need to be a 10 reporting and review mechanism. 11 This right here, I noticed in the language it 12 doesn't say the MTRG would approve the model. It 13 says the MTRG would review model. 14 So what I'm wondering is who ultimately has 15 the say so, this is the model, yes or no. Is it 16 GPA? Is it ATM? Is it the Corps of Engineers? 17 Is it MTRG or is it the SEG? 18 I think that's a very undefined thing. I 19 think Dave Kyler expressed some of my thoughts in 20 little more detail very well, that it's the 21 fundamental thing we're looking at. 22 Certainly, we can't get into a higher level 23 mathematics during the presentation, but I think 24 the end result of the model created, as Dave said, 25 the confidence level, the margins of error, the 50 1 2 limitations, boundary conditions, so forth, 3 certainly those things can be presented to this 4 group. 5 All of the organizations, who are represented 6 here, should at least have the opportunity to 7 review it, engage in some professional review if 8 they wish to counsel them on it. 9 I don't think we should take it as something 10 that's being just presented to this group, that we 11 have no option on it. So I'd just like to -- we 12 don't have to belabor this point here. 13 I'd like to definitely be on the record as 14 saying, it's our expectation at some point that 15 report will come here and be reviewed, before it is 16 considered to be an accepted and calibrated model. 17 MR. DYSART: Morgan, do you have anything to 18 clarify for the record also? 19 MR. REES: Yes, I do. I guess I agree with 20 what Ben's saying and with what Chris said. If I 21 were sitting in a group and were not an expert, I 22 would still want to have an opportunity to look at 23 what the experts do, and make sure that I'm 24 "comfortable" with it. 25 Having said that, if you look at the project 51 1 2 from the broad perspective of where we are and 3 where we are going, as many people have recognized, 4 the validity of this model is a crucial activity. 5 I would like to urge the SEG to consider 6 urging any of its members, who have a particular 7 interest in this issue, to raise issues sooner 8 rather than later, and to participate actively in 9 the MTRG and in the committee structure, which by 10 the way the way we establish the organization of 11 this group in the first place, so that we are not 12 surprised at let's say a year from now with 13 somebody saying, well, I'm sorry. We don't like 14 your model. It's no good. 15 I would like the SEG to consider urging their 16 members to take that approach. Now is the time to 17 get involved, without foregoing the opportunity in 18 the future to raise questions, by any means, but we 19 need to know whatever concerns people have, sooner 20 rather than later. 21 MR. DYSART: Neff McIntosh, and then back to 22 Ben Brewton. 23 MR. McINTOSH: Very briefly. I would just say 24 if Chuck Watson had worked for JPL before they 25 launched the third Mars Mission when they had the 52 1 2 meters and feed onboard, it would have saved them a 3 lot of trouble. 4 So I would support the notion that, at some 5 point, a peer review, as Chris calls it, or if SEG 6 wanted to hire somebody, or CEO or whoever had 7 reviewers of the model downstream, it doesn't make 8 bad sense to look at it along the way, because it 9 is a very critical set of parameters once you set 10 the thing in motion. 11 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton, further comments. 12 MR. BREWTON: Morgan, I appreciate your 13 concurrence with some of my comments, but it's not 14 something to say we have anything to challenge the 15 model with, it's not right, people aren't doing 16 good work. 17 Basically, we don't know what kind of work 18 they're doing. We assume they're doing good work. 19 We assume they're very qualified and competent 20 people involved. 21 Yes, at some point we do want the ability to 22 have that reviewed, just like having your lawyer 23 look at contracts before you sign them. In that 24 regard, I'd say we have tried to participate where 25 we can. 53 1 2 We are a small organization. The MTRG is 3 meeting at least half the time or more in Atlanta. 4 Some of their -- the way the work is being handled 5 is a little bit unconventional compared to some of 6 the other committees. If that works for them, 7 that's fine. 8 I'm not criticizing that. I'm saying we're 9 not able to afford to have a modeler there at 10 every one of the meetings. That doesn't mean we're 11 not interested. We don't want to have someone 12 review it on our behalf, when there is a product 13 that is at a reviewable stage. 14 Right now, it is mostly just discussion. 15 We're not seeing a lot of hard and tangible 16 product. 17 So I do appreciate your comments, and that is 18 very much on target. I did want to add why we, I 19 think some of the other organizations and agencies, 20 are not able to participate and have someone 21 participating on our behalf in every meeting. 22 Thanks. Sorry, Bill. 23 MR. DYSART: Bill, you're recognized. 24 MR. BAILEY: I'll continue. 25 MR. DYSART: Clarify where are you starting, 54 1 2 which items are you starting back on? 3 MR. BAILEY: Page six. Striped Bass 4 Committee. They recommended two studies. First 5 one is shown there on page six. That's underway, 6 and a lot of that's been done. Page seven is the 7 another study that is also underway. There's a 8 detailed description there. Page eight, the topic 9 there is no additional field studies are planned at 10 this time or are foreseen at this time. 11 The third little section there, the committee 12 will likely want to assist ATM in identifying model 13 application runs. So that's just where that 14 committee is, and what they see in the future for 15 them. 16 Economics Working Group, second item is the 17 important one there. I'll let you read that. Next 18 section is the tidal wetlands -- two major studies 19 there. The first one is the tidal wetlands study 20 by the service. Two parts of the field studies is 21 A, and the next page B is the model development and 22 that's approved. 23 Page 10 is what's called the resource 24 utilization study, and that one also has been 25 approved. Okay. 55 1 2 MS. McINTOSH: One thing I would like to see 3 is either requested and/or approved costs 4 associated with all these studies. Is that 5 something GPA can provide us? 6 MR. REES: What cost was that? 7 MS. McINTOSH: Either the requested or 8 approved or both of these studies. 9 MR. REES: Of the individual studies? 10 MS. McINTOSH: Funding level. 11 MR. REES: They don't all have budgets yet 12 because the scopes of work aren't completed. The 13 ones that are completed and underway, there are 14 budgets for them. That's available. 15 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Page 11 -- 11 and 12. 16 That is a little bit different section. Additional 17 or remaining issues, page 11 talks about some of 18 the matrix -- the issues on the matrix and 19 essentially some comments there from the committee, 20 committee chairs about those -- about those issues. 21 Page 12 has some kind of additional thoughts 22 for your consideration. It's kind of food for 23 thought. No recommendations at this point. It's 24 food for thought. Chris. 25 MR. SCHUBERTH: I'd like to thank Bill for 56 1 2 doing a Herculean task and sorting through all this 3 and bringing it down to 12 pages. I think that was 4 really absolutely outstanding. 5 But, I rose to ask a question, and that has to 6 do with page 11 and Item F, the hurricane impacts. 7 Am I to understand this is where the storm water 8 damage discussion that had occurred last month 9 would be placed? 10 MR. BAILEY: Yes. That was just -- that was 11 -- I think from last month a new issue that was put 12 on the list. 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: Okay. 14 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 15 MR. BREWTON: Couple quick questions. In 16 regard to ballast water, it says Morgan Rees will 17 soon make a presentation. Is that another 18 presentation or is that the one we already had? 19 MR. REES: We're having a sidebar 20 conversation, I'm sorry. 21 MR. BREWTON: Page 11 it talks about 22 additional remaining SEG issue, ballast water. GPA 23 Morgan Rees will soon make a presentation. You did 24 make somewhat of a presentation last month. Is 25 that the presentation? 57 1 2 MR. REES: Okay. I, just for the record, I 3 agreed to make modifications to that and provide 4 a hard copy. In the process of doing that this 5 past month, the issue opened up even further, and 6 in terms of there's so much going on in that arena 7 that it's hard to keep up with it, quite frankly. 8 I need to modify that report and regive it in a 9 couple of months. 10 MR. BREWTON: Okay. Good. If we could agree 11 that would be back on the agenda, several of us 12 took a tour of the port the other day and came 13 across interesting things and information. 14 MR. REES: Please pass the information along 15 and the questions, so I can include it in the 16 report, so I don't have to dance around here on the 17 SEG presentation. 18 MR. BREWTON: I'll do that. The second thing 19 was clarification on some of these things at the 20 end regarding the model and the final report 21 continuing, as well related to things on item 22 five, being there were no plans to confirm the 23 accuracy of the model and so forth. 24 I hope that doesn't mean that there would not 25 be monitoring to validate that the construction 58 1 2 project, the mitigation and so forth was as 3 expected. 4 That's something we haven't talked about. I 5 don't want to take away from everything else we 6 have on the agenda right now. If I could ask Ben, 7 maybe we could consider that for an agenda item. 8 What sort of monitoring would there be to 9 validate all of these projections? In other words, 10 if we do agree in this SEG that a certain type of 11 project is acceptable, provided mitigation is done 12 to achieve certain results, that's one I don't 13 think we've had a lot of discussion about, what 14 kind of monitoring and follow-up would there be on 15 this sort of thing. 16 MR. BAILEY: On the last page right in the 17 middle, C, we touched on that as committee chairs. 18 MR. BREWTON: Right. Perfect. 19 MR. DYSART: You still want the agenda item? 20 MR. BREWTON: Yeah, I'd like for us to discuss 21 that, at least some point later, about when the 22 appropriate time to discuss that topic would be, 23 and get it on the agenda at some point. 24 MR. McINTOSH: I just wanted -- 25 MR. DYSART: Neff McIntosh. 59 1 2 MR. McINTOSH: It may be redundant coming 3 from another CEO member. It certainly seems to me 4 that makes a ton of sense, given the mysteries we 5 were confronted with about the prior model and how 6 well it predicted what happened in the river from 7 '92 to 2000. 8 It seems to me that the SEG ought to take it 9 upon itself to make that a feature of any 10 mitigation, if the project goes forward. There 11 will be model testing and model review post the 12 project's construction. 13 We can have some sense, and the GPA can have 14 some sense, and the modelers will have some sense 15 of how well the model did. 16 MR. DYSART: Ken Heitzke. 17 MR. HEITZKE: Going back to page 11, item F. 18 Who and or when will it be determined whether or 19 not the hurricane impacts will be included. These 20 are for possible study, but is someone going to 21 decide when and whom? 22 MR. BAILEY: I think last month, wasn't it 23 charged for each of the committees to discuss it 24 within their committees? I think that was what we 25 did at the end of the meeting. 60 1 2 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 3 MR. REES: I would point out at the last 4 meeting, this issue was put on the matrix, which 5 makes it a part of the analysis. It's a little 6 premature to say specifically what or when. 7 It's certainly got to be dealt with. We're in 8 the process of assessing the information that we 9 have to date, and we would like to get as much 10 additional information as we can to help in that 11 assessment. 12 MR. DYSART: The court reporter has requested 13 we take break by about 10:30. Let's see if we can 14 have the additional cards that are up cover the 15 question, clarification, so forth, and not exceed 16 five minutes. Ben Brewton. Please, we will 17 continue the discussion on this matter after the 18 break. 19 MR. BREWTON: Just for lack of a better place 20 to mention this, it's on the agenda, in regards to 21 the presentation, we did have by Chuck Watson to 22 the potential hurricane impacts, so forth, one of 23 the things I wanted to make sure didn't get lost, 24 it seems like a lot of us got focused on the 25 $4,000,000 increase he projected to do with 61 1 2 Category 3 storm event, but I think the more 3 significant thing he mentioned is there will be 4 other levels of increased damage, some higher or 5 some lower for greater or lesser storms, such 6 that an analyzed cost increase would be the 7 neighborhood of around $750,000 of the analyzed 8 increase in damage over the course of time. 9 So when you look at $750,000 annually on 50 10 year or 100 year life of the project, you're 11 talking about $75,000,000, or $37,000,000, or 12 whatever. 13 I think he gave a window of plus or minus 14 $200,000 a year. Of course, that's one person 15 view. 16 But the point I wanted to make is we shouldn't 17 just focus on that $4,000,000. The fact is there's 18 likely some ongoing, associated cost from the 19 project in regard to storm damage. And whatever it 20 is, it would be there in a greater or lesser 21 extent, depending on the storm. That was just 22 an example of one. Thank you. 23 MR. DYSART: Darrell Greenwood and then David 24 Schaller. 25 MR. GREENWOOD: This is not the same issue, 62 1 2 but I'd like to have a statement fecal chloroform. 3 Has it been ruled out as insignificant -- just 4 a brief statement as to why? 5 MR. DYSART: Who would like to speak to that 6 issue? 7 MR. BAILEY: I think that's just from the 8 sentence above it, as committee chairman, this is 9 from the committee chairs. We didn't see how 10 deepening the channel would affect fecal chloroform 11 levels. We didn't see a link between those. 12 MR. GREENWOOD: In and of itself, but 13 hurricanes do occur. There's going to be a washing 14 effect on all the beaches. 15 MR. BAILEY: Right. And that -- so as 16 committee chairs, we didn't see a need for a 17 separate study of this. 18 MR. GREENWOOD: Additional study? 19 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 20 MR. DYSART: David Schaller. 21 MR. SCHALLER: With respect to Ben's comment 22 with respect to Mr. Watson's presentation, we're 23 going to ask Mr. Watson to educate us about his 24 findings. 25 They weren't subject to any peer review, and 63 1 2 we don't know how he put -- how he came to the 3 results he came to. So we're in the process of 4 trying to just understand what was meant by his 5 statements. 6 MR. BREWTON: I think peer review is a key 7 thing. In all the work we look at, we probably 8 ought to have that. You know, I'm jumping in 9 without my card up. 10 Could we maybe put in an agenda item, at some 11 point, to discuss all the recommended issues from 12 the committee chairs? 13 Maybe that's what we ought to do to figure out 14 how to assign them, or deal with them, or attack 15 them. 16 MR. DYSART: I think that's probably the next 17 agenda item discussion on this from all the members 18 after we've completed the report presentation by 19 the chairman. Okay. It is 10:30. Let's take 20 a five minute break and reassume promptly at 10:35. 21 (Short Break) 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. It's now 10:40 and we're 23 reconvening the meeting. Chairman Bill Bailey 24 is still on the hot seat. We appreciate your 25 report very much. 64 1 2 What I want to do is I want to ask a question 3 of you and of each of the chairs that contributed 4 to this. I think a question that, you know, we 5 need to deal with here is what is y'all's overall 6 opinion about the adequacies of the studies that 7 have been defined so far in accomplishing the SEG's 8 mission. 9 We've got indicated the studies that have been 10 approved by this body, the status about funding and 11 so forth. I realize that we've got additional 12 things recommended and so forth. 13 I guess I would like to call on the chairs 14 that contributed to this, and have them very 15 briefly, in a word, a sentence, a phrase, whatever, 16 say where do they believe they stand in defining 17 things, to the extent they can be swept together 18 and this body can look at it and say, this is the 19 sweep of studies we believe will get the job done, 20 and we'll be in a position to form an opinion on 21 that. So having said this, would you call on the 22 chairs? 23 MR. BAILEY: I'll go ahead and take the lead. 24 MR. DYSART: I appreciate that. Thank you. 25 MR. BAILEY: From the Fisheries Committee, I 65 1 2 haven't asked the full committee, and we do believe 3 that these studies are the only field studies that 4 are needed to address the Fisheries' concerns. 5 They will provide the information that's 6 needed to do -- to evaluate the impacts of the 7 project. 8 MR. DYSART: Field studies, these are the 9 scientific studies called up for in the mission. 10 These are the studies that need to be done -- 11 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 12 MR. DYSART: -- to identify impacts to 13 determine how to mitigate or whether they can be 14 mitigated? 15 MR. BAILEY: Correct. I guess the rest of 16 them will go with the order they're in here. 17 MR. DYSART: Mr. Beason. 18 MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry, you're not first. 19 MR. DYSART: Bill Farmer. 20 MR. FARMER: What? 21 MR. DYSART: The question that I was asking 22 was I asked Bill Bailey if he would call upon the 23 chairs of all the scientific committees that 24 contributed to this and to -- for them to have the 25 opportunity to make a very brief statement on, will 66 1 2 the things that are laid out in your report, will 3 that constitute the science that is needed to 4 determine what will be the impacts, what is the 5 possibility of mitigation, and can it be adequately 6 mitigated? 7 In other words, how close are we to the being 8 able to say what needs to be done, so things can 9 move onto the next step? 10 MR. FARMER: Okay. Well, that was the purpose 11 of our gathering together, to identify the studies 12 that were underway, and what additional studies 13 might be necessary. 14 Since we all participated in that, I don't see 15 the need to do this, but I'll be happy to say that 16 I'm content, I think our committee is content with 17 what's in this report. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. 19 MR. BAILEY: Fred now, I'm sorry. 20 MR. BEASON: I've not met with the Dredging 21 Committee since our chair members met. I'll get 22 some information out to them. It is my 23 understanding from our previous meeting as a 24 committee, the issues we raised were -- are being 25 reviewed and discussed. 67 1 2 While they're not all being directly focused 3 on in the SEG today, they will come up before the 4 SEG as the tier two issues are addressed, and those 5 are pressed against the LTMS and other functions 6 that have been working leading up to this 7 particular program. 8 MR. BAILEY: I guess the next one is the MTRG. 9 Bo Ellis. 10 MR. ELLIS: The report on page five accurately 11 expresses where we are. We don't see any 12 additional studies. Of course, we're working 13 toward development of a tool, not application of 14 that tool for impact scenarios. Right now, we're 15 focused on developing the tools. 16 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Tom and Carl -- Tom and 17 Carl 18 MR. MERONEK: Yes. 19 MR. BAILEY: We're doing presentations right 20 now. You're up next. I'll skip over you for right 21 now so you can find out what's going on. Economics 22 Working Group, Judy. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Yes. We're meeting this 24 afternoon at 3:00 clock. I will have on the web 25 site after this meeting -- what we've spent our 68 1 2 time on previously has been identifying issues. 3 What we'll undertake this afternoon is a systematic 4 approach for addressing those issues and how we 5 expect them to be addressed in the revised economic 6 analysis. All that will be posted on the web site. 7 3:00 o'clock this afternoon at Lockwood Greene, if 8 you can make it, please. 9 MR. BAILEY: Tidal wetlands. John, can you 10 handle that? Sam was out while a lot of discussion 11 was going on. 12 MR. ROBINETTE: Yeah. We've presented the 13 tidal wetlands studies to GPA, and they have been 14 approved. They haven't been funded yet. 15 Their completion date will be based on when 16 the funding comes. We've discussed that, so I 17 think we're pretty well online. 18 MR. BAILEY: Basic question is, are these -- 19 will these studies answer the questions -- 20 MR. ROBINETTE: Yes. 21 MR. BAILEY: -- for this resource? 22 MR. ROBINETTE: Yes. 23 MR. DYSART: Since I raised this question, 24 I'll get off the hook for Tom and Carl, the 25 question I asked as facilitator was I asked Bill to 69 1 2 poll the committee chairs, and very briefly have 3 them say the studies that are outlined in this 4 document that was passed out today, to what extent 5 does that completely specify, in your committees' 6 opinion, the scientific studies that are needed to 7 identify impacts, to determine mitigation 8 approaches, and whether things can be sufficiently 9 mitigated, so in other words, specifically 10 accomplishing the mission of this body. 11 MR. MERONEK: Okay. As far as the studies, 12 that encompasses very clearly what's going on at 13 this time. Of course, I have not had a chance to 14 take this back to the committee, and if they're 15 here, they may have a comment. 16 Our committee has not met and discussed 17 specifically all of this that we -- we don't have 18 -- I mention in here we didn't have any additional 19 field studies planned at this time. 20 I really, from our committees' meetings in the 21 past, we never -- we pretty thoroughly discussed 22 that, I believe, and nothing came up, except for 23 what's mentioned in here. So I think we're 24 fairly comfortable with what is in here. 25 The most important thing to realize is the 70 1 2 last sentence, that the application of the model, 3 and the determination of egg drift patterns using 4 the model, and all the various issues that go along 5 with striped bass spawning and determining those, 6 the impacts by using the model, we will thoroughly 7 address that in the future. 8 This one sentence is fairly generic, and 9 that's what we said when we met. That's what I 10 said. That's going to be something that's very 11 important. 12 I don't want to understate that by just, folks 13 just reading this one sentence. That would be a 14 big part of what Striped Bass does in the future. 15 Looking at mitigation, all the various issues 16 for striped bass, most of it will be model-related, 17 and probably no field studies, but a lot of 18 modeling, not only under the Striped Bass 19 Committee, but also the Back River Restoration 20 Committee, we'll be looking thoroughly at their 21 modeling project, once we get initial results from 22 the phase one study. 23 I think we feel comfortable with what's said. 24 I don't want to understate the fact that by saying 25 that we don't have additional studies that that's 71 1 2 it, because we certainly will have the a lot of 3 input when it comes to modeling. 4 MR. DYSART: The -- where I would end up on 5 this is basically, my read of the mission, this 6 body is to define the issues, specify the science 7 that needed to be done, and then evaluate the 8 scientific results. 9 You pretty well had your list of scientific 10 issues before I came on the scene a year ago this 11 past March. And so I just wanted to see what the 12 opinion of the working committee chairman -- 13 chairpersons were -- on how close you were to 14 having defined the science that needs to be done. 15 So, as far as I'm concerned, we have now 16 proceeded with the next agenda item -- excuse me -- 17 which is further discussion on this topic by 18 members in general. 19 Now, the report has been presented. Is there 20 further discussion, clarification, questions, 21 whatever, about where things stand in defining 22 scientific studies that are needed? Seeing no 23 cards that are up, still seeing no cards up, we'll 24 move on to committee reports. The first committee 25 report is Beach Erosion. Bill Farmer. 72 1 2 MR. FARMER: Each of you should have received 3 a 10 page report. There's a few extra copies here, 4 if anyone needs it. Let me give you a brief 5 overview of what has gone on, and why the committee 6 wants to recommend something different. 7 This, of course, is a picture of the current 8 harbor and Tybee Island is right here. According 9 to a 1975 report, I imagine it's not too far 10 different now. There's about 500,000 cubic yards 11 of sediment that flows down the coastline here 12 towards the channel. 13 And back in 1975, 450,000 of those cubic yards 14 got deposited into the channel, and about 50,000 15 yards made its way south onto Tybee Beach and so 16 forth down here. 17 The current analysis is that every year 18 there's about 250,000 cubic yards of sand that 19 leave Tybee Island and head south. Anyway, the 20 past practice has been for the river channel from 21 the mouth of the river upwards, all the dredging, 22 whether it was deepening dredging or maintenance 23 dredging would be by pipeline, and it would throw 24 the sediment from this area on to Jones Oyster Bed 25 Island right up in through here. 73 1 2 And then from the mouth of the river there 3 would be different way of dredging, and the sand 4 from the channel here that was dredged out, either 5 by deepening or by maintenance, would get thrown 6 into this disposal site out here. 7 About every seven years, the beach would erode 8 so bad along Tybee Island, there would be a beach 9 renourishment project, so that what would happen 10 is right around here somewhere, you would dig a 11 hole and transport about a million cubic yards of 12 sand from this hole you dug and throw it along the 13 beach here. 14 So the idea was, for the beneficial use of 15 sand, either the deepening and/or the maintenance 16 would be to take some of sand, perhaps from in here 17 somewhere out to maybe in here somewhere, and maybe 18 halfway, you know, between the disposal site and 19 the Island, to try to get some of that sand thrown 20 onto the beach. 21 That would eliminate the need to, every seven 22 years, go out and spend $7,000,000, dig a hole and 23 throw sand up on the beach there. So the idea was 24 to change the practice of doing that. 25 We needed to have some economic cost benefit 74 1 2 studies accomplished, which would provide the 3 science and the background to cause a change in the 4 methodology of how deepening is done and how 5 maintenance is done. 6 So now coming back to report here, on the 7 first page on the second paragraph is the substance 8 of the recommendation. It recommends there are 9 two studies; one having to do with the deepening 10 project, and the other one having to do with 11 maintenance projects following the deepening 12 project. 13 Both studies would essentially do the same 14 thing, but look at different volumes of material, 15 and Representative Jack Kingston has been working 16 towards getting half a million dollars from 17 Congress to study the maintenance dredging 18 exercise, to see if some that maintenance dredging 19 material could be thrown into beneficial use. 20 So that prompted the idea that the Beach 21 Erosion Committee would recommend to the SEG what 22 is underlined there. There's a little vertical bar 23 beside the critical words here, so let me read that 24 to you. 25 The committee has, as its recommendation to 75 1 2 the SEG -- the recommendation to the SEG would be 3 that the SEG recommend to the Georgia Ports 4 Authority and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that 5 they take both studies, and modify them into some 6 joint study effort that would accomplish both 7 scopes of work, since the studies are very similar 8 and very complimentary. 9 Following the first page, there are two study 10 descriptions, and the first one has to do with 11 the expansion project, and that's the basic one 12 that this body would be concerned with. 13 Turn over to the second page of that study, 14 there's another vertical bar on the left-hand side 15 there, and that pulls out a particular sentence out 16 of the engineering regulation from the Corps of 17 Engineers. 18 What it basically says is that, the Corps of 19 Engineers has, as a standard practice, using the 20 least cost method of disposing of dredge materials. 21 However, as the bar indicates, number three, they 22 can vary from the least cost method when the added 23 cost of such disposal is justified by the benefits 24 associated with shore protection projects. 25 So that's again the substance of benefit cost 76 1 2 study, to see if the benefits would be worth the 3 extra cost if there is any to make a beneficial use 4 of the sand. 5 The next page has two little parallel bars. 6 These refer to two other laws or engineering 7 regulations, which again basically say the same 8 thing, that full consideration should be given to 9 all practicable alternatives, including upland, 10 open water, beach renourishment, within banks 11 disposal, ocean disposal, et cetera. 12 So basically, the committee is recommending to 13 SEG back on the first page that the GPA and the 14 Corps of Engineers get together and determine the 15 best way to accomplish both studies, in that each 16 study is probably 4 or $500,000 each, and if 17 they're both doing it, it would probably be maybe 18 50,000 extra to do both studies, as opposed to 19 doing one study. 20 That is the recommendation to the SEG, and I 21 would ask our facilitator to see if there's a 22 consensus that recommendation be upheld? 23 MR. DYSART: This is the recommendation to the 24 SEG from the Beach Erosion Committee? 25 MR. FARMER: Yes. 77 1 2 MR. DYSART: Discussion on Bill's Beach 3 Erosion recommendation. Ben Brewton. 4 MR. BREWTON: Bill, you've done an excellent 5 job of laying this out here. I'm certainly 6 favorable to that. I just want one clarification 7 I don't see in here. 8 I'm going to be a little redundant. In the 9 study particulars items number three, you do say 10 this would look at both positive and negative 11 impacts down below where the examples are given, 12 sea turtle nesting benefits and costs and other 13 impacts, I assume we're talking about other 14 impacts, we would look if there are negative 15 impacts. 16 MR. FARMER: Yes, negative and positive. It 17 is known that many impacts are not quantifiable in 18 the form of dollars. They might be quantifiable in 19 some other units, or maybe just only are mention of 20 them. 21 So there's words in here that says, the 22 benefit cost study would maybe take the form of 23 benefit dollars divided by cost dollars plus or 24 minus other impacts. So there will be some way of 25 quantifying everything if possible, positive and 78 1 2 negative. 3 MR. BREWTON: I appreciate you including that 4 in there. I also think this approach of looking at 5 both the benefits and costs of not just the 6 expansion of the project, but the ongoing operation 7 of port channel, I think, is a very good example 8 where we need to head with a lot of these studies. 9 I commend you for putting that together. I 10 would endorse and encourage the group to support 11 this proposal. 12 MR. DYSART: Other comments. 13 MR. PHILLIPS: John Phillips, Georgia DOT. 14 Who would be paid for the study, would that be the 15 Corps of Engineers or the specialty maintenance 16 aspect? 17 MR. FARMER: I think any study the SEG 18 recommends to GPA, there's a presumption GPA would 19 pay for it. But since there's some overlap between 20 what the Corps is responsible for and what the GPA 21 is responsible for, the recommendation is they get 22 together and check their funds, see who can do 23 what. 24 What was already going to be done, for 25 instance, one thing that's planned to be done in 79 1 2 the engineering design portion is to take that 3 ocean channel from the mouth of the river outward 4 and map it out to test borings, whatever, so many 5 feet, whatever it is, and find out exactly what is 6 there, whether it is useful or not useful, how deep 7 it is, how shallow, where it is, so on and so 8 forth. 9 That was going to be done anyway. But using 10 that data, you can then make a determination as to 11 whether it is cost efficient to take the good stuff 12 and use it somewhere, if there's enough of it, 13 where it is, so forth, or whether it's not useful 14 to do that. 15 MR. PHILLIPS: So it sounds like the Corps 16 would be paying the bulk of the study cost, because 17 they're going to do that regardless of whether the 18 harbor is expanded or not. 19 MR. FARMER: I maybe misspoke. The GPA is 20 going to do that part of this expansion project. 21 They were going to map out the channel particulars, 22 but that would be useful to the Corps also in doing 23 the maintenance analysis. 24 MR. DYSART: Further comments, questions, 25 clarifications. Tony. 80 1 2 MR. FOYLE: Tony Foyle, Georgia Southern 3 University. Could you repeat the transport volumes 4 again? 5 MR. FARMER: I was looking at a 1975 report. 6 It said there was 500,000 cubic yards of sand 7 coming down the coast, and about 50,000 of that 8 made it across the channel, back in 1975. 9 I left off one little tidbit I can throw on 10 here too. That 1975 study was done to figure out 11 how to reduce erosion on Tybee Island shoreline 12 there. 13 The study came up with the idea of 14 constructing three groins. These are about 10 15 times as thick -- just so you can see them -- but 16 the length is about right going out. 17 The study recommended basically a North 18 Federal groin of about 2,000 yards -- I'm sorry -- 19 2,000 feet long, and two shorter groins, one being 20 right about the middle of the island there. They 21 built 40% of that top groin, and deferred the extra 22 length. They made this 800 feet and they deferred 23 1,200 feet, and deferred both of these smaller 24 groins here. 25 Part of this benefit cost study, which is 81 1 2 being recommend, is that that be analyzed again 3 as to whether that would be a good idea to add in 4 the extra length, also to add in the extra groins 5 that would help the sand be retained there. 6 One of the disposal options is to put the 7 dredge material on the beach. But the more likely 8 option is to have a near shore, offshore berm 9 established which means build an underwater island 10 in here somewhere. That would then feed sand down 11 onto the beach, and then onto the other islands. 12 The idea was if you extended this groin out a 13 little longer, it would tend to hold that sand 14 there. What happens when the flood tide goes in up 15 the river here, all this water rushes in and it 16 rushes in this way, and actually takes sand off 17 of tybee Island from about here, and it brings it 18 up and throws it up into the river to a certain 19 length or so until it settles down. 20 If you had a longer groin up there and a 21 couple little ones below it, it would tend to hold 22 that sand there. What that would do basically is 23 the beneficial of use of the sand would then get 24 extended even longer, because no matter what you 25 do, if you throw the sand here or up on the beach, 82 1 2 it eventually will push down through time. 3 So again, an extra groin or two might hold 4 it and make it useful for a longer period of time. 5 That's incorporated into this benefit cost study, 6 to analyze the impact of adding some groins there. 7 MR. FOYLE: What was the volume being lost 8 on the south end of Tybee every year, the 1975 9 data? 10 MR. FARMER: The City's current expert says 11 there's about 250,000 cubic yards of sand that 12 leaves the shoreline of Tybee Island every year. 13 That necessitates periodic renourishment projects 14 every five years, seven years, whatever, depending 15 on how much sand is pumped out of this hole and is 16 put up on that beach, again how much sand makes 17 its way over the channel, or comes out this way and 18 comes back apparently too. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: Bill, you had said that of 20 that 500,000 that comes down on the north side, 21 50,000 successfully crosses the harbor. 22 MR. FARMER: That was back in '75. 23 MR. SCHUBERTH: '75, right. 24 MR. FARMER: There's been a deepening since 25 then, so probably less than that now. 83 1 2 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton, then David Schaller. 3 MR. BREWTON: Bill, a couple of questions. Is 4 the 1975 data the newest that's available, or is 5 that what you had accessible to you? 6 MR. FARMER: No. I was researching these 7 groins here, trying to figure out if they should 8 now be added, and that was interesting information 9 in that report. I'm sure the Corps of Engineers 10 could probably update that, as far as what they 11 believe is happening now. 12 MR. BREWTON: What was the channel depth in 13 1975? 14 MR. FARMER: What was that, Ben? 15 MR. KYLER: Channel depth in '75. 16 MR. FARMER: About four feet less than it is 17 now, something like that. 18 MR. BREWTON: 38 -- is there a study going on, 19 maybe I should say isn't there a study going on in 20 one of the studies to give us some idea of what the 21 projected additional trapping of sand might be, or 22 is that under study? 23 MR. FARMER: That is the first Beach Erosion 24 Committee study that this body recommended to GPA. 25 They have that underway now. They're modeling 84 1 2 that, studying that, doing the sand budget 3 analysis, that sort of thing. That data will come 4 out within the year, I guess. 5 MR. DYSART: Dan, did you have a factual 6 clarification? 7 MR. PARROTT: Yeah. The harbor in that area 8 was probably 40 feet plus the 2 foot additional 9 depth being the bar channel back in 1975. Also 10 since '75, we built the north end groin, the south 11 end groin, and renourished twice. The figures are 12 way up in the air about actual retakage is. 13 MR. BREWTON: I'm sorry. I couldn't quite 14 follow all that. 15 MR. PARROTT: Since '75, the Corps of 16 Engineers has built the north end groin and built 17 the south end groin. GPA has built a field on the 18 south end. Plus we have had renourishment projects 19 once. Those figures are 25 years old and a lot has 20 changed since then. 21 MR. BREWTON: But the figure I was talking 22 about was the fact, I believe Bill said about 23 500,000 cubic yards annually. 24 MR. PARROTT: That figure -- I'm not talking 25 about the figure of erosion on the beach. Those 85 1 2 are highly variable. 3 MR. BREWTON: Do you have any idea on that 4 other figure? 5 MR. PARROTT: No. 6 MR. FARMER: The 250,00 per year erosion, 7 that's only three weeks old from Eric Olson, who is 8 the consultant to the City. 9 MR. DYSART: David. Judy. 10 MR. SCHALLER: I'm making a request, Bill, you 11 furnish us with the documentation you have that you 12 are relying on. 13 MR. FARMER: Sure. 14 MR. SCHALLER: So we can understand and factor 15 it into the studies we're undertaking. 16 MR. FARMER: That would be fine. 17 MR. DYSART: Judy Jennings. 18 MS. JENNINGS: This would probably be clear to 19 me if I had attended the Beach Erosion Committee 20 meeting, which I haven't. 21 Underwater berms, do any exist right now, or 22 is that a common technique done dealing with beach 23 erosion issues? 24 MR. FARMER: I don't know how common it is. 25 Perhaps the Corps could answer that. We identified 86 1 2 three choice of where to put the dredge material. 3 One is on the shoreline which is normal and useful 4 -- most useful, the second would be on top of the 5 beach itself to build a sand dune in front of the 6 other sand dunes. 7 The third one is to build an offshore berm 8 underwater. That has several benefits, one of 9 which is that you can put more diverse material out 10 there and the fines, you know, the beach quality 11 stuff would sort of stay there, and the lighter 12 stuff would sort of blow off and not irritate 13 anyone. 14 That would not be on the beach as much. So 15 anyway, that was one of the options, figure out 16 where to put it. The study would address that 17 issue also. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Would we also be looking at any 19 ecological impacts from the creations of a berm? 20 MR. FARMER: Definitely. That's part of 21 the study. 22 MS. JENNINGS: Is three any potential -- does 23 it have anything to do with navigation? 24 MR. FARMER: No. There's only shrimp boats 25 out in front of the island there. 87 1 2 MS. JENNINGS: So it's a non-issue for 3 navigation? 4 MR. FARMER: The ships stay in the channel 5 pretty much. 6 MR. DYSART: Dan and Neff. 7 MR. PARROTT: Judy asked a question about a 8 near shore berm. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Right. 10 MR. PARROTT: I understand the Mobile District 11 has near shore berms. I'm not particular familiar 12 with them. I've heard they have near shore berms 13 as well as the side cast. 14 One technique is they just take the material 15 out of the channel, dump it down the stream side of 16 the channel. Any material that falls in is now 17 back in the system. There's several techniques out 18 there being used. 19 MR. DYSART: Neff. 20 MR. McINTOSH: You mentioned there wouldn't 21 be any hazard to navigation, but if you built an 22 offshore island at the end of that exit, there's a 23 fair amount of recreational and commercial fish 24 traffic that moves out of that opening. Would that 25 island not interfere with that? 88 1 2 MR. FARMER: That would be one of the study 3 analyzes, to see if that is significant, if that 4 option would be a negative for that particular 5 option. 6 MR. McINTOSH: Any chance it would get above 7 water? At the end of the day when you decide to 8 off with the offshore berm, you might create 9 another Williamson or something like that? 10 MR. FARMER: Depends on how high you build the 11 offshore berm, if you pick that alternative. 12 MR. McINTOSH: Would there be lots for sale? 13 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 14 MR. STEVENS: All of these being brought up 15 are the types of things that are evaluated when we 16 consider projects like this. We have been working 17 with the Corps of Engineers to design a near shore 18 berm disposal project for the Brunswick Harbor 19 Project, which is approved, I'm guessing will be 20 done through this maintenance dredging -- is it 21 maintenance dredging -- okay. 22 We did have to look at navigation as an issue 23 for recreational boaters as well the commercial 24 shrimp boats. The project is designed to avoid 25 those traditional pathways and get offshore. 89 1 2 The smaller boats don't use the main channel. 3 They want to take shortcuts to be on the north and 4 south and exit the main part of the harbor. 5 We also looked at building bars and intertidal 6 bars versus also subaerial-type bars. Bird 7 Island people would love to see us build those 8 kinds of things. 9 There's a lot of other issues associated with 10 causing erosion in those shallow areas. Again, 11 all those things are evaluated. I would also 12 mention the Jacksonville District has done a lot of 13 near shore projects. 14 Eric Olson, the consultant for the City of 15 Tybee, has pioneered that process for near shore 16 disposal. That's a sacrificial berm. It does 17 work. You've got to look at all the possible 18 negative impacts, but we will be doing one in 19 the Brunswick Harbor. 20 And by the way, the bar they're building, 21 Bill, if you'll help me with this, we're only 22 talking of relieving the natural topography of a 23 couple of feet. It's a very broad area you put the 24 material into, but you don't build a huge bar that 25 exacerbates other problems behind it. 90 1 2 MR. DYSART: David. Bill. Ben. 3 MR. RACKLEY: I wanted to mention for the 4 record, the National Ocean Service, Beaufort, has 5 done a fair amount of analysis using near shore 6 berm erosion protection. In conjunction with your 7 study, you might want to contact that organization. 8 MR. FARMER: What's the name of the 9 organization? 10 MR. RACKLEY: National Ocean Service in 11 Beaufort, North Carolina. 12 MR. BAILEY: As Stuart said, part of the 13 Brunswick Harbor deepening project, there are 14 submerged berms that will be looked at a little bit 15 more in there, in that project, there is one that 16 will be constructed this summer for O and M action 17 down there in Brunswick. 18 Submerged berms have been -- have received 19 environmental approval for the Savannah Harbor for 20 LTMS long-term management strategy. That was done 21 five years ago. So they have received 22 environmental approval for here. 23 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 24 MR. BREWTON: Just clarification for anyone, 25 the idea of building these offshore berms or 91 1 2 islands is that they would serve a blocking 3 function, or they would serve a function such when 4 they eroded they would renourish the beach. 5 MR. FARMER: The answer is both. 6 MR. BREWTON: If they are eroding to renourish 7 the beach, obviously there's some life expectancy 8 for these things, and then another set of 9 renourishment is to be done there for it to 10 continue its function. 11 MR. FARMER: Yes. It is anticipated at least 12 one renourishment, perhaps two beach renourishment 13 projects would not be necessary, which are about 14 $7,000,000 each. If the beneficial use of sand 15 could be placed on or near Tybee Island, those are 16 sort of working funds. 17 If you need to spend a half million or a 18 million to make it happen, you're going to save a 19 bunch. 20 MR. BREWTON: So this will not be a one-time 21 thing, but a continually process as it erodes away, 22 it renourishes the beach and then is restored. 23 MR. FARMER: That's the ultimate best of all 24 worlds. Put a bunch there from the project, from 25 future maintenance efforts, replenish that through 92 1 2 time. 3 MR. DYSART: Seeing no further cards up, let's 4 proceed to the Dredging and Disposal Committee. 5 MR. STEVENS: Wait a minute. 6 MR. DYSART: Excuse me. Is there a consensus, 7 can anyone not live with Bill's and the Beach 8 Erosion Committees recommendation? No hands, no 9 cards up, I determine this is an SEG consensus. 10 Okay. Dredging and Disposal Committee report. 11 MR. BEASON: We're continuing to research and 12 work with the other committees. Bill Farmer's 13 Beach Erosion is one of them, looking for 14 beneficial uses of material that's being removed in 15 O and M in the harbor. 16 We're also trying to gather data together 17 through the program by Lockwood Greene to predict 18 the shoaling, and how that shoaling will impact the 19 condition of the upland disposal sites. 20 We hope to bring you additional information in 21 the near future. Part of that beneficial use 22 answers Ben's earlier question today, the goal 23 would be to reduce upland disposal encroachment 24 into the existing marshes, and to reduce the amount 25 of material that is put in there by some beneficial 93 1 2 use that would replenish that material for some 3 100, 200 years. If we could reach that far out, it 4 piggy backs the LTMS where we began looking at 5 that. 6 MR. DYSART: Questions, comments, 7 clarification. Larry. 8 MR. ROGERS: The issue of the material that is 9 to be dredged in the project itself, the deepening, 10 and the widening project, touches both the Beach 11 Erosion Committee and this Dredge Committee, as I 12 was talking to Larry Keegan at the break. 13 We need to remember that in the EIS, there is 14 a defined project for examining those sediments and 15 the quality of them, the volume of them, at several 16 different locations up and down, I believe, the 17 entire 36 mile project. Am I right on that, Larry? 18 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. 19 MR. ROGERS: The timeliness of the action of 20 these committees, the recommendation made by the 21 Beach Erosion Committee and the activities of 22 Fred's committee could benefit or would benefit 23 from the knowledge that's received from the planned 24 EIS actions. 25 Now, if we're going to do things in a way that 94 1 2 is most economical, I think there needs to be some 3 discussion about when these core samplings, or when 4 these analyses are going to be made, so they can 5 be beneficial to these two committees, possibly 6 some other committees. I just bring that up for 7 discussion. 8 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 9 MR. STEVENS: I wanted to just bring to SEG's 10 attention, I'm going to provide this to Fred. As 11 the Chairman of the Dredging Committee, he might 12 want to distribute it. I think this fits very well 13 with the recommendation that the Beach Committee 14 made and was adopted. 15 The Jacksonville Corps of Engineers has a 16 regional sediment management team that is going to 17 be meeting in a couple of weeks, and I brought to 18 the Dredging Committee's attention some new 19 technology -- I think I might have brought this up 20 at the last SEG meeting -- some new technology 21 Jacksonville is working on regarding separating 22 beach sand from the total mixture of materials 23 being dredged. Their team is looking at -- I'm 24 going to read just a couple of things from this 25 memo -- coordinating dredging activities for the 95 1 2 purpose of enhancing regional sediment budgets, 3 reducing costs, and restoring the fish habitat. 4 Actually, they've got three potential 5 demonstrations projects they're going to be 6 evaluating. 7 They're looking at some modern technology to 8 separate the material, as I mentioned, overflowing 9 of hoppers so you get a better quality of materials 10 that's left in the hoppers that could be used for 11 certain purposes, and modification of the quality 12 of size standards. 13 So they have got a formal process that's in 14 the works that I applaud them for doing. 15 I guess I'm putting the Savannah District on 16 the spot, and our Dredging Committee that I'm 17 pleased that we've got a process that's underway. 18 We might be able to benchmark on what these 19 guys are going to be doing. They seem to be way 20 ahead of where we are in looking at how to manage 21 sediment on a regional basis. Thank you. 22 MR. DYSART: We've got about hour and a half 23 to finish up committee reports, and we have 24 approximately four major presentations. So if 25 anything does not need to be reiterated, amplified, 96 1 2 restated, so forth, let's try to hold back on that. 3 Okay. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Bill 4 and/or Press. 5 MR. BAILEY: After the last meeting, the last 6 SEG meeting, I informed our committee, the 7 Fisheries Committee of Chuck Watson's presentation 8 on the -- his talk on the potential in the surge 9 height, hurricane surge height, and polled them for 10 their views on potential impacts to fisheries, and 11 the committee's conclusion was that would not be a 12 substantial concern to the fisheries resources. 13 So as far as the Fisheries Committee, they 14 didn't think that was an issue we needed to take 15 up, the Fisheries Committee needed to take up. 16 That's it. 17 MR. DYSART: Questions, clarifications, 18 comments? Seeing no cards up, thank you. MTRG, Bo 19 Ellis. 20 MR. ELLIS: I sent around a status report, our 21 most recent status report. Everybody have a copy? 22 We did have a meeting March 30th, the end of 23 March, and discussed the general items that are 24 listed on the top of the status report, multiple 25 component rates for carbonatious biochemical oxygen 97 1 2 demand, CBOD. 3 We discussed the status of the 4 in-stream data report, and ATM presented the 5 additional in-stream long-term BOD data. There was 6 an update on the development of the hydrodynamic 7 model. 8 We have the list of the people who were at the 9 meeting and participated in the discussions. A 10 short summary of those discussions is included 11 under those headings. I'll just give a real brief 12 explanation. 13 There were no recommendations to this group. 14 This is a work in progress. The first item has to 15 do with how to treat waste water discharges that 16 were sampled while we were out conducting our data 17 collection effort in the river. 18 The major waste water dischargers were also 19 sampling their discharges. That data will be used 20 in the model. We discussed various ways of using 21 that data. The in-stream data report was 22 presented, some more data to the MTRG, and it was 23 reviewed. There was a discussion about how some of 24 the data should be presented and some additional 25 information was requested from the laboratories to 98 1 2 be included in the draft data report. 3 We also discussed in-stream long-term 4 biochemical oxygen demand data. We have received 5 only the first part of the LTBOD. This is a very 6 long-term test that is run to look at decay rates 7 for the river water. 8 It's being run by Law Environmental Labs. We 9 had the first set of data. We're still waiting for 10 the rest of it. That first set was used to go 11 through an analysis to pick out the decay rates for 12 the carbonatious and the nitrogenous organic 13 demands. 14 The last bullet is an update on the 15 hydrodynamic model. ATM provided that. I will 16 note that in the middle of that update, that I did 17 bring back the concerns from the SEG that were 18 expressed at an early meeting, I think two months 19 ago, about grid resolution and whether the grid 20 resolution should be coarsened up, as was 21 recommended in the MTRG. 22 The bottom line is the MTRG agreed the 23 resolution of the model should be appropriate for 24 the environmental evaluations being developed, and 25 coarsening of the grid should not weaken the 99 1 2 quality of that information. 3 We do have a future meeting for those of you 4 that have lobbied for meetings in Savannah. Our 5 next meeting is next week on May 10th starting at 6 9:00 o'clock at the Savannah District here in 7 Savannah. 8 And the final note is the draft data report 9 was sent out last week to the MTRG. The draft 10 report is being reviewed by the MTRG, and will be 11 further discussed at that meeting. 12 As I stated at our last meeting, the comments 13 from the MTRG still will not be coming back to this 14 group for another couple of months, except for 15 summaries of the general discussions that we're 16 having right now. Any questions? 17 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton's first. 18 MR. BREWTON: I'll defer to Keith. 19 MR. PARSONS: I just want to clarify, when you 20 say you're coarsening up the grid -- 21 MR. ELLIS: The recommendation from the MTRG 22 to reduce computer run times were that we should 23 look at coarsening the grid, which would make it 24 a faster, more efficient model. 25 MR. PARSONS: When you say coarsening the 100 1 2 grid, this is just general information for this 3 body, you mean looking at fewer samples. 4 MR. ELLIS: No, no. Coarsening the grid is 5 how chop the model up. You can do it in smaller 6 blocks or larger blocks. 7 MR. PARSONS: Are you still looking at the 8 same number of samples? 9 MR. ELLIS: It has nothing to do with the 10 samples. 11 MR. PARSONS: Where are you getting the data 12 from? 13 MR. ELLIS: The in-stream data is how you chop 14 the model up in developing the mathematical model 15 that's going to represent the actual condition. 16 MR. PARSONS: It has nothing to do with the 17 samples that you took earlier this year or in last 18 the fall? 19 MR. ELLIS: They wanted me to clarify, the 20 MTRG wanted me to clarify we were not going to look 21 at coarsening the grid. We wanted to keep the 22 quality of the information coming out of the data 23 as high as possible to deal with the model impacts. 24 Is there any confusion about coarsening the grid? 25 MS. JENNINGS: Yes. 101 1 2 MR. BREWTON: Your report right here says you 3 made a recommendation to coarsen the grid. The 4 MTRG agreed that the resolution should be 5 appropriate. Are you saying the original 6 resolution or the coarsened resolution? 7 MR. REES: If I may, we talked a lot about 8 this to make sure we understood, the project team. 9 Here's the sequence of events. The MTRG asked ATM 10 to examine whether coarsening the grid would be 11 beneficial to getting more runs in a shorter period 12 of time and sacrificing some quality. 13 ATM made that analysis, reported back to the 14 MTRG, said no, it would not be a good idea to 15 coarsen the grid. The grid should be kept as fine 16 as possible, and the quality of the output as 17 accurate as possible and the MTRG agreed with that. 18 So this statement was kind of in a negative 19 sense. They said, yes, coarsening the grid 20 shouldn't affect the quality of the data, but if it 21 did then we don't want to coarsen the grid. So the 22 grid will not be coarsened, right? 23 MR. ELLIS: Right. 24 MR. BREWTON: I think your report right here 25 appears to say just the opposite. 102 1 2 MR. REES: Well, we will edit the report to 3 correct that. 4 MR. BREWTON: I've got some questions. Can I 5 go with mine? 6 MR. DYSART: This is questions to this and not 7 the later MTRG presentation, correct? 8 MR. BREWTON: Right. 9 MR. DYSART: Let's hear your questions. 10 MR. BREWTON: First of all, Bo, I had sent you 11 an e-mail, as well as copied it to Steve Davie, 12 about when we get these reports, the following 13 persons attended and provided the input, sometimes 14 it said or provided input. 15 I would like to ask how much participation 16 there really is. If you could separate the actual 17 attendance, whether in person by phone of the 18 people who actually participated in the meeting, as 19 opposed to people who contributed information. I'd 20 really like to see how many people are actually 21 attending the meeting -- 22 MR. ELLIS: I changed the report, as a result 23 of your comment. What we agreed to previously is 24 the MTRG would include all persons who provided 25 comments. 103 1 2 MR. BREWTON: That's fine. 3 MR. ELLIS: Whether they came to the meeting 4 or not. We have done that in the past. In this 5 one, everybody who provided comments was at the 6 meeting. So this is attended and provided. 7 In the future, if we need to split out who 8 presented written comments and did not attend, we 9 can do that. 10 MR. BREWTON: That's fine. I'd like to see 11 that, if you could. Second thing, I may have just 12 missed this. When you said this in-stream data 13 report presentation, you say you would estimate 14 that's going to be presented to the SEG? 15 MR. ELLIS: The comments from the MTRG. 16 MR. BREWTON: And the report itself? 17 MR. ELLIS: Well, I'm speaking for the MTRG, 18 our work will probably take at least another two or 19 three months minimum. 20 MR. BREWTON: Okay. I've got a little concern 21 about that. I want to ask you about, but first you 22 said that that report was distributed when? 23 MR. ELLIS: Last week. 24 MR. BREWTON: I don't believe we got a copy of 25 that. We're supposed to be on the MTRG list. 104 1 2 MR. ELLIS: All MTRG representatives should 3 have received copies. 4 MR. BREWTON: That was sent e-mail? 5 MR. ELLIS: No. It's huge. It was a CD. 6 MR. BREWTON: Oh no. We have not received 7 that. 8 MR. ELLIS: Your representative should have 9 received it, so let us know if you didn't/ 10 MR. BREWTON: I actually asked that the 11 Coastal Environmental Organization's 12 representative be copied on these things. I'm 13 still getting e-mails, although I'm not actually 14 listed on that anymore. 15 So I'd like to -- I will send you a note. I'd 16 like to get a copy of that. I had requested that 17 specifically in a meeting here several months ago. 18 At that time, I think you said it was going to 19 be available in February. 20 What is going on with the data collection? 21 The report is one of my questions. I've got a 22 couple others. In other words, what data -- 23 MR. ELLIS: We are still waiting for some 24 data. We have not received all the data from the 25 laboratories and USGS, but 98% of the data report 105 1 2 -- it's huge, it's on CD -- is on it being reviewed 3 by MTRG. 4 MR. BREWTON: The long-term BOD testing that 5 you are doing, what do you mean by long-term, what 6 is the actual time frame? 7 MR. ELLIS: It's an analytical test. It runs 8 a minimum of 120 days. In this case, I think we'll 9 run it 160 or 180 days after the sample is 10 collected. It looks at the oxygen demand of that 11 sample. 12 MR. BREWTON: It's at least 120 days? 13 MR. ELLIS: Minimum. 14 MR. BREWTON: Finally, to reclarify again on 15 the model right now, the model you're working with, 16 what is the grid resolution on that model? 17 MR. ELLIS: I prepared a refresher, actually 18 the same presentation that was given last year that 19 deals with the grid resolution issue. 20 MR. BREWTON: Okay. We can do that at that 21 time then. Just to reiterate, the way this is -- 22 this is phrased here, what it is supposed to say is 23 the MTRG agreed that the resolution would not 24 change. Is that the bottom line? 25 MR. ELLIS: No, it's not. We are still 106 1 2 working on the best grid resolutions we can get, 3 but a goal was established by the MTRG to try to 4 reduce model run times to a certain time, and that 5 would require coarsening the grid quite a bit. 6 We looked at that, and right now, right now, 7 if you coarsen the grid that much, you would lose 8 the resolution that you need to be able to apply 9 the model. 10 MR. REES: There are no plans to coarsen the 11 grid at this time. If there are any, it will be 12 reported back and discussed. 13 MR. ELLIS: The most important thing is the 14 quality of the output, not the model run times. 15 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. I'm glad to hear 16 that. 17 MR. REES: I would like to -- 18 MR. BREWTON: Is that a literal statement? 19 MR. ELLIS: Literal statement. 20 MR. REES: I would like to make one other 21 clarification on the available data. This has been 22 a question Ben has raised in the past. I've had 23 similar questions myself. Again, Bo, correct me if 24 misstatement this, what I think we've learned in 25 trying to respond to the question, the data becomes 107 1 2 available in pieces, as different laboratories 3 finish their work and different participants in the 4 data collection process finish their work. 5 All of the data are still not in. There are a 6 few -- I don't know -- 5% I'm guessing -- some 7 small number of data pieces that are not yet 8 available. 9 As that data became available, Bo was 10 reporting to the MTRG for review in pieces. So 11 that started actually like last January. So the 12 report that you had in February that was almost 13 ready was with respect to providing it to the MTRG, 14 not with respect to providing it to the SEG. I 15 think maybe there was some confusion on that point. 16 So the MTRG has been getting the data as it 17 becomes available, and now they have almost all of 18 it on the CD as Bo mentioned. 19 It's going to take the MTRG several months to 20 go through, what I understand is a large quantity 21 of data, in order to be able to report back to the 22 SEG. 23 MR. BREWTON: Clarification. 24 MR. DYSART: Go ahead, sir. 25 MR. BREWTON: Has all the sample collection 108 1 2 been completed -- when was that completed? 3 MR. ELLIS: That was completed the first week 4 in October. 5 MR. BREWTON: Everything since October has 6 been the function of laboratory testing? 7 MR. ELLIS: Laboratory testing and processing 8 -- processing the data to put it -- to take it from 9 an instrument that was out in the field to a plot. 10 MR. BREWTON: Okay. Thank you. 11 MR. DYSART: I've seen other cards coming up 12 and going down in the last little while. Ed. 13 Stuart. Neff. Keith. Ed, did you have a comment. 14 MR. EUDALY: My question has been answered. 15 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 16 MR. STEVENS: Just a quick clarification. Bo, 17 the folks not included on your list as attending or 18 providing comments at this meeting in March, do you 19 have a mailing list of other people that you are 20 keeping informed about the meeting? 21 MR. ELLIS: Yes. 22 MR. STEVENS: Specifically, have you notified 23 the people not on this report you have a meeting on 24 the 10th? 25 MR. ELLIS: Yes. 109 1 2 MR. STEVENS: Okay. Thank you. 3 MR. ELLIS: Yes. We send the status report 4 out to the MTRG. The data report has been sent out 5 to the full membership, and request for comments 6 from that group goes out typically from every 7 meeting. 8 MR. McINTOSH: Bo, a question. Given your 9 intimate knowledge of the people who have the 10 worked on the model, and hopefully your intimate 11 knowledge of the model itself, any there concerns 12 being expressed in the group about the model? 13 MR. ELLIS: They haven't anything -- we are 14 just getting the data. We're going through the 15 data analysis. And the MTRG agreed to review and 16 comment on all the assumptions before we even 17 started plugging anything in. So they have no 18 model to comment on at this point. 19 MR. McINTOSH: Okay. There is no model to 20 comment on? 21 MR. ELLIS: Excuse me. 22 MR. McINTOSH: There is no model to comment on 23 at this point? 24 MR. ELLIS: Not at this point. There was a 25 '97 model, but that's not being reviewed. 110 1 2 MR. McINTOSH: I'll rephrase the question, 3 given that information. What is the group's main 4 concern about its task, what is it most afraid of? 5 MR. ELLIS: Neff, I can ask them at the next 6 meeting for a survey. 7 MR. McINTOSH: Stuff doesn't come up during 8 the meeting? Generally, in a meeting like that, 9 I'm really worried about or I'm concerned about -- 10 it's sort of a confession. I realize the 11 question begs a confession here. So nothing so 12 far? 13 MR. ELLIS: I think that's a matter of 14 opinion. We summarize the discussion and the 15 concerns in the status report. We have a running 16 history of what we've been talking about. I 17 couldn't even start to try to answer that. 18 MR. DYSART: Is there any particular concern 19 that you are aware of that you wish to mention? 20 MR. McINTOSH: No. I've been impressed with 21 the scientific credentials and the work they have 22 put in, and been told I should keep my layman's 23 status as it is. 24 I suppose that the question really is, amongst 25 the scientists, and technicians, and modelers when 111 1 2 they're doing their coffee stuff, and doing their 3 chat, you know, what's the big fear -- how about is 4 there a top two? 5 MR. ELLIS: I don't know of any big fear. 6 MR. REES: The sidebar discussion here, Neff, 7 is if there were such fears and questions, they 8 would have or should have been reported in the 9 status reports. 10 MR. McINTOSH: Okay. 11 MR. REES: All the status reports are on the 12 web site. 13 MR. DYSART: Keith Parsons has been waiting 14 for his turn. 15 MR. PARSONS: Thank you. This might address 16 Neff's concerns a little bit, because in the second 17 paragraph under the general discussion of the 18 multiple chemical BOD, it looks like indeed there 19 is concerns between how some data is going to 20 represented here. 21 Apparently my organization, EPD, wants to use 22 one methodology of assessment here and maybe ATM or 23 the larger program is possibly recommending a 24 different form of analysis, in regards to BOD. 25 Now, we have to understand there is no, at 112 1 2 this time, no oxygen standard for the Savannah 3 River Harbor. So this is kind of critical to the 4 larger discussion at hand here. 5 It seems to me that when you talk about 6 multiple component rates for determining chemical 7 BOD, you're looking at an individual species of 8 different chemicals and then doing some kind of 9 summation to come up with a BOD, whereas the state 10 EPD is looking more at a general mass determination 11 of the whole component of all the chemicals that 12 are in the river producing BOD, is that correct? 13 MR. ELLIS: Close. 14 MR. PARSONS: My question to you here now that 15 we have that one here identified, which is the 16 better science? 17 MR. ELLIS: I don't think I should give that 18 opinion. I can go back to the MTRG and poll them. 19 Just for you to understand this, the EPD was 20 stating a policy for how they handled this in 21 modeling throughout the state. 22 They like to use the single rate, even though 23 different waste water dischargers -- all of us in 24 the room agree they have different decay rates, 25 which was the whole point here. 113 1 2 There was a discussion about how you could 3 blend those different decay rates. The State of 4 Georgia uses a single rate to represent all the 5 different waste water discharges. It's not 6 necessarily just the best science. It's -- 7 MR. PARSONS: I just wanted that out here in 8 the room so people understand some of the technical 9 aspects that go on into these modeling discussions. 10 It's not a question of is it good science or bad 11 science, is it a policy or -- 12 MR. ELLIS: There's a lot of sensitivity, I 13 think, to the decision making that will be done 14 with this model. This is a reflection of that 15 discussion. This is not anything that GPA or ATM 16 is pushing at all. 17 MR. PARSONS: Okay. 18 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 19 MR. BREWTON: I have to make a comment on 20 something Morgan said. This is matter of 21 semantics. 22 I hope it's not a Freudian Slip, and I will 23 ask though, you said that the concerns that Neff 24 had alluded to, or the question about the existence 25 of concerns among the MTRG members, you said would 114 1 2 have or should have been reported. 3 I would observe there's a difference between 4 would have and should have. It's a pretty big 5 difference, and I hope you really meant they would 6 have been reported, as opposed to should have been 7 reported. 8 MR. REES: It is indeed, I agree Ben, a matter 9 of semantics. 10 MR. DYSART: Are there further clarifications, 11 questions, or -- 12 MR. REES: That was a little flip. I will 13 clarify. The only reason I chose those terms is 14 because I haven't personally checked. In order to 15 try to be responsive, and not trying to prolong the 16 discussion, I was trying to be responsive, 17 although you didn't see it that way, unfortunately. 18 I asked Bo, was all this stuff presented in 19 the reports. I told Neff yes, it was. I haven't 20 confirmed that personally. That's why I said 21 should have. 22 MR. BREWTON: I was being a little more 23 light-hearted. 24 MR. REES: That's welcome. That's welcome. 25 MR. DYSART: A good laugh is good for the 115 1 2 soul. John Sawyer. 3 MR. SAWYER: Just a clarification on what 4 Keith was asking a while ago, it really didn't have 5 anything to do with -- didn't have anything to do 6 with the science. 7 The discussion came up between Roy Burke 8 really, and myself, and Larry, and Neil, who 9 represents the Harbor Committee, basically the 10 industries, because the industries more than 11 anybody else are looking at what their putting into 12 the river. 13 They don't want to have pay whatever -- 14 whatever it might cost for what somebody else is 15 putting in the river. 16 They only want to pay for what they do, which 17 makes sense. Unfortunately, we've got to look at 18 how the state, what we're talking about, how the 19 state has to govern this thing. They can't go 20 along and have a group of 10 or 15 people running 21 these models, to be able to pick out every 22 particular of every industry. 23 It really doesn't have anything to do with the 24 science, as much as there's just practicalities 25 that have to go into all that, which is exactly 116 1 2 what you were asking about a while ago about 3 the grid resolutions. 4 The MTRG is looking at the grid resolution. 5 You want to make the grid resolution as well as you 6 can. You're talking about lengths of runs, or time 7 it takes to run one of those scenarios; you're not 8 talking about the matter of whether it is two 9 minutes or four minutes. You're talking about 10 hours, upon hours, upon hours. 11 If you want to look at scenarios, there's a 12 practical limit to how many you can look at and 13 evaluate, if you get things so fine that it takes 14 days to run the program. 15 So if you coarsen the grid 5% and only lose 16 100% of accuracy, that might be worth doing, if 17 you can take 10 hours off the run time and only 18 lose half a percent of accuracy -- that's what 19 we're looking at, not whether now the program and 20 the model is no longer accurate because of 21 coarsening the grid. 22 There are a lot of things involved in this, 23 not necessarily technical issues, and this is -- 24 this is one of them. 25 MR. DYSART: Keith. 117 1 2 MR. PARSONS: Let me make one more comment. 3 John's absolutely right. When we operate within 4 EPD and look at a mass balance of a situation like 5 this case, the oxygen in the river, there are 6 models that we have to use to look at that mass 7 balance. 8 Now, to address the concerns of looking at 9 these various constituents, that's what the survey 10 program is all about. Everybody that had 11 discharge rights in the river has limits on what 12 they can produce as discharge into that stream. 13 So that's the where the state regulatorily 14 looks at each individual discharger and their 15 component to produce appropriate pollution they're 16 allowed to put into that river. 17 So when you are looking at the larger model, 18 as we are with this model here, it may well be 19 appropriate to use the mass balance approach, as 20 opposed to looking at individual to come up with 21 the same number. 22 MR. DYSART: Perhaps the last comment -- Chris 23 has been patient. I see his head up at the table, 24 I can see it popping up all the time. Chris, 25 please. 118 1 2 MR. SCHUBERTH: In all due respect to this 3 conversation, which I know is very important, very 4 critical, and I know the earth never stops spinning 5 and the time keeps marching on. 6 There are several reports I know many of us 7 are interested in hearing. If I was a presenter, 8 having been here from 9:00 o'clock on, I would be 9 so exhausted I wouldn't be able to give my 10 presentation properly. 11 In any event, it's 10 to 12:00. I don't mean 12 to pull the rug out from Mr. Dysart here. I would 13 like to hear some of these major reports that are 14 on the agenda. If that is a problem, then maybe 15 we should divide our meeting out, where we deal 16 with all the committee reports. That can take an 17 enormous amount of time as they should. 18 Then in another meeting in which the 19 presenters, who have major presentation to put 20 on the table, should be provided a full -- a full 21 and ample opportunity to do so, and answer all the 22 questions that might arise out of the presentation. 23 MR. DYSART: I appreciate your comments. I am 24 dutifully following the outline that was directed 25 as of the October recommendations to this body and 119 1 2 the approved outline. 3 The body can move as fast as it wants, or it 4 can as slow as it wants. It can go in circles, 5 squares, any direction it wants to go. The next 6 thing is Striped Bass. It can move as fast as Tom 7 wants it to move. Tom. 8 MR. MERONEK: It's going to be pretty fast. 9 We have not met, probably will not meet for at 10 least another month. The only thing I can say is 11 that the project was approved, and funded for 12 this spring's spawning season, and is nearly 13 complete, and will be complete probably by mid May. 14 That doesn't include data analysis, of course, 15 but the egg sampling, and the fucundity and 16 ultrasounding will be completed by mid May. That's 17 it. 18 MR. DYSART: Questions, clarifications, 19 amplifications, or anything else on Tom's report? 20 Seeing none, we'll move on to the Communications 21 Committee. Ben Brewton. 22 MR. BREWTON: We did not meet this month and 23 have no report. 24 MR. DYSART: Before you came in, Teri raised a 25 question. Would you like to raise the question 120 1 2 again? 3 MS. LEFFEK: I might go ahead and defer in the 4 interest of what Chris said. I don't know how 5 lengthy a discussion this might be. 6 I did notice that the old meeting summaries 7 have not been approved and have been tabled, and 8 have been tabled, and was not on this month's 9 agenda. I wondered, have they been approved? 10 MR. BREWTON: No. 11 MR. DYSART: I stated at the time this came up 12 a request was submitted to delete that from the 13 agenda, since nothing had been done. I removed it. 14 MS. LEFFEK: I just wondered as a business 15 item if we are clarifying old business? In the 16 interest of making sure we have accurate record 17 keeping, I would like to see that, as an SEG 18 member, taken care of. 19 If the Communication Committee doesn't have 20 time to do it, maybe we need to come back to the 21 SEG, or just say they're fine, approve them and 22 move on. 23 MR. BREWTON: We've had several suggestions 24 about how to handle them. There were more pressing 25 matters for a couple of months. Morgan's schedule 121 1 2 changed a little for a couple of months. 3 So we're hoping to coordinate a meeting next 4 time with Operating Guidelines. There were a 5 couple months that Morgan was not going to be in 6 town. I'm not blaming this on Morgan. Please 7 understand that. But there were more pressing 8 things. 9 Those things still need to be clarified. 10 They're on our agenda. As far as today, I told Ben 11 we would not have a report. He suggested we leave 12 it off the agenda until such time we did have a 13 report. 14 MS. LEFFEK: Will that be dealt with before 15 next month's meeting? 16 MR. BREWTON: I don't know, Teri. 17 MR. DYSART: For clarification, I responded to 18 a request it be removed. 19 MS. LEFFEK: I understand. I just think it's 20 a business item, something we need to deal with. 21 He's talking about accurate records. We have the 22 minutes we haven't dealt with, if we're going to 23 follow through with setting a precedent, we need to 24 get it done. 25 MR. DYSART: I think this body spoke on that 122 1 2 back in October. We will see if progress is in the 3 future. Okay next Economics, Judy. 4 MS. JENNINGS: I'm sorry. I wasn't paying 5 attention. I thought you were asking for committee 6 reports earlier. I've already done that. 7 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Operating Guidelines, 8 Morgan. 9 MR. REES: No meeting. No report. 10 MR. DYSART: I'll tell you what, we're getting 11 better and shorter as we go along. Okay. The next 12 item, it will be Mr. Card Smith talking about views 13 concerning potential for deepening the project 14 impact on the aquifer. Anyone like to provide an 15 introduction? 16 MR. PARROTT: Good morning. I'm Dan Parrott. 17 A couple of months ago, questions came up about 18 this aquifer study done as part of the tier one EIS 19 study. 20 Card Smith, who was the lead person who did 21 the aquifer study for the first study has come to 22 present what we did, the Corps of Engineers did two 23 years ago, his analysis. Also, Dr. Henry here from 24 Skidaway, they worked in close collaboration. 25 Card wants to talk about the scope of the 123 1 2 study and intent. Card is one of our hydrologists 3 at the Corps of Engineers for how many years -- a 4 lot -- over 20 years with the Corps of Engineers, 5 very highly skilled, so Card. 6 MR. BREWTON: Aren't there copies of this 7 available? 8 MR. DYSART: There's a box. 9 MR. PARROTT: Box is over here. 10 MR. PARROTT: This is on CD. Card had it. 11 MR. DYSART: I would request we hold down the 12 discussion so the presentation can proceed. It. 13 MR. SMITH: I guess I should say good morning 14 and good afternoon. We're right on the dividing 15 line. 16 It's been amazing to me the recognition that a 17 harbor deepening proposal project will bring you. 18 Recently, in the newspaper, I was written about as 19 having been discovered hiding in the bushes at 20 Tybee Island, and jumping out and terrorizing 21 passersby with geology lessons. So I hope that I 22 won't terrorize you with this lesson or 23 presentation. 24 Potential ground water impacts on the local 25 aquifers is not a new consideration with us or 124 1 2 others either. In the almost 25 years that I've 3 been working with the Corps, for at least 20 of 4 those years, we've been looking at this situation. 5 Admittedly, early on, it was not in the detail that 6 we look at it now, but we have put a considerable 7 effort into the consideration of how dredging may 8 possibly impact local aquifers. 9 I just wanted to list a few of the pertinent 10 reports. These are not necessarily because I have 11 the some of the Corps ones in here, the greatest 12 ones, but they are the ones in my mind cover this 13 situation that we want to talk about today. 14 The first one is kind of a classic, 1969, Jim 15 Furlow, the Georgia Department of Mining and 16 Geology, which is now, I guess you equate with the 17 Georgia Geologic Survey, did a report on the 18 potential for phosphate mining in the Savannah 19 area. 20 Basically, what he was looking at was mining 21 in the marsh areas, but he had some interesting 22 points that he made in that report. That really 23 was one of the first times that considerations of 24 impacting the local aquifer had been made, as far 25 as deepening or introducing salt water to Floridan 125 1 2 Aquifer. 3 These other studies by the Corps of Engineers 4 are various studies on harbor projects, where we, 5 each time, have looked at this situation in a 6 little more detail. Some of the other reports by 7 USGS and others; one that is really significant is 8 this report in 1990 called, Geology Groundwater 9 Resource for the Coastal Area of Georgia, by 10 Clarke, Hacke and Peck is a most significant 11 report. 12 We have a study here done by Dr. Henry also, 13 in conjunction with some of the project work that 14 we were doing, and in 1993 another iteration of the 15 same thing we worked on before. 16 I just want to show this very quickly, because 17 this is the same report that I mentioned in 1990 by 18 Clarke, Hacke and Peck. If you are interested in 19 this, you really want to understand better the 20 situation, this is the classic report that you want 21 to read. I want to show you the cover of it. My 22 copy is nearly worn out because I use it so much, 23 but it's an excellent report by these guys, and it 24 covers a lot of bases. It's a little dated now, 25 but it's an excellent report. 126 1 2 MR. PARSONS: What's the bulletin number on 3 that? 4 MR. SMITH: 113. 5 DR. HENRY: It's somewhat dated. 6 MR. SMITH: I said it's a little dated, and 7 I'll show how that is. This is the report I'm 8 basically addressing which many of you got copies 9 of, which the most recent study done on the 10 potential ground water impacts. 11 Now, I don't mean to insult anyone's 12 intelligence with this. This is an overly 13 simplified cartoon, if you will, of the geology and 14 hydrogeologic setting in the Savannah area, just to 15 give you an idea of some of the geologic names 16 that you'll hear me mentioning, some of the 17 aquifers. 18 The surficial aquifer system is the shallow 19 aquifer system. This is the one that a lot of 20 folks around here on the islands put out shallow 21 wells to water their yards with, very useful for 22 that purpose. 23 This confining unit is the miocene material. 24 You hear people talk about the miocene. Well, this 25 is it right here, and it is between the surficial 127 1 2 aquifer system and the Floridan Aquifer System. 3 It's actually not scale-wise as thick it is 4 shown here, but it is a very good confining unit 5 above the Floridan Aquifer. 6 What I wanted to show here was, again, an 7 oversimplification of the pumping in Savannah, this 8 representing a well, if you want to say a 9 conglomeration of all wells in Savannah that are 10 pumping, and drawing down the hydraulic head within 11 the Floridan Aquifer. 12 The hydraulic head is simply the height that 13 water would rise to from the aquifer, if you put 14 an open well. Of course years ago, it used to 15 be above land surface. You had artesian flowing 16 wells. Nowadays that's not the case because of the 17 tremendous pumping pressures put on the aquifer 18 for years and years. 19 That water level has declined to the point 20 that now ground water doesn't do what it used to 21 do, move from the upland areas to the coast and 22 outflow to the coast. Now, because of this 23 cone of depression, which I'll show y'all in a 24 second, around Savannah, water comes to the coast 25 in the Savannah area and tries to enter this 128 1 2 pumping zone, and also from offshore, and out here 3 trying to come back to Savannah. 4 MR. BREWTON: Excuse me. What is the 5 composition of material of miocene found in this 6 area? 7 MR. SMITH: I'm going to hopefully go over 8 that. This study was conducted by a lot of folks. 9 The three principle ones were Dr. Henry, and 10 myself, and a hydrogeologist named B.C. Spigner, 11 who has considerable experience with the South 12 Carolina Water Resources, it used to be called or 13 may still be called. And of course, the study 14 objective was to determine if deepening the 15 Savannah Harbor Channel was a potential impact 16 to the local aquifers. 17 There were basically three phases of the 18 study. We started off with a high resolution 19 subbottom geophysical survey that Dr. Henry 20 basically planned for us. Through his years of 21 experience of doing this very same thing along the 22 coast, he certainly knew what we needed to do to 23 get some good seismic records that we can use for 24 the study. 25 Actually, the survey was done by a contract 129 1 2 outfit out of Connecticut called Ocean Surveys, and 3 they did an excellent job. 4 The next phase, the second phase was a series 5 of core borings to ground truth the geophysical 6 survey. By that I simply mean, as we do the 7 geophysical survey, we get the records and look at 8 them. Dr. Henry determines what he thinks are the 9 significant strata and vectors for that survey. 10 Then we go out and drill the borings to see 11 how it fits the conception that we have of the of 12 the seismic data, if things show up in reality in 13 the borings where we saw them in the geophysical 14 survey. 15 The third phase, installation of four test 16 wells, to better determine hydraulic properties and 17 ground water quality. Okay. 18 The sub-bottom geophysical survey was, as I've 19 said, designed to determine the depths of various 20 stratigraphic units to allow reasonable 21 correlation and to detect features such as buried 22 relict channels. 23 During my presentation, you're going to hear 24 me talking about relict channels, paleo channels, 25 I'm talking about the same thing. We all change 130 1 2 this thing around a lot -- probably shouldn't. 3 We surveyed 38 miles along the present 4 navigation channel. That's basically from 5 beginning to very end, all the way from the 6 Houlihan Bridge to way offshore at station minus 7 85. It is a long way. 8 We also did 12 miles of tie lines, and those 9 tie lines were just lines that basically cross that 10 main line along Bow Channel. The tie lines were 11 put in in areas to gather information that might 12 have been significant, areas we wanted to look at, 13 or some areas Dr. Henry had in mind where he had 14 seen things before, and we wanted to get a better 15 idea of that situation or get better records maybe 16 in that area. 17 Then, of course, the last part of use of that 18 geophysical data was to select areas where core 19 borings were needed, and to determine if we had 20 data gaps, which we had considerable data gaps in 21 our boring information, because through the years 22 we have done quite a good many borings, but not 23 nearly as many we need to define the situation. 24 So here's just a map of the geophysical survey 25 track lines. These are tie lines here. One 131 1 2 here goes to Fields Cut. We tried another one here 3 kind of on the back river portion here behind Ft. 4 Pulaski area. I guess that one was probably the 5 one that turned out the least quality of any we 6 did. It wasn't so good, to our dismay, but I think 7 Dr. Henry figured it that way. He's had the 8 experience in that area. 9 Here's another one. This one was very 10 interesting and very enlightening where we started 11 out here coming from the Hilton Head area, came 12 directly toward the end of Tybee, and came back up 13 the entrance of Lazaretto Creek. 14 Core borings, we drilled six core borings 15 within or near the present navigation channel. 16 Two of those -- two more are also drilled on land. 17 I should have pointed out also on the very first 18 slide where you saw the barge on the tidal slide, 19 that's the jack-up barge or self-elevating barge 20 that the Savannah District has, which is a very 21 unique tool for doing this kind of work. 22 It allows us to drill offshore in deep water, 23 as deep as 45 feet deep by positioning the barge 24 where we want and literally jacking it out of the 25 water, and it stays there until the borings are 132 1 2 finished -- extremely useful tool and there aren't 3 many of them around. Okay. 4 Of course, the borings, as we said, were used 5 to ground truth the sub-bottom survey data, and 6 also provide samples for permeability testing 7 of the confining materials. You're really talking 8 about permeability and hydraulic conductivity. 9 For the purpose of what I'm saying today, 10 they're the same thing. We already knew there was 11 an area, basically off the north end of Tybee, 12 where the geology tends to rise, and all the 13 geologic units are thin considerably. 14 So we knew that was one another where we 15 really need to take a better look at. So whereas 16 we did borings along a wide stretch of Colonial 17 River, we focused on this area because of borings. 18 The maximum depth that we drilled to on any 19 boring was minus 160 feet or 160 feet below the 20 mean low water. We also did some logs of the 21 borings themselves on -- 22 MR. BREWTON: What was the diameter of the 23 core? 24 MR. SMITH: Diameter of what? 25 MR. BREWTON: Cores. 133 1 2 MR. SMITH: The cores that we took were 3 basically four inch cores. 4 MR. BREWTON: Four inch? 5 MR. SMITH: We did a couple of them that were 6 six inch. Most of them were four inch. Okay. 7 Here are where are our borings are. You can see 8 some of these higher number borings, 318, 327, they 9 were taken in actually previous studies, but we 10 wanted to show them here because they fit right in 11 with the other information we had. 12 This is an older boring also, SH 65 near 13 Fields Cut. This was the boring that we actually 14 SB 2-A that we actually did for the utility 15 crossing of the river going over to Hudson Island 16 that the county had done, and this is one of our 17 borings, our most inward inland boring for this 18 study was number 5 here. 19 I want to point out this number 8 here was 20 right in the backyard of the harbor pilot's office 21 at Cockspur Island near the Coast Guard Station. 22 Number 7 is right near the water treatment facility 23 at Tybee. Let me turn this. I didn't realize this 24 room was going to be so large. I apologize for 25 some of these slides. 134 1 2 I just wanted to keep this map on the side 3 here so when I'm talking about things and referring 4 to things, I and you can see where I'm talking 5 about. Okay. 6 The test wells, as I said, we installed four 7 wells; two at Pulaski and two north of Tybee. The 8 two wells as Ft. Pulaski were about 800 feet off 9 the channel on land south of the channel. The two 10 on the north end of Tybee were about 5,000 feet, 11 right at a mile south of the existing navigation 12 channel. 13 I should back up just a little bit here and 14 say that early on, when we started talking about 15 doing this study, we had a meeting in Savannah 16 where we had USGS, Georgia Geologic Survey, Georgia 17 Ports, ATM was there. Let's see, who else -- 18 Dr. Henry was certainly there. What we wanted to 19 do was get input from a lot of different folks 20 about what we need to be doing in this study, ideas 21 from folks, and we got some good ones. 22 One of those from USGS, we talked about 23 putting some borings -- we wanted to come across 24 the river. We basically were talking about putting 25 some borings or some test wells along this side of 135 1 2 the river, and also going over to the disposal 3 are site, putting some on both sides of the river 4 to get a handle on water levels. 5 As you can imagine, getting over there to 6 drill is a pretty tough situation to do. So USGS 7 suggested we install our test wells in the same 8 areas where they had existing clusters at Ft. 9 Pulaski and Tybee. That turned out to be a great 10 thing to do. We learned some things from doing 11 that. 12 Actually, this was the first time that 13 contemporaneous data, data all at the same time, 14 was collected from wells in different aquifers, not 15 just aquifers, but confining material too, 16 different geologic zones, hydrogeologic zones, and 17 I should say in the Savannah area. Okay. 18 I was talking about the current impression a 19 while ago. This is the latest information from 20 USGS on the draw down and cone of depression around 21 Savannah due to pumping. This is the data from May 22 of 1998. And just trying to show here the depth of 23 this cone of depression -- cone of depression, of 24 course, is created from tremendous pumping in the 25 Savannah area, which draws the water down in the 136 1 2 Floridan Aquifer. It pulls it down towards the 3 well. It creates a cone of a lack of water inside 4 of here. Outside of here is where everything is. 5 On the inside you have to go down to these 6 different depths to encounter the water level in 7 the Floridan Aquifer. 8 The good thing about this is that if you look 9 at the data here, in May of 1990, in the center of 10 the pumping in Savannah, the Floridan Aquifer had 11 been drawn down to about 112 feet. Now, 10 years 12 later, it's up to around 98 feet. Of course, 13 that's hopefully due to -- I'm sure it is -- the 14 more stringent restrictions put on pumping, and it 15 can cause a lot of problems to restrict water use, 16 but there's some really beneficial results of doing 17 that, and the proof is right there. It really does 18 make a difference. You can make a difference by 19 reducing the pumping. Okay. 20 Again, the track line of the geophysical 21 survey, and the very interesting features of this 22 slide that I'll talk about are these yellow areas 23 here which the relict channels or paleo channels. 24 They are buried channels. I'm going to be talking 25 about the navigation channels and these channels. 137 1 2 They are two different things. That's very 3 confusing. 4 I have a little cartoon I'll show you in a 5 second. I hope it will make it clear. Navigation 6 channel, of course, down the river. These things 7 are old buried channels from when the sea level 8 was much lower and streams to the rivers came to 9 the coast, meandered around, they cut their own 10 valleys down into the surface, and created these 11 buried and covered channels that we detected with 12 the geophysical survey. 13 We actually know about 11 of them along this 14 stretch, but these 5 are the significant ones, 15 because they actually, according to Dr. Henry's 16 records and also some of the drilling we did, those 17 5 impact the confining material. They actually cut 18 down into the confining material. Okay. 19 Let me show you what I mean by that. Here's 20 one of the seismographs. I hope you don't get 21 vertigo looking at this. Dr. Henry probably does, 22 he's done so much of it. 23 What I need to point out, we have station 24 numbers on here from the seismic record. 25 Basically, this record was created from towing a 138 1 2 seismic device down the river, it pings or booms 3 and sends a signal down it penetrates strata down 4 below the river bottom, it comes back up and gives 5 hopefully a nice record. It goes to a considerable 6 depth. 7 This length is along the center line of the 8 channel basically, the navigation channel. This is 9 one of the features we're talking about. This 10 thing shows up on the seismic record as an 11 in-filled structure. It's an area that's been cut 12 down and then filled in later on by materials, 13 later in geologic time. 14 They're quite significant because -- I've 15 colored these different layers. The greens are 16 the miocene confining material. Okay. This is the 17 Floridan Aquifer, this yellow portion or tan 18 portion, and this is actually part of that too, but 19 a different zone. But the main one, the Upper 20 Florida Aquifer is right in here. This is the one 21 we're most concerned about right now. 22 Look how the features have literally cut down 23 in the confining material. What's so significant 24 about that? 25 Well, it's significant for several reasons, 139 1 2 but one of the main reasons is that we've always 3 wondered were these channels filled materials that 4 might be more permeable than the confining 5 material. And the reason for that concern is that 6 if that's the case, then these could be pathways 7 for salt water to get to the aquifer. Okay. 8 So we wanted to know where these things were, 9 where these paleo channels were, and how deep they 10 go. We've done a lot of seismic work, Dr. Henry's 11 done a lot of seismic work, and we do have, I 12 think, a fair handle on where some of them are. We 13 certainly don't where they all are, and we 14 certainly don't know how deep all of them are. 15 MR. BREWTON: What is the relative depth 16 that you're talking about -- 17 MR. SMITH: Well, this is around 100 feet, 100 18 to 110. Okay. That's a good question. 19 MR. BREWTON: That's linear above that? 20 MR. SMITH: Yeah, pretty much. 21 MR. ROBINETTE: What's the depth from the top 22 of the aquifer? 23 MR. SMITH: We're going to come to that. In 24 a much better diagram, I'll show you that. But 25 this is significant. Look at what's going on here. 140 1 2 Now, this is a seismic line done right here on this 3 tie line, started here and came right across to 4 Tybee. SH 3 you see right here is just outside the 5 navigation channel. 6 But because that seismic line crosses the 7 navigation channel, here it is. We see that 8 navigation channel. This is not one of the buried 9 channels. This is the navigation channel. Okay. 10 The navigation channel itself has actually 11 already nicked down into the confining material. 12 Okay. What I've done here is just taken the 13 seismic record that goes back like this, split it, 14 put this boring here just to show how the boring 15 features relate to features on the seismic. 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: Question, is that nick as a 17 consequence of the arch? 18 MR. SMITH: Yeah, somewhat it is, because all 19 that hasn't been raised, it is. Here's the 20 limestone right here, the top of the Upper Floridan 21 Aquifer, the significant reflectors may not be too 22 significant for some folks, but they allow us to 23 get an idea of where these things occur in a 24 seismic record. Of course, the whole idea of a 25 seismic record is you can eliminate a lot of 141 1 2 borings if you have some good seismic data. 3 We can't drill holes everywhere as much as we 4 want to. So we have to put in the holes that we 5 can put in, the borings we can put in, and then tie 6 those all together with some decent seismic data 7 that correlates well with what we see in the 8 borings. 9 MR. ROGERS: These borings verify or tell you 10 that the seismic data is completely accurate? 11 DR. HENRY: Well, there are some inherent 12 errors with the correlation between borings and 13 seismic, due to the velocity difference and what 14 sediment -- but anyway, we did get very good 15 correlation. 16 MR. SMITH: But the point is, it's not perfect 17 correlation, and you wouldn't expect it to be 18 perfect. 19 DR. HENRY: Talking about several feet. 20 MR. SMITH: There is a several feet margin 21 error, but not on the order of 20, 30, 40 feet. 22 MR. BREWTON: When you say not on the order of 23 20, 30, 40 feet, what is the sort of average margin 24 of error? 25 MR. SMITH: It's going to vary depending on 142 1 2 the conditions at the time of the records were 3 taken. 4 MR. BREWTON: What is the extent of the range 5 the error could be in? 6 DR. HENRY: I would say definitely less than 7 10 feet, probably closer to 5, 3 to 5 feet. You've 8 got to remember the problems with bringing samples 9 up, you know, knowing to the inch where that sample 10 came from in the core. 11 MR. JUE: You indicated you had a limited 12 number of test bore, test wells put in. You'd like 13 to see quite a bit more. Then you mentioned you 14 have a fairly good idea of where some of the 15 paleo channels are. Again, you're saying there may 16 be more of them out there. 17 My question is, if you come to the conclusion 18 that you average all this data and say, well, the 19 leakage rate is insignificant; if you applied the 20 same methodology to the different geological areas 21 like Brunswick, where there are definite channels 22 of the lower confining layer of the aquifer coming 23 up, contaminating the Floridan, it seems to me if 24 you use same the correlation, the Brunswick study 25 would say there would be no problem, and we know 143 1 2 there is. 3 MR. SMITH: If you'll let me continue on, 4 we'll come back to that. That's a good question. 5 One thing I want to say about that, the Brunswick 6 situation is a much different situation than we are 7 talking about here. 8 MR. JUE: I understand. I was just trying to 9 compare your methodology, as far as averaging all 10 the data you got, which you said you had some 11 limited data. You can poke holes all up and down 12 the Savannah River. I understand that. 13 Again, you have to look at different areas 14 where you think that the confining layer is thin. 15 You think you got a good idea where the paleo 16 channels are, the fissures in the confining layer, 17 which is a direct conduit to the Floridan. 18 I was trying to compare that methodology to 19 compare to Brunswick, which is entirely different. 20 There is no fissure down there so there is no 21 danger of getting any contamination from the lower 22 back, then we would have been wrong. 23 MR. SMITH: You bring up a good point. Let's 24 go on and we'll come back. All right. I mentioned 25 geophysical logging of the actual borings 144 1 2 themselves. We lower tools down. This is 3 called a gamma log. It's produced from natural 4 gamma radiation contained in the sediments. These 5 two signatures here, these two peaks are classic in 6 the Savannah area. 7 They are pretty exciting to geologists because 8 they allow us, any time we drill a hole and we log 9 and we see these things, we know where we are in 10 this section pretty well. These things are not 11 forever and always there. We don't always detect 12 them, but most of time we do. 13 These two here are very significant in the 14 area we're concerned about, because they are almost 15 always some variation of the peak you see here. 16 This lower is very sharp, narrow, thin, this one 17 is kind of a double load with a little more 18 thickness. Okay. 19 Now, this table deals with this map. Again, 20 these features, numbered features, let me just -- 21 this is number 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Oh, by the way, 22 the scale is not totally true on this map, but 23 relatively speaking these are the relative widths 24 of these paleo channels that cross the channel. 25 This number 4 here is no small stream. This 145 1 2 was a considerable river, or at least it was a 3 stream or river at least meandered across a wide 4 path as it cut a pretty good swath across there. 5 That number -- let's see, number 3, the first 6 one, I mentioned a while ago how these features cut 7 down into the miocene. They cut down actually into 8 the lower part of the miocene. 9 There are two zones within the miocene called 10 A and B. A is the upper. B is the lower. I'll 11 show you in a second a better sketch of that. 12 These paleo channels have cut down as much as 10 13 feet into that lower confining material, and that's 14 the significant thing about this table. 15 Let me say that we have not only saw this on 16 seismograph, but we went back to verify the 17 borings. It's a lot of fun when you see these 18 things on the seismic record, and you put a boring 19 there and these come up where you expect them to. 20 That makes it interesting for geologist anyway. 21 It makes it awfully confounding when don't do 22 that. 23 Here to me is the, not the big picture, but it 24 is a -- there's a considerable amount of 25 information on this cross section right here. This 146 1 2 cross section is from about station 31 to station 3 minus 21 plus 500. Here's station 0, in case 4 you're not familiar, station 0 -- I'm sorry -- 5 right in here near where the jetties beginning, 6 that's the station 0. You go negative stations 7 increasing outward. You go positive stations 8 increasing coming in. 9 So this area covers from SH 65 here at Fields 10 Cut out to SHE 4 out here. So what have we got 11 here, we've got -- we've got 50,000 feet. Okay. 12 That's a considerable distance we're talking about, 13 miles. 14 The reason I want to point that out, the scale 15 you're looking at here is tremendously exaggerated. 16 We've got a tremendous distance in the horizontal. 17 If we were going to scale this thing back to true 18 scale, this distance here would be extremely small. 19 We expanded so we can look at the units 20 displayed and talk about them. I'm not trying to 21 make it look like something it's not ,although I 22 have. Okay. 23 Here are these two units. Here's the miocene 24 A unit, here's the miocene B unit. When you go out 25 there and drill this material, you can literally 147 1 2 see the difference in it when you are drilling. 3 The significant thing is there's a little 4 stringer of limestone, by that I mean a thin layer 5 of limestone, that typically shows up right 6 between where those two units are. 7 So when you core and the core barrel comes 8 out, there's a chunk of limestone, sometimes it may 9 be two feet of limestone that falls out of the 10 barrel, so you know right then where you are. 11 Every once in a while it will be missing. Most of 12 the time, it's there. It's a really good indicator 13 when you are drilling of where you are. Okay. 14 One really significant thing about this 15 confining material is that the report I alluded to 16 earlier by Clarke, Hacke and Peck is a very good 17 study on all this. It does have some things that 18 are little dated. 19 In that report, they talk about something 20 called the Upper Brunswick Aquifer, and that Upper 21 Brunswick Aquifer was supposed to exist within this 22 lower or this V miocene unit. And of course in 23 Brunswick, the Upper Brunswick Aquifer is a viable, 24 good aquifer. It's useful and is used for ground 25 water. But up here, this thing does not exist. 148 1 2 It's not here. And the report -- earlier USGS 3 report did talk about it, but what they basically 4 did was extrapolate that feature from a lot of good 5 information they had in the Brunswick area up to 6 this area, where they did have what they call some 7 hints at that being here. 8 So they extrapolated that up to here. It 9 does not exist in the area of the present 10 navigation channel. 11 MR. ROGERS: The geologic feature that is 12 similar would be the confining layer here, rather 13 than the source of the water there? 14 MR. SMITH: That is exactly the point. This 15 is not just what I think, this is what we can show. 16 The guys at USGS and John Clark agrees now that 17 what we've shown is the case, that it does not 18 exist up here. 19 The reason I'm trying to belabor that a little 20 bit, is that when we first started a lot of these 21 aquifer studies for dredging, the one we were 22 really concerned about is this Upper Brunswick. If 23 it existed and it was up here this high, then that 24 could really cause a problem for the aquifer from 25 dredging. 149 1 2 MR. BREWTON: Excuse me one second. Regarding 3 that, when you say it does not exist up here, where 4 does -- where is the point that it begins existing? 5 MR. SMITH: I don't have the answer to that. 6 I hope somewhere in the studies Dr. Henry will be 7 doing in the future we can better determine that. 8 I suspect somewhere south of here. 9 DR. HENRY: It changes significantly right 10 at the Altamaha River. 11 MR. BREWTON: I know. We've just done some 12 miocene test wells in South Bryan County right near 13 the Ogeechee River and it wasn't there. 14 MR. SMITH: Yeah. 15 DR. HENRY: Yeah, not like on the other side 16 where Branniger is developing that tract, not only 17 the Upper Brunswick but the Lower Brunswick. 18 MR. SMITH: The miocene is much thicker down 19 there. 20 MR. BREWTON: What I was getting at, there is 21 a miocene formation with water in Bryan County. 22 MR. SMITH: I wouldn't dispute that at all. 23 DR. HENRY: Probably so, but there's not here 24 in Chatham. 25 MR. BREWTON: The map the Georgia Geologic 150 1 2 Survey put out some years back showed significant 3 recharge areas, shows miocene recharge areas in 4 Chatham County, in fact, there's a large area that 5 looks like it's under the central business district 6 of town. 7 Would those areas, if they are recharge areas, 8 function in recharging the water at these points 9 further south; wouldn't there be some transmission 10 of water? 11 DR. HENRY: If that map is accurate, which I 12 understand it is not -- 13 MR. BREWTON: I don't know. 14 MR. SMITH: I'd almost have to see that. 15 DR. HENRY: By definition, yeah, if it's a 16 recharge area -- 17 MR. BREWTON: This came from McLemore. 18 DR. HENRY: I understand it came under a -- 19 I won't go into all the details -- it came under a 20 great deal of pressure to get the thing out. 21 MR. BREWTON: What I was getting at is even 22 though the miocene may, in the Bryan County area, 23 not be as productive as the Brunswick area, recent 24 test samples that have just been done where they 25 have been found inadequate as a water source for 151 1 2 some developments, in an area particularly called 3 Genesis Point right on the Ogeechee River and Red 4 Bear Creek. 5 DR. HENRY: I'm familiar with that. Harold 6 Gill with Gould did that study. 7 MR. BREWTON: Yeah. So I was just wondering 8 could there be some effect on that water in that 9 area? 10 DR. HENRY: Not in that area -- from this 11 area, no. Let's let Card finish. 12 MR. SMITH: Okay. Notice in these borings we 13 put here where we went back to these areas, 14 identifying the seismic records as being paleo 15 channels, we actually drilled in these things. 16 That's how we were able to determine or verify how 17 far some of these things had cut down in the 18 miocene. 19 Instead of hitting the miocene where you 20 should, you don't. You just encounter these more 21 recent materials as you go down and down. 22 Finally you hit the miocene, because these 23 things have been removed, the miocene materials 24 have been the removed. You now have this channel 25 in-filling material, typically a gray material, and 152 1 2 these materials are typically green. 3 We have also got a lot of or 22 4 permeability samples taken in these cores. You 5 can't read them here. In the report these things 6 are exhaustively described, at least the table of 7 numbers. Each place you see one of these is where 8 we took a permeability sample. We took some within 9 the in-filling materials also. 10 This is just an extension from Fields Cut on 11 into Savannah. Very quickly I want to point this 12 out. This slide covers -- 13 DR. HENRY: Can I interrupt? I think it's 14 important for people to go back to that other 15 slide. In this particular area shown on this slide 16 here, this is where the top of the aquifer is most 17 shallow in the whole study area. It's called the 18 Tybee High. 19 MR. SMITH: Right here off the end of Tybee. 20 DR. HENRY: That's why it is such a critical 21 area for dredging, because everything sort of thins 22 out there. So the confining units are thinner and 23 so forth. 24 MR. SMITH: Good point. That's what we wanted 25 to show with this slide. When you come back to 153 1 2 Savannah, you have this tremendous thickness of 3 miocene confining material over the aquifer. 4 You have almost 200 feet, so a much different 5 situation than what we have out at Tybee. Okay. 6 Hopefully, to try to sum up some of those things in 7 a little cartoon that I tried to put together to 8 put some of the pieces together here, this surface 9 created here is actually the navigation channel, 10 and this is actually recent hydrographic data that 11 I dug up and used to "model" this with. 12 It simply is just the surface based on reading 13 from that survey. It shows the boring locations 14 here. 15 I also wanted to point out what I mentioned 16 a while ago about the -- you see this green kind of 17 daylighting in the channel here -- trying to show 18 this existing channel has cut down into the miocene 19 a little bit. 20 I wanted to show here the top of the miocene, 21 just some representation of the paleo channels 22 we're talking about, how they kind of fit into 23 this, and then the Floridan Aquifer, the material 24 here, just trying to show the axis of this Tybee 25 High. 154 1 2 This is a kind of structural feature that 3 warps everything upward. Tybee Island is right 4 over here. This, by the way, of course is looking 5 out the channel this way out to the ocean. This 6 way you're looking back in towards Savannah. Okay. 7 In this study, we took 22 undisturbed core 8 samples from six of the borings, and we ran 9 vertical permeability analysis on them. It takes 10 a really specialized setup to run permeability of 11 these things. 12 We call them undisturbed samples because if 13 you take samples that are disturbed, they don't 14 represent the type of permeability that's actually 15 in place when you are sampling. 16 We core these out. You get almost a four inch 17 core that comes out. These things are waxed up, 18 sealed up, so all the moisture stays in. 19 They're sent to the lab fairly quickly. Then 20 they're cored again. A smaller portion is cored 21 out of that center of that and is put in to a setup 22 called a permea-meter. It actually will take days 23 to run these permeability analysis when they're as 24 low as some of these samples were to determine what 25 these permeabilities are. 155 1 2 Let me make it clear, these are laboratory 3 permeabilities. They are not in place 4 permeabilities. 5 We haven't gone out there and said, right here 6 I've done a test in place that says this is what 7 permeability is. This is the standard way of doing 8 this type of analysis. This has been done by USGS 9 and others all through time. 10 The report I referred to is full of this kind 11 of context, and so is the bulletin 113 report. I 12 should mention that the data we came up with 13 matched the data from all those very closely, very 14 well. 15 We had 13 samples from miocene A, 11 from B, 16 and they ranked from 4.3 times 10 minus 2, 6 times 17 10 minus 5 feet per day. Add the decimal points 18 out here, okay. Add 1, 2.04 feet per day. Okay. 19 And then I was just showing you what Furlow has 20 here. 21 This feet per day is just a rate of flow 22 permeability is just a flow rate through these 23 materials and it needs to be made very clear these 24 are vertical through the confining materials, not 25 horizontal, but vertical. 156 1 2 That's what we're concerned about. That's 3 where the concern is, the migration of saline water 4 from the ocean down through this material. Okay. 5 We also took four samples on this study from 6 the paleo channel filling material. They range 7 from 10 to minus 2 to 10 to minus 4; in other 8 words, pretty low also. 9 These permeabilities are extremely low. Okay. 10 This is typical of clayey materials. This is a 11 summary of table in the report. 12 I just wanted to point out here some of the 13 unit averages we ran into are over here. What I 14 want to point out, the materials that compromise 15 these samples, if you looked at the sample in your 16 hand, you would never ever dream it had 80% sand in 17 the sample because it's so very fine grain you just 18 can't tell it. 19 When you send it to the lab and have it 20 analyzed, this is what come up with, 9.3% silt. 21 Silt is just particles as fine as below 200 silt, 22 that's really fine, fine grain material between 23 sand and clay. 24 Clay is extremely fine grain, but the point is 25 you've got 80% sand and over 10% clay. Anytime you 157 1 2 have over 10% clay in a sample, the permeability is 3 going to be low for that sample. Here's 20%, 4 here's 15% clay. 5 If you look at these things, you only look at 6 this number, you say 80% sand, that's just got to 7 be permeable, I know water is going to really move 8 through that, it's not because it has a lot of clay 9 material in it. 10 All right. I wanted to point out this one. 11 This is actually a section out of the bulletin 113 12 USGS report. 13 The only reason I wanted to show this, of 14 course, this goes much, much deeper than any 15 sections I've shown here. 16 This is from a well cluster they have down at 17 Ft. Pulaski. In fact, these wells are shown in the 18 sections I've shown. But I just want to show -- 19 here's the surficial aquifer we've talked about. 20 Look at this. This is the Upper Brunswick Aquifer, 21 okay, within the confining material over here on 22 the side. 23 This is the confining material, this thickness 24 right here, and here's this Upper Brunswick Aquifer 25 basically sitting right on top of the confining 158 1 2 material -- not on top but actually within the 3 confining material above the Floridan. 4 So this was always a real concern to us. It 5 was always so high, we had to find out if this 6 thing was real and it's not. This is one of the 7 few things in that report that is probably out of 8 date. Okay. 9 The same well cluster at Tybee -- I'm sorry -- 10 Ft. Pulaski, what we want to show here, these are 11 just the depths -- this is the boring we took. We 12 took this boring to make sure we were putting these 13 wells in the zones thought we were. 14 We wanted to make sure our steams, our 15 openings into the well, where we were going to 16 bring ground water into the wells was where they 17 needed to be. 18 This shallow well, actually drilled it that 19 deep, back plugged into here, put the screen so the 20 screen would be the surficial aquifer. That's the 21 gray area. Here's good old miocene A and B again, 22 confining material. Here's the Floridan down here. 23 This well isn't in the surficial aquifer. 24 This well is actually in the confining material, 25 normally you don't put wells in confining material, 159 1 2 but it was a good reason for doing this. We wanted 3 to find out the water quality, water that was in 4 the confining material. 5 Of course, this well -- this USGS well was 6 already existing, so it allowed at the same time 7 water levels and water quality data to be gathered 8 on the shallow, and the confining material, 9 intermediate, deep, and Floridan. 10 Here are the water levels for these things. 11 The shallow water level from the shallow well is 12 way up here. This is just the head of the water 13 here, water all along here, and the intermediate or 14 the confining material the water level is not quite 15 as high as this, a little bit lower. In the 16 Floridan, it drops down a pretty good bit more. 17 This is what defines part of that cone of 18 depression we looked at in the cartoon a while ago 19 when I was trying to show the pumping draw out. 20 From out here offshore, that cone comes in and it 21 just decreases. It comes down like this towards 22 Savannah. Here's a defining point on that cone 23 of depression. Okay. 24 The thing that's significant about this, it is 25 a -- we already knew this to be the case, again, 160 1 2 it's proof of this. It shows -- it puts some 3 numbers on this thing that is, the degree of 4 the vertical downward grade, by that I mean way 5 back when there was artesian pressure on the 6 Floridan, water's trying to come out of here. Now 7 it's not. 8 Water is trying to go down into the Floridan 9 because of this tremendous pumping in Savannah. 10 That's just what these water levels show. These 11 blue numbers here are the chloride content of 12 samples taken of these. 13 Look at this one right here, 8,000 milligrams 14 per liter. Sea water is what, 25, 35 -- 25,000 15 milligrams per liter. This is high, this is very 16 high, but there's a reason for this one being high. 17 We drilled this well, we could tell by what we 18 were drilling in it, we were probably in the old 19 Barry Channel, and it's probably directly connected 20 to the river. 21 So there was probably a pretty good hydraulic 22 connection, which bring in this chloride in that 23 well. So it's probably not real representative. 24 See the one on Tybee. Here the one miocene 25 confining is 340 milligrams per liter, so yes 161 1 2 there are some chlorides in this confining 3 material. 4 Ground water is moving through this confining 5 material. We're not saying it is not, it is 6 everybody knows it is. There's no perfect 7 confining material. They don't exist. It is going 8 to move through it at some rate. 9 All right. You come immediately out of the 10 miocene confining material into the Floridan 11 Aquifer and it drops down to 15 milligrams per 12 liter and then 6.2 milligrams per liter. I think 13 this was about 160 feet. This will go to 330 feet. 14 Okay. 15 So what this shows is that yes, there is some 16 exist connection between up here and down here. 17 There's no doubt about it. Nobody is denying that. 18 But what it's also showing is this thing right 19 here, this feature right here is doing a bang up 20 job of keeping it out, because when you come 21 through it, it immediately drops down. 22 That's what you're going to see. You're going 23 to see the same thing again at Tybee. I won't 24 belabor this. Again, you've got the chloride 25 levels, this is much deeper. This is way deep, 162 1 2 around 800 feet, in this well at Tybee. This 3 chloride has come up to 3,000 milligrams per liter. 4 That probably has nothing to do with what's 5 happening on the surface down. This very likely 6 had something to do with saline water, trapped 7 fossil salt water that's trying to move up. It 8 probably has nothing to do with what we're talking 9 about up here. 10 Again, here's something that's probably more 11 representative, you know, of the surficial aquifer. 12 chloride content. Again though, you've got these 13 water levels that show a vertical, downward drape 14 out of Tybee. 15 Harry has alluded to these numbers right here 16 earlier. The intent of this slide and these 17 numbers and these formulas is not to go into 18 extreme detail on the calculations and numbers we 19 arrived at, but I'm going to show about four of 20 these slides, then I've got kind of a summary of 21 it. 22 I do want to mention these things affect the 23 calculation you're making here. This K value is 24 the permeability. We got samples we took, which is 25 this number right here. This is a gradient or 163 1 2 measurement of the head working on these things 3 trying to push it down. This is just an area -- 4 what you end up with is this calculation was 5 actually done for the well cluster at Tybee -- I'm 6 sorry -- at Pulaski, where we had a known thickness 7 of the confining material, and we had the water 8 levels from the wells. 9 So we plugged all that information in here. 10 What we come up with is that before dredging right 11 now what's taking place is somewhere in the range 12 of 900 or 1,000 gallons per day per acre moving 13 down to the Floridan Aquifer through the confining 14 material. Okay. 15 Go through the same calculation after dredging 16 10 feet of material from the confining material, 17 you come up with 1,100 or so gallons per day per 18 acre. Okay. 19 The previous lines dealt with the confining 20 material itself, but this one, because of the 21 situation with the paleo channels, we have to take 22 into consideration the permeability of the 23 in-fill materials in the paleo channels, because 24 they definitely affect. They're part of it. We 25 can't discount them. 164 1 2 So if you combine the portion of the paleo 3 channel that's in-fill, and use a permeability for 4 that portion of that material, and then you take 5 the miocene confining material below it, and 6 factor in its permeability and combining them; we 7 assume this number here is before dredging. We 8 come up with this number, 1,200 or so gallons per 9 day per acre. 10 Let me say this, you can calculate these 11 numbers a lot of different ways. The intent and 12 uses of these kinds of numbers and these kinds of 13 calculations was to just give an idea of the aerial 14 expanse that you are dealing with and the flow 15 through these acres of area. 16 And so, in the miocene material -- I'm sorry 17 -- the paleo channel material combined with the 18 miocene material, if you remove 10 feet of that 19 material, you come up with 1,500 gallons per day 20 per acre. 21 MR. BREWTON: Excuse me one moment. That's 22 using what depth of the channel? 23 MR. SMITH: Using what? 24 MR. BREWTON: Your proposed deepening 25 calculations -- 165 1 2 MR. SMITH: That's a good question. I should 3 have pointed that out. We ran these calculations 4 when we did the study, we were looking at minus 54. 5 So what that means is in this area right in 6 here, there are some areas in here now that are 50 7 feet deep. They weren't dredged that deep. They 8 have been scoured that deep, but typically in this 9 area you've got 46, 48 feet in here. So 54 feet is 10 the number we used, and in a good many places we're 11 talking about 8 feet or so cutting down, not -- not 12 the project depth in here is, I think, 44 Dan? 13 MR. PARROTT: 44. 14 MR. SMITH: The project depth is 44 in here. 15 That's the depth that's supposed to be maintained 16 in that channel, 44. So we, in our calculations in 17 the study, looked at lowering that depth 10 feet. 18 MR. BREWTON: A couple of clarifications, I 19 thought we had a 42 foot channel. 20 MR. PARROTT: We do. The offshore bar is two 21 foot deeper. 22 MR. SMITH: Depends on where you're talking 23 about in the navigation channel. 24 MR. BREWTON: The second question is if 25 right now with a 42, 44 foot project, you have 166 1 2 areas that that are scoured to 54 feet -- 3 MR. SMITH: No, not 54, 50 is about the 4 deepest I've seen. 5 MR. BREWTON: 50. 6 MR. SMITH: Right. 7 MR. BREWTON: What would you expect with a 48 8 foot channel; what would you expect the scouring 9 would go to? 10 MR. SMITH: I don't know. 11 MR. BREWTON: Wouldn't that be what you need 12 to look at? 13 MR. SMITH: Yes, somebody should look at that. 14 That's kind of out of my league. That's not -- 15 that's has to do sedimentation and sediment 16 removal. That's just not my -- 17 MR. BREWTON: I understand if you're talk 18 about the thickness of the layer versus the depth 19 of channel, you're right -- 20 MR. SMITH: It's pretty easy to plot these 21 things out and tell where the scouring areas 22 occurred. One of them, one of the fairly deeper 23 ones is right in this area -- I'm sorry -- right in 24 this area inside the jetties. I was looking at 25 some of the hydrographic data the other day -- 167 1 2 DR. HENRY: I would like to, before we 3 actually leave and get a break, before I lose my 4 train of thought, I'd like to say a couple of 5 words. 6 MR. DYSART: Let's try to hold the questions 7 so we can focus on the presentation, if that is 8 possible. Okay. Go ahead, sir. 9 MR. SMITH: We're talking about the vertical 10 flow rates through the miocene flow down through 11 the Floridan Aquifer. The big point we're trying 12 to make on all of this is that the vertical leakage 13 rates compared to the flow, the horizontal flow in 14 the Floridan Aquifer, whose rates are tremendously 15 different, tremendously different -- it's hard to 16 even point out the difference because this vertical 17 flow rate through the confining material is just, 18 relatively speaking, barely moving. 19 These flows are quite considerable through the 20 Floridan. This is ground water moving laterally 21 through the Floridan, which has some really high 22 permeability in some areas. 23 Typically in reports, if you look at reports 24 for this area, they will say that the horizontal 25 permeability in the Floridan is 300 to 300 -- I 168 1 2 think it's 350 to 500 times -- I'm sorry. 3 It is probably 300 to 350 times the vertical 4 permeability in the confining material. So what 5 does that mean? 6 What it means is that if you have a certain 7 amount of vertical leakage downward, the water 8 that's flowing through is tremendously more than 9 what's coming down. It has a flushing effect where 10 it is flushing it out. 11 The actual effect on the Floridan aquifer is 12 minimal. Okay. To summarize, we basically defined 13 what's already been known about the geology, the 14 confining materials, and the aquifer. 15 One thing that we do want to make a point out 16 of though is this thing called the Upper Brunswick 17 Aquifer does not exist in this area -- in the area 18 of the channel. 19 We came up with some permeability values for 20 miocene, and these low vertical permeabilities. 21 The surficial aquifer -- okay -- as I pointed out 22 on the slides in the test well sites, the levels in 23 the surficial aquifer are typically higher than the 24 underlying aquifers. So there's that downward 25 draining trying to force water downward. 169 1 2 As I mentioned, the focus of this study was in 3 an area of Tybee because this is where the concern 4 was. 5 This is the area we need to be concerned 6 about, this is the area where we need to be 7 careful. 8 As Dr. Henry rightly pointed out, we found 9 that the top of the Floridan Aquifer is as high as 10 minus 95 mean low water. We said there was some 11 scouring out there at 50 feet below mean low water. 12 This thing, this aquifer at least where that 13 scouring is -- well, you have to match up the 14 scouring position with the high point on the 15 aquifer. 16 The high point on the aquifer right here, 17 where I have seen some of this deeper scouring is 18 right here. The point is the aquifer is about 45 19 feet. Where the aquifer is highest, where it 20 really rises its highest is 45 feet below channel. 21 I pointed out how everything thickens and gets 22 much deeper as you come toward Savannah. The 23 geophysical survey indicated up to seven paleo 24 channels that cross -- are buried below the present 25 navigation channel within the focus area, four of 170 1 2 those cut 10 feet in miocene B. 3 When I said the hydraulic conductivity of the 4 permeability in the Floridan Aquifer is indicated 5 at 350 to -- that's where I got -- the 6 hydraulic conductivity in the aquifer is 350 to 500 7 feet per day. Okay. The number that is used is 8 300 or so, horizontal permeates 300 or so times 9 greater than the vertical confining material. 10 MR. BREWTON: That last item, what was the 11 source of that number? 12 MR. SMITH: This number right here, I'm pretty 13 sure the last thing I used was probably that 113. 14 There have been numerous studies done on hydraulic 15 conductivity. 16 So, as I've already alluded to, we use these 17 permeability values that we gleaned from 18 samples, and samples that were taken from other 19 studies, and also those samples from the confining 20 material and the paleo channel fill, and the 21 hydraulic head data from the test wells, and 22 they indicate the quantity of water moving 23 vertically downward in the Upper Floridan after 24 dredging will be minor compared to water moving 25 laterally, thus the proposed dredging will not have 171 1 2 a noticeable effect on the quantity and quality of 3 the ground water within the Upper Floridan. 4 Again, this goes back to the main premise that 5 the flow is so tremendous within the Floridan, 6 we're not saying there will be no change from 7 what's happening now, but we're saying that the 8 change will be minimal. Okay. That's it. 9 DR. HENRY: Okay. I'm going to start out with 10 a disclaimer. I'm not a ground water hydrologist, 11 so I don't necessarily concur with those 12 conclusions, but in any case, what really disturbs 13 me is if you go up to Bulloch County where the 14 miocene formation outcrops, you see a lot of joint 15 and fracture patterns in the outcrop areas. 16 Now these are vertical joints or tracks that 17 may be an inch or so wide that run several feet 18 where you can see them in the outcrop. 19 If that same situation exists in the 20 subsurface, underneath -- just above the Tybee 21 High, I think we've got to make certain these 22 things don't. 23 I've talked with Dr. Jerry Bartholmew and 24 Dr. Fred Rich, who are currently studying all the 25 outcrops miocene areas in this region. They all 172 1 2 exhibit these features. I think it's very, very 3 important that we make certain that these same 4 types of pathways don't exist in the miocene, so 5 called oxyitudes (phonetic) in our study area. 6 MR. SMITH: And this is very recent 7 information. 8 DR. HENRY: Right. I took Dr. Bill McLemore 9 out to look at these outcrops, so he's aware they 10 exist. My indication from him is that he would 11 look into the matter and study it further. 12 MR. SMITH: We also agree that it definitely 13 should be looked at. 14 MR. JUE: Are these cracks or fissures you're 15 talking about, if the confining layer is not 16 uniform, and you calculate the permeability rate 17 which is incident I agree with that, if you did 18 have these conduits there that can't be found is 19 that a pathway? 20 DR. HENRY: Yes. And the thing about it is 21 just incidentally the sample size in the borings 22 that Card was talking about are like four to six 23 inches. These cracks, you know, may be three feet 24 apart or something like that. 25 So conceivably you can miss them. If you were 173 1 2 using these borings strictly to determine the 3 specificity of that. 4 MR. SMITH: They would be considered more or 5 less secondary porosity. You have the inherent 6 porosity of the material. These things occur -- 7 they are the porosity imposed on the material after 8 the material is formed. So it's not -- the 9 cracking or whatever is not part of the inherent 10 porosity or permeability. 11 It certainly could have an effect on it. It 12 is, I believe, based on the borings that we've 13 done, and all the core we've looked at, it's going 14 to be pretty tough to decide on that from the 15 borings, so we'll see. 16 MR. McINTOSH: Technology is available to -- 17 MR. DYSART: Time out. What is the pleasure 18 of this body? It's 10 minutes after 1:00. 19 Obviously, the requested items about Dan's 20 presentation, Morgan's presentation, Bo's 21 presentation, so forth. We have apparently run out 22 of time, unless you wish to the have a full 23 afternoon. 24 MR. BREWTON: I say let's stay with this and 25 defer the other things. 174 1 2 MR. DYSART: How long do you want to go on 3 this, or do you wish to put a limit on this, or do 4 you wish to go without bounds? 5 MR. BREWTON: I say we need to go till all 6 questions are asked. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. What does someone else 8 think? I have no objection. There are a lot of 9 people sitting around the table. I'm just 10 saying -- Teri. 11 (Off-the-record discussion.) 12 MR. DYSART: Do you wish to reconvene after 13 lunch? 14 MR. PARROTT: I have no presentation. Here 15 are the drawings. Come get them. 16 MR. DYSART: Other cards up -- Larry. 17 MR. ROGERS: I had a question. I'm not going 18 to ask it. 19 MR. DYSART: We need to have some kind of 20 decision here from the body. Morgan. 21 MR. REES: This is one of those critical items 22 in the decision process. I don't want to give 23 it short-shrift. There are other meetings 24 scheduled for this afternoon. It is late. I'm 25 only guessing, even if we recess and reconvene in 175 1 2 an hour, we still have a lot more to do on this. I 3 recommend we take it up next time where we left it 4 off. 5 MS. LEFFEK: I would concur, if a significant 6 amount of people want that to happen, so we can 7 give it our full attention. 8 MR. BREWTON: Are Card and Jim Henry available 9 for the next meeting? 10 DR. HENRY: As far as I know. 11 MR. DYSART: If we meet in June, it will be 12 June 6th would be the first Tuesday. 13 MR. PARROTT: I'd like to add and give people 14 the review document to the report. 15 MR. BEASON: If we are going to do that, do 16 you have a problem with picking up right here and 17 let's get that out of the way before we get bogged 18 down in committee reports? 19 MR. DYSART: Suits me fine, if I have a 20 dispensation to vary from the directed order. 21 MR. BREWTON: It would be old business and 22 would come before that. 23 MR. ROBINETTE: I would like to add to that we 24 have the presentations first. I mean, the folks 25 that are prepared, ATM, Dr. Henry and everybody 176 1 2 should have a chance to give their presentation 3 before we take up old business. 4 MR. McINTOSH: Here here. 5 MR. DYSART: That is fine with the 6 facilitator. I am attempting to follow the-- 7 MR. BREWTON: The last several months, we did 8 take our guest presenters first, and allowed for 9 that policy in the recommended agenda. 10 I wasn't here when the agenda was voted on 11 today. I don't see why not. For the next meeting 12 I would concur with John's suggestion. If the 13 group wants to wait and take this up next month, 14 let's make it the first topic of old business. 15 MR. DYSART: Teri. David. 16 MS. LEFFEK: I'm done. 17 MR. SCHALLER: I think we need to quit. 18 MR. DYSART: Since we have plenty of agenda 19 material, I don't believe a general committee needs 20 to go into session to specify the agenda. At 13 21 minutes after 1:00 o'clock, I declare the meeting 22 adjourned with thanks to all the speakers and their 23 patience. 24 (Concluded at 1:13 p.m.) 25 177 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 5 G E O R G I A : 6 CHATHAM COUNTY: 7 I hereby certify that the foregoing 8 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 9 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 10 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 11 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 176 represent 12 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 13 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 14 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 15 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 16 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 17 anywise interested in the result of said case. 18 This, the 15th day of May, 2000. 19 20 21 ________________________ Kathleen Dore, Certified 22 Court Reporter, B-2041 23 24 25