1 2 3 4 5 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP 6 7 MEETING 8 OF 9 JULY 2, 2008 10 11 12 13 MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE MUSEUM 14 POOLER, GEORGIA 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 I N D E X 5 6 7 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------ 3 8 9 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 10 Impacts and Mitigation Plan -------------- 18 11 Old Business ----------------------------- 105 12 Next Meeting Date ------------------------ 10 13 14 CERTIFICATE ---------------------------------- 110 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. Good morning. I'm Ben 3 Dysart, the SEG Facilitator, and I'd like to 4 call the meeting to order. We've got a busy 5 day, an exciting agenda and so forth. 6 We'll go ahead and get started. Which 7 side do you want to start on -- okay. Indicate 8 your name, your affiliation, whatever you 9 choose it to be. Speak nice and distinctly so 10 the court reporter can hear you. 11 MR. WRIGHT: Good morning. Tom Wright, 12 local citizen. 13 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, I'm with the 14 Georgia Conservancy. 15 MR. DYSART: Ben Dysart. 16 MR. WILLIS: Steve Willis with the Center 17 for a Sustainable Coast. 18 MS. MALLOY: Andrea Malloy, Coastal 19 Conservation League, South Carolina. 20 MR. DESA: Chris Desa, Jonaro Technomar. 21 MR. McCURRY: Jamie McCurry, Georgia Ports 22 Authority. 23 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, with Ch2m Hill, 24 consultant GPA. 25 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia 4 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 Ports Authority. 3 MRS. BEASLEY: Cathy Beasley, Georgia 4 ports Authority. 5 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 6 Service. 7 MS. GRIESS: Jane Griess, U.S. Fish and 8 Wildlife Service at Savannah Coastal Refuge. 9 MS. MOORE: Kelie Moore, DNR, Coastal 10 Resources Division. 11 MR. MICHAELS: Ron Michaels, Georgia DNR 12 Coastal Resources Division. 13 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia Wildlife 14 Federation. 15 MS. CHAPMAN: Kathy Chapman, Fish and 16 Wildlife Service, Brunswick, Georgia. 17 MR. PARSONS: Keith Parsons, Georgia 18 Environmental Protection Division. 19 MS. WALKER: Laura Walker, City of 20 Savannah. 21 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, a member of the 22 public. 23 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of 24 Engineers. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. We'll probably -- 5 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 Joel, why don't you say who you are? 3 MR. FLEMING: Joel Fleming, Georgia 4 Department of Natural Resources, Coastal 5 Resources Division. 6 MR. DYSART: Why don't you say who you are 7 as you're headed to your seat? 8 MR. KYLER: Dave Kyler, Center for a 9 Sustainable Coast. 10 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 11 Authority. 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. We will do that as 13 needed it and see if any other persons will 14 step in the door. Okay. Let's proceed. 15 Item three, you have the agenda for 16 today's meeting before you. You've had a 17 chance to look at that. Let me know if this is 18 acceptable for us to conduct our meeting 19 according to this agenda. 20 If you have any changes or what not, 21 please indicate that. Seeing none, we will 22 consider the agenda has been adopted. 23 The next item is the transcript of the May 24 meeting which has been posted, and you have had 25 an opportunity to look at that. Are there any 6 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 changes or corrections that need to be made on 3 the record today for your last meeting? Seeing 4 no suggestions, we'll consider that he May 2008 5 transcript has been accepted by the body. 6 Okay. We're ready for the scientific 7 briefings, and Bill Bailey is going to be 8 presenting a briefing on impacts and mitigation 9 plan. And let's -- while Bill is headed toward 10 the front here, would -- if you haven't 11 introduced yourself, please do. 12 MS. WENDT: Priscilla Wendt, South 13 Carolina DNR. 14 MS. DAVEY: Kay Davey, NOAA Fisheries. 15 MR. DYSART: Your name and affiliation? 16 MR. WEBB: Rus Webb, Savannah National 17 Wildlife Refuge. 18 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Welcome. 19 MR. BAILEY: We want to give you an update 20 on the mitigation planning. We've made some 21 more progress on that, and have some 22 preliminary plans developed that are now being 23 looked at in-house. 24 I just wanted to share them with you. We 25 had talked about -- had talked earlier about a 7 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 public workshop when these plans were 3 developed. 4 We've changed what we're doing, how we're 5 going to handle that. What we're going to do 6 instead is we have a couple documents prepared, 7 and we will be putting those up on a public 8 website later this month, and putting out a 9 notice saying that they're available there for 10 public comment. 11 We thought that having just a presentation 12 or, you know, a workshop, it would be hard for 13 people to respond to that. We thought that 14 having something in hand would give you a 15 little more time to think about it. So that's 16 what we're going to do instead of a workshop. 17 So today I'll tell you basically 18 everything that's going to be in those 19 documents or that is in those documents that 20 will be out. 21 I'm going to start off with some slides 22 that we've shown before so this part is review. 23 We were -- the goal is to develop a 24 comprehensive mitigation plan. There are lots 25 of resources and issues that we considered. 8 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 And wetlands was the primary one and 3 particularly tidal freshwater marsh. So we 4 looked at impacts to the marsh using the 5 hydrodynamic model that we've spent years 6 developing and working to come up with a tool 7 that was acceptable. It's ended up what we've 8 got is -- has been acceptable to the agencies. 9 And the way we're using it, those 10 scenarios that we're using that model for, the 11 agencies helped to work those up. So without 12 mitigation, just deepening the harbor, the tool 13 says it will have those kind of adverse impacts 14 to freshwater wetlands. 15 And that's a conversion, that would be a 16 conversion of freshwater brackish, so between 17 600 and 1,200 acres. We looked at ways to 18 reduce those impacts, looked at ways to change 19 the flows in the different rivers, the Middle 20 River and Back River, Front River, trying to 21 shift freshwater over to the Back River side, 22 over to this side. 23 So we looked at lots of different -- lots 24 of different things, and then combined those 25 individual ones into plans and ran those 9 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 through to see what the effects would be. 3 We looked at them one at a time, and then 4 put them together as in packages as plans. 5 These were the results of the different plans 6 after -- with the flow altering plans in there. 7 So the 44 depth would end up having -- end up 8 increasing freshwater wetlands by 300 acres, 48 9 foot depth would decrease freshwater wetlands 10 by a little bit over 300 -- 340, something like 11 that. 12 So the designation we gave them at that 13 time was 6A was the one we would use for most 14 of the depths, 6B was for shallowest one. Here 15 was the different pieces that are in those 16 plans. 17 6A includes these different components. 18 Start at the bottom, fill in the sediment 19 basin, fill in the tide gate, close Rifle Cut, 20 deepening the upper part of Middle River, Back 21 River, having a diversion structure up at 22 McCoys Cut, pull more water into those two -- 23 those two rivers. 24 So all that stuff would be what went into 25 flow altering components. We also had a 10 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 dissolved oxygen system that we were looking 3 at. The two of those and those two together 4 were addressed in the salinity and water 5 quality components of the mitigation plans. 6 Again, there were a number of pieces to 7 the comprehensive plans. So for wetland 8 restoration, the flow altering components, we 9 tried looking at restoration or enhancement 10 sites and weren't able to identify any. 11 We went to the standard operating 12 procedures that our regulatory division uses to 13 address, then the remaining steps in the 14 mitigation process. 15 And that's -- those standard operating 16 procedures are the ones that all the members of 17 the public have to use if they come in for a 18 permit to impact wetlands. 19 So the regulatory SOP covers the wetland 20 restoration and preservation components. So 21 all that was reviewed. I hope you all remember 22 it very well. Now we'll start with new stuff. 23 Highlights, we evaluate the impacts using 24 the tools approved by the agencies. We use 25 those tools in ways recommended by the agencies 11 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 and got preliminary mitigation plans. 3 I believe we addressed the significant 4 adverse impacts, and they're now being looked 5 at internally within the Corps. There's a 6 separate plan for each depth alternative that 7 had features for those resources, those five 8 down at the bottom. 9 So now with some details on wetlands, 10 start there. Use of the SOP, we said that was 11 being looked at. It was looked at and was 12 approved by the Corps' center of expertise. 13 They said it was, that this application of 14 it was appropriate. We have some different 15 mitigation -- different wetland impacts. There 16 will be some loss of direct excavation. When 17 they enlarge the turning basin, it would take 18 about seven acres. And there's some salinity 19 impacts that we then talk about. 20 And we included something in there for 21 uncertainty in the impact, the quantification 22 of wetland impacts. There is -- the procedures 23 come up with a number, but there is some 24 variation around that number. So we included 25 an amount in there, in the mitigation plan, to 12 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 address that. And that will show up later on 3 as we talk. 4 In using the SOP, what it comes out to, I 5 said earlier the salinity impacts have 6 basically zero adverse impacts to wetlands with 7 a 44 foot depth, but it still ends up when you 8 include the mitigation for the direct 9 excavation and uncertainty, it will still end 10 up with a need to acquire and preserve 136 11 acres. 12 MS. MOORER: Bill, question. That is the 13 impacts with the flow altering components, 14 right? 15 MR. BAILEY: Yes. Yeah. We have a 16 different one of these tables for the different 17 reach of the depths. This is the 44, 45. What 18 changes are the numbers on the top for 19 salinity, and then the bottom numbers, bottom 20 total. 21 So I go back to 44. It is zero acres of 22 impacts for salinity and total mitigation of 23 136, and 45 goes up to 1,100 acres mitigation, 24 46 feet 1,200 acres, 48 feet is 2,200 acres. 25 All this information will be in those 13 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 reports that will be out later this month. We 3 propose to acquire -- for those acres, we 4 propose to acquire and preserve some of the 5 lands that the Fish and Wildlife Service have 6 already identified as being valuable in the 7 estuary, and those are those areas in yellow. 8 We look at and we take from that list and 9 acquire from there until we met that -- met 10 whatever acquisition total we had, acquisition 11 need we had. 12 For dissolved oxygen, this is a review. 13 We had evaluated different ways to improve 14 dissolved oxygen. What we came up with is the 15 best way is to use the Speece cones, oxygen 16 injection at multiple locations. Again, that 17 was to removal the incremental effect of the 18 harbor deepening. 19 Those are all the different things we 20 looked at, different ways to improve oxygen in 21 the harbor. So we completed the update to the 22 DO system designs. What we've got now is our 23 designs that call for injection at either two 24 or three locations, depending on the depth that 25 you are talking about. 14 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 And those locations are from the top the 3 I-95 bridge, the Mulberry Grove and over the 4 tide gate. The difference here between the 5 alternatives essentially ranking from 9 cones 6 to 13 cones, going from 40,000 pounds a day to 7 about 60,000. 8 Those systems are designed to remove the 9 impact on the bottom of the river. In the 10 modeling we used the bottom cell, the bottom 11 layer in the model. And what happens when you 12 add oxygen in one location, the effect, the 13 beneficial effect decreases with the distance. 14 So it ends up improving oxygen where you 15 inject it to be able to take the impact away at 16 the distance. 17 We went and looked at the numbers. For 18 the 48 foot alternative, it would improve 19 oxygen in 91% of the model -- model cells. 20 That's from the ocean up to river mile 40. The 21 end of the harbor -- the end of the deep draft 22 channel is about river mile 21. 23 MR. DYSART: You have a question Judy? 24 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, the other slide I 25 couldn't get a grip on that. I expected 15 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 everything to be linear but it's not. 3 MR. BAILEY: Yup. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Beyond that observation, 5 can you help me decide whether it was -- it's 6 just not linear. I expected oxygen added 7 pounds per day would be linear, but it's not. 8 Is that because of location, the change of 9 flow? 10 MR. BAILEY: It has a lot to do with 11 location. 12 MS. JENNINGS: I mean I think you were 13 explaining parts of it when you went onto the 14 next slide. I mean that slide, none of that is 15 obvious to me. 16 MR. BAILEY: Well, it is sequential or is 17 in steps 45, 46, 48. What's out is the 44. 18 MS. JENNINGS: And why is that? 19 MR. BAILEY: Because that was the only one 20 where the designer used the I-95 location and 21 I'm not sure that was all that effective. That 22 was the design they came up with. They may 23 have -- it may end up having a lot of oxygen in 24 that location for not much effect. I'm not 25 sure. 16 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. DYSART: David Kyler has a question. 3 MR. KYLER: Yeah. I think probably 4 picking up on what Judy was alluding to, back 5 at that table, please, the -- at 44 feet, you 6 have three locations and 13 cones, 48 feet you 7 have two locations 13 cones. You have more 8 oxygen is added. Now, are you talking about 9 the amount that's injected or the amount 10 that's absorbed or is that the same thing? 11 MR. BAILEY: This will be the amount 12 that's injected. As part of the calculations 13 they have a factor in there to address how much 14 is absorbed, so -- 15 MR. KYLER: Just counterintuitive as Judy 16 was saying, with the greater number of 17 locations and a shallower depth you have 52 8 18 and a fewer locations at a deeper depth you 19 have 61 6. 20 Is that reflective of the amount 21 mechanically added or is that just because of 22 the changing conditions with added depth? 23 MR. BAILEY: You're right, it is 24 counterintuitive. Like I said, it has a lot to 25 do with location. 17 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. KYLER: So two locations is more 3 effective than three locations when the depth 4 is greater, is that what you're saying, because 5 you have the same number of cones and fewer 6 locations at 48. 7 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 8 MR. KYLER: And you're attaining greater 9 injection than you are 44 with three locations. 10 So it just has to do with the depth? 11 MR. BAILEY: It has to do with location. 12 MR. KYLER: But two of the three locations 13 are the same as 48 and as 44, right? 14 MR. BAILEY: Yes. It has to do with how 15 much you add at a given location. You can add 16 a lot and it won't it -- it may not -- may not 17 help you meet your target any better. 18 MR. KYLER: In the case of 44, the third 19 location, because it takes away oxygen from two 20 of the others, it is less effective than two at 21 48. 22 I assume you're injecting a certain amount 23 of oxygen in all scenarios, right, are you 24 trying to or are you injecting the same amount? 25 I just don't understand the difference between 18 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 mechanical effort of injecting it and the 3 effect or affect obtained by doing that; and 4 therefore, why the different numbers under 5 different scenarios? It's the same level of 6 effort in every case, just some work better 7 than others? 8 MR. BAILEY: Same systems. You can -- 9 with the 44 there is another location up at -- 10 MR. KYLER: The third location. 11 MR. BAILEY: -- I-95. What this -- what I 12 got out of this was that the I-95 location was 13 not very effective. They probably put in a lot 14 of oxygen at that location and it didn't -- it 15 didn't help them all that much meet their 16 target. They were able to design a better 17 system on the other ones, on the other depths. 18 MR. DYSART: Hope, do you have a question 19 or a clarification? 20 MS. MOORER: A question. I can't remember 21 if the report, the design report that 22 recommends how these are done, if that's been 23 posted or cleared or reviewed for posting? 24 MR. BAILEY: I'm pretty sure it's up. 25 MS. MOORER: Larry didn't remember posting 19 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 that. We need to check on that because it goes 3 through how it was designed, and why they had 4 chosen where they're located, and stuff like 5 that. 6 MR. DYSART: Will then Kathy. 7 MR. BERSON: I reserve the right not to 8 understand this right now. 9 MR. KYLER: You're not alone. 10 MR. BERSON: I'll figure it out later. 11 What I would like to know, are these -- what's 12 the status of these proposals at these depths? 13 I mean, if you were to choose, if 44 feet 14 were to be the Corps' choice as the optimum 15 project, is this what you're proposing to do 16 for a 44 foot depth, or is it subject to change 17 in the future? Is this what you're proposing 18 to do? 19 MR. BAILEY: This is the current technical 20 proposal. It is subject to change. There have 21 been no final decisions made. 22 MR. BERSON: Okay. Okay. 23 MR. BAILEY: I said it was undergoing 24 internal review, and then it will go for public 25 review at Christmas, that time frame, and then 20 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 review of a final in spring. 3 MR. BERSON: Okay. 4 MR. BAILEY: This is where we're at now. 5 MR. DYSART: Kathy 6 MS. CHAPMAN: What I was going to ask, 7 Hope already something about, posting to the 8 website as to how the decision was made to 9 locate, you know, where those samples were 10 done, and was that based on fisheries or just 11 DO levels or, you know -- in other words, what 12 were they trying to address? Were they just 13 picking random spots in the river? 14 And then also the whole technique of that, 15 I would like to see the mechanics of how that 16 is going to be funded in perpetuity. 17 MR. BAILEY: Funding would be part of the 18 federal navigation project. 19 MS. CHAPMAN: Will that be in writing that 20 it cannot be rescinded? 21 MR. BAILEY: Congress can change its mind. 22 MS. CHAPMAN: You know, that needs to be 23 put on the site too. That needs to be publicly 24 disclosed that Congress could, at any point, 25 decide that that's not a good use of public 21 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 money. 3 MR. DYSART: While we've got a micro 4 break, would the people who have come in since 5 we started say who they are. Judy. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia 7 Sierra. 8 MS. BOWERS: Gail Bowers, League of Women 9 Voters, Savannah. 10 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee. 11 MR. DYSART: Thank you. 12 MR. BAILEY: When we presented the DO 13 stuff before, we talked about some locations 14 and about the design approach. The design 15 approach was to use the hydrodynamic model, 16 water quality model, and to make the cells in 17 the bottom layer of the model make those cells 18 have the same amount of oxygen after deepening 19 as before. 20 So it did not include fisheries. They 21 were just going straight by the numbers, 22 whether that level of oxygen for the locations 23 was an issue, the modelers first came with the 24 best locations from a modeling perspective. 25 And the first run through of the design, 22 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 they had systems located up around McCoys Cut, 3 basically on an island in the middle of the 4 National Wildlife Refuge. We told them that 5 was probably not going to work, didn't have 6 power, didn't have a road. It was in the 7 middle of wetlands, you know, please try it 8 again. 9 It came back on this last design, and came 10 back with -- said well, the best spot was down 11 at the upper of end of one of our disposal 12 areas, disposal area 2-A. That site happens to 13 be another spot in the refuge. 14 We went to the refuge and said could we 15 use land in our disposal area or outside the 16 disposal area to improve oxygen. They said no. 17 They didn't want those -- didn't think that was 18 an appropriate use of refuge lands. 19 So, you know, location has been an issue. 20 We picked the Mulberry Grove site because GPA 21 owns the land, so getting a site, that site, 22 was more important than how much oxygen it may 23 take to work from there, work from that site. 24 The tide gate site was already 25 government-owned. So many yeah, location has 23 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 been an issue. 3 MR. DYSART: Hope and Keith, please. 4 MS. MOORER: A clarification, when you say 5 Mulberry Grove, it's on property adjacent 6 to Mulberry Grove, it's not on the plantation 7 site or anything. That design is setback off 8 the river with a buffer of trees so that it 9 wouldn't be -- the view from the refuge, there 10 wouldn't be cones sitting there. It would be 11 behind the tree line. 12 MR. BAILEY: Thank you. Yes. 13 MR. PARSONS: I just need some 14 clarification on your numbers there at the 15 bottom row; are those the proposed amount of 16 oxygen that would have to be injected to meet 17 your goal of no net oxygen lost? 18 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 19 MR. PARSONS: Okay. 20 MR. DYSART: Jane then Judy, please. 21 MS. GRIESS: Just a clarification on the 22 location for the tentative site, you said it 23 was not an appropriate use of the refuge, but 24 we would consider a land exchange. That's the 25 only way we can do that. It wasn't completely 24 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 off the table at the 2-A spoil site. It was 3 not something we could find compatible with the 4 purpose of the refuge. 5 MR. DYSART: Judy. Thank you, Jane. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Hope, you probably already 7 mostly answered me about the Mulberry Grove 8 site. You said it's not actually Mulberry 9 Grove. It's on adjacent property. 10 MS. MOORER: It's Drakies which is right 11 by it. It's setback off the bluff area behind 12 the trees. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Does that mean it's out of 14 any protective easement area? 15 MS. MOORER: It's not in an easement. 16 It's land there on the bluff, but it's not 17 under the conservation easement. The 18 conservation easement covers wetlands on either 19 side of a bluff area, and all the Mulberry 20 just about property is in that easement. 21 And then on the Drakies' side there is 22 another on the westside of the property there. 23 Augustine Creek comes out right there, and 24 that's under a conservation easement, but that 25 middle bluff area is high ground right there 25 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 across from the refuge. 3 So there are tree and forested areas on 4 one side of Drakies and everything is setback 5 from there on high ground. 6 MR. DYSART: Will. 7 MR. BERSON: Bill, you had a map of 8 potential acquisition sites around the refuge 9 that have been identified. Are those -- are 10 those viable? I mean are they available or are 11 they just lands that have been identified that 12 the -- that the Fish and Wildlife Service would 13 like to have? 14 MR. BAILEY: We've not gone out to see if 15 there are willing sellers. We haven't done 16 that. 17 MS. MOORER: We have been approached by 18 willing sellers. 19 MS. GRIESS: An additional comment, those 20 lands are actually within Congressionally 21 approved acquisition boundary, there's hopes 22 that some of the land owners are willing, some 23 of them have not even been contacted, those are 24 areas we can acquire, without a refuge 25 expansion, currently in the approved 26 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 acquisition boundary. 3 MR. DYSART: David. 4 MR. KYLER: Bill, back to the DO table 5 please -- back to the DO table, please. 6 Keith's question when answered clarified one 7 thing, but then raised another one, another 8 counterintuitive observation. 9 First of all, to my way of thinking, that 10 bottom line should have been labeled oxygen 11 target or oxygen required to attain goal, not 12 just added because as it reads you would think 13 that's the amount added or could be added with 14 those scenarios rather than the target you're 15 looking for. 16 The way you answered Keith's question, 17 that is the target at those depths to 18 compensate for the effects of those depths 19 according to the model, correct? 20 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure of the 21 distinction. 22 MR. KYLER: Pardon. 23 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure of the 24 distinction. 25 MR. KYLER: Well, you can put more into 27 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 the target if the mechanics of that 3 configuration for that site allowed it. I 4 thought that's what that bottom line 5 represented, but it's really the target you're 6 talking about on the bottom. 7 Those quantities are the targets to 8 compensate for the effects according to the 9 model of those depths, correct? 10 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 11 MR. KYLER: If that's the case then it 12 seems extremely odd that a 44 depth requires 13 more oxygen than a 45 depth and a 46 depth. 14 MR. BAILEY: Yes, that's what we said, 15 yes. 16 MR. DYSART: Judy. 17 MS. JENNINGS: Jane, the land acquisition, 18 I've had a book in my drawer probably 10 years. 19 Has that been updated? 20 MS. GRIESS: You have a what, I'm sorry, a 21 book? 22 MS. JENNINGS: I have a pamphlet of a wish 23 list of Fish and Wildlife acquisition 24 properties. 25 MS. GRIESS: I'm not sure what you have, 28 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 but we have updated it. It's sort of a very 3 loose priority order, some of the lands within 4 the approved acquisition boundary are no longer 5 available. 6 The map that you have -- I mean the map 7 that you saw was generated back in 1998 when we 8 did our expansion at that point, so it was 9 probably current. 10 MS. JENNINGS: It's something I filed 11 somewhere, I know. It just had a map and a 12 picture, so it would be '98. 13 MS. GRIESS: We have a more current one. 14 The one that Bill showed actually has the 15 yellow down at the southern end, that was the 16 recent expansion in 2006. It's about 3,000 17 acres added at that point. That's the most 18 current. The one you have would not have -- 19 MR. WEBB: The amount of yellow on this 20 map is a little misleading because some of the 21 property is developed and tied up. 22 MS. GRIESS: The Hardeeville tract -- 23 MR. WEBB: Drakies, Mulberry, I guess you 24 would say the northeast -- northwest by the 25 yellow Drakies/mulberry, that's tied up. It's 29 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 not as much yellow available. 3 MS. GRIESS: So it's current to what we 4 have, but a lot of those are no longer 5 available. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Bill. 7 MR. BAILEY. So the demonstration project, 8 we've got some comments from USGS on the 9 report. We called the agencies together to 10 discuss it. 11 MACTEC continues to support its 12 conclusions, and GPA is going to fund some more 13 work, look at the data the way USGS suggested, 14 and then some additional modeling that the 15 agencies asked for. That scope -- the scope 16 for that work was sent to the agencies 17 yesterday. So they can look at that scope and 18 let us know if that's acceptable. 19 MR. DYSART: Will. 20 MR. BERSON: Quick question, Bill, when 21 you say consultants, are you going to use 22 MACTEC? 23 MS. MOORER: We're using TetraTech for 24 modeling work and MACTEC for additional data 25 analysis to -- USGS looked at the report, and 30 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 some of the stationary gauges, but not -- 3 didn't look at the whole data set that MACTEC 4 had. 5 So based on the comments, MACTEC is going 6 to go back and look at that data, look further 7 into it to try to draw out what is the impact, 8 what is tidally influenced, and what is 9 influenced by the DO system. 10 The modeling run -- the model would be 11 updated to 2007 data during that period, and 12 will be calibrated to that, and then run to see 13 if it can pick out what might have been tidal 14 influenced and DO system influenced as well. 15 So those scopes have been submitted to the 16 agencies for comment and input, like the 17 original scopes for study were submitted to the 18 agencies for comment and input. 19 Somehow we missed we needed to look at 20 this too, so we're going to look at this too 21 now. And that work should take -- the modeling 22 I think on the scope, the modeling would take 23 about six weeks and they could have a report in 24 eight weeks. 25 The data analysis will probably take about 31 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 the same amount of time, maybe a little shorter 3 by MACTEC. We hope to have answers back from 4 the agencies by next Monday. That way we can 5 get them to work and get those conclusions in. 6 MR. DYSART: Judy and then Ed Eudaly, 7 please. 8 MS. JENNINGS: You mighty could eliminate 9 me if you let Ed go first. 10 MR. EUDALY: Bill, a question first and 11 maybe a comment. You say MACTEC continues to 12 support its conclusions. Which conclusions, 13 specifically, are you talking about? 14 MR. BAILEY: That the DO systems are 15 effective in adding oxygen in the harbor. 16 MR. EUDALY: Based on what I heard at the 17 meeting, the follow up meeting, MACTEC pretty 18 well admitted that all variation they saw was 19 due to the natural tidal cycle, and that really 20 the only effect that could be seen in the DO 21 demonstration was at the immediate site of the 22 injection. 23 I'm talking very local. I'm not sure that 24 fits in with their conclusions that I saw in 25 the report where they claimed, I think, a .3 or 32 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 .4 milligram per liter improvement. So that is 3 not an accurate statement, I don't think. 4 MR. BAILEY: Well, I don't think I heard 5 what you did at the meeting. 6 MS. MOORER: I didn't hear that either, 7 and I think the data analysis will eventually 8 prove hopefully either way the question. 9 MR. EUDALY: Well, I think it will. I 10 don't think they can show any effect, 11 basically. And I heard -- I know what I heard 12 and I know what I've seen, and they cannot 13 demonstrate any effect of the DO injection 14 except at the immediate site. That's a fact, I 15 believe. 16 MS. MOORER: And that's why additional 17 data analysis is being done. And if they 18 can't, they can't. I don't want to jump to 19 conclusions prior to MACTEC's additional 20 analysis. 21 MR. EUDALY: What I did here is they did 22 not dispute the USGS analysis in any way. They 23 said they did not find anything that they could 24 argue with in that evaluation. And that 25 document is out. 33 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 Anybody can take a look at it and draw 3 their own conclusions. Admittedly, there is 4 more work being done and maybe it will show 5 something, but right now that statement to me 6 does not appear to be accurate about supporting 7 their conclusions. Maybe they continue 8 supporting them, but I'm not sure they have 9 grounds to support them. 10 MS. MOORER: I think that's the 11 distinction. Your opinion is they don't have 12 grounds to, but I think MACTEC still supports 13 the conclusions that the injection system makes 14 a difference. 15 MR. EUDALY: Yes. For whatever that's 16 worth, but I'm not surprised that they do at 17 this point. 18 MR. DYSART: Judy. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Once again I've got to 20 defer to almost everybody else. I think David 21 popped up. 22 MR. SCHALLER: I was just going to say 23 that my understanding is that the USGS analysis 24 did not conclude the system didn't work. 25 MR. DYSART: Ed Eudaly, please. 34 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. EUDALY: That's true, and I never -- I 3 don't think I said otherwise. What it did say 4 is that they could not detect any effect of the 5 injection system. So it didn't -- obviously 6 you can't say at this point it didn't work or 7 it won't work. 8 All we can say is the available data and 9 the data analysis we've seen, it did not 10 demonstrate it had any effect, other than right 11 at the injection site. 12 MR. DYSART: Hope, please. 13 MS. MOORER: That's my interpretation too 14 is that it couldn't separate out the tidal 15 influence versus the oxygen system influence, 16 based on the data that was included in the 17 report and Paul's look at some stationary gauge 18 data. 19 So yes, but the additional analysis will 20 look further into the data and try to separate 21 out what was the tidal influence and what was 22 the influence from the DO system. 23 MR. DYSART: Judy. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Now I think I have enough 25 to get arms around it a little bit. Bill, you 35 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 said perform additional modeling. It sounds to 3 me like there might be a need for additional 4 data collection. 5 I mean does everybody agree that data 6 collection because -- well, number one, is the 7 interagency conversation on this posted so I 8 could follow it? 9 MS. MOORER: There's a memorandum for 10 record of the meeting, but other than that -- I 11 mean there's no discourse back and forth about 12 it. There were comments made by USGS and a 13 meeting with a memorandum of record, but other 14 than that -- 15 MS. JENNINGS: So there is a memorandum of 16 record out there somewhere, but probably not 17 the discussion Ed is talking about. 18 MS. MOORER: The comments by USGS are 19 clear and they're lengthy. And so, I mean, 20 that's something that's public record. I think 21 we can post that if it's not posted yet. I 22 don't, you know -- 23 MS. JENNINGS: It would be great for me 24 if it were posted. That way I could get my 25 arms around this a little better. 36 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MS. MOORER: We'll make sure it's posted 3 if it's not. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Also, it's additional 5 modeling adequate to answer the obviously 6 different opinions; is anyone saying that 7 additional data is needed? I mean, if you 8 can't separate the difference between the 9 impact of the injected DO and the tide, how 10 much more can you learn from that by additional 11 modeling? I mean, does everyone agree that the 12 data collection is adequate? 13 MS. MOORER: I can go -- the data that you 14 were collecting was collected while the units 15 were running. So it would be kind of hard to 16 go out there and collect data while the units 17 weren't running. 18 So there's a lot of data that MACTEC 19 collected as requested by the agencies, and 20 that's what will be used for the analysis. The 21 modeling is -- was also talked about by the 22 agencies, if it could show a separation out of 23 -- if you were to take out that oxygen 24 influence, could you tell what the tidal 25 influence was from the current model updated to 37 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 the 2007 conditions, calculated to the 2007 3 conditions. And it's not like -- I think it's 4 a two model run essentially. It's current 5 condition at that time. 6 MS. JENNINGS: And the dye test, did that 7 not teach us anything about the tide patterns, 8 the influence of the tidal patterns, what did 9 we learn from that? 10 MS. MOORER: It was in the upper reaches 11 of the harbor and right around, it was more of 12 a qualitative analysis of was there dye in the 13 water that grabbed samples that were pulled, 14 from what I understand, and they did see -- in 15 the report it discusses where they found dye in 16 the water and how far up they found it on the 17 incoming tide. 18 MR. DYSART: Jane. 19 MS. GRIESS: Hope, I just had a question. 20 I was unclear on the interagency meeting that 21 y'all talked about, the follow-up to the USGS 22 report; are the meeting notes posted on that 23 because -- 24 MR. BAILEY: No, they're not. 25 MS. MOORER: They're not yet. 38 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MS. GRIESS: -- I would be interested -- 3 MS. MOORER: They can be. That's what 4 I'm writing down. I'm going to make sure it 5 is. 6 MR. BAILEY: I put this slide in, it's 7 from a presentation I did a couple of years 8 ago, that MACTEC had, using some numbers MACTEC 9 had come up with showing their calculations of 10 what it would take to raise the oxygen levels 11 in the harbor, and the smallest one they have 12 there is 72,000 pounds per day to raise it .2. 13 The demonstration project was about 14 27,000, 30,000 pounds a day. So it should have 15 -- the effect should have been -- the effect 16 should not have been a large one. 17 It would have been about .1, something 18 like that. So -- with the systems they used 19 last year, you should not have seen a large 20 effect in the harbor. 21 MR. DYSART: Ed. 22 MR. EUDALY: All right. So if you could 23 put the last slide back up there, existing 24 conditions even with 72,800 pounds a day, that 25 expected to be .2 milligrams per liter, but 39 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 with a 48 foot channel, the amount proposed for 3 injection is 61,600 pounds per day. 4 Something seems a little off. So the 5 impact of the deepening is evidently very 6 small. 7 MR. BAILEY: Evidently. 8 MR. EUDALY: I don't recall exactly what 9 it is, do you? 10 MR. BAILEY: I don't think it was 11 calculated that way to be able to have those 12 numbers. 13 MR. EUDALY: Well, that's probably 14 something probably that needs to be looked 15 into, it seems a little -- 16 MR. BAILEY: It has come up in discussions 17 with other agencies. That's probably something 18 we will have in the draft EIS. We don't have 19 that data right now. 20 MR. EUDALY: Yeah, I do think that needs 21 to be explained. It's difficult to quite 22 understand, if the impact -- looking at those 23 numbers and looking at the fullest injection 24 amount, that needs to be explained I think. 25 MR. DYSART: Comment, Judy. 40 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MS. JENNINGS: I'm just not following you, 3 Ed. Do you mind repeating yourself? 4 MR. EUDALY: If you look at the -- what 5 they expected, existing conditions 42 foot 6 channel, to get a .2 milligram per liter 7 improvement, they estimate 72,800 pounds per 8 day have to be added. 9 So -- and then with the 48 foot proposal 10 they're proposing to inject 61,600 pounds, a 11 lesser amount than that. That's with the 12 deepening which is going to make the problem 13 worse. 14 So it's a little -- it's hard to 15 understand how all this fits together. I 16 haven't gone back and reviewed the potential 17 impact or predicted impact of deepening. If 18 the predicted impact were .2 milligrams, then 19 you would think you would have to inject at 20 least that much, and perhaps more with the 21 deepening changes too. So it's just a little 22 hard to follow that. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Well, for instance, this is 24 based on what? 25 MR. EUDALY: This is what they predicted 41 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 with existing conditions. It's my understanding 3 this is what you're saying. To get a .2 4 milligram per liter improvement with existing 5 conditions, you would have to inject 72,800 6 pounds per day, correct? 7 MR. BAILEY: I believe so, yes. 8 MR. EUDALY: Okay. So, if you deepened 9 four feet or six feet, let's say, then you're 10 saying you're going to inject 61,600 pounds per 11 day, so the question is the impact of deepening 12 must only be -- it must be less than .2 13 milligrams per liter. 14 MS. JENNINGS: But see I thought the 15 61,000 was the incremental difference. 16 MR. EUDALY: It is. It's to offset the 17 difference. So if the difference is less than 18 .2, that makes sense. I don't recall what that 19 difference is, but just on the -- just looking 20 at the numbers that needs to be explained and 21 look into, because that increment if its less 22 than .2 then that makes some sense. If it's 23 more than .2 it doesn't. 24 MR. DYSART: Bill. 25 MR. BAILEY: So we have completed our 42 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 update to the DO systems. GPA is doing a 3 supplemental report. We're proceeding with 4 oxygen injection as the technique to mitigate 5 for impacts to DO. 6 So the wetlands and the DO, that takes 7 care of this part and all this. That takes 8 care of those parts of an overall mitigation 9 plan. 10 So now we'll go to short-nose sturgeon. 11 For that we are using some criteria developed 12 by the agencies that say what has happened is 13 suitable, what's not suitable. The project 14 would reduce the suitable habitat. The effects 15 vary depending on which conditions you're 16 looking at. 17 Maximum adverse effects range from 6 to 18 11% of habitat, and those all occur -- would 19 occur to adult habitat in January. Other 20 conditions, it would have some beneficial 21 effects. Those range from no benefits to 11%, 22 and some of those are juvenile habitat, some 23 is adult summer habitat. 24 We couldn't identify any ways within the 25 estuary and the lower part of the estuary to 43 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 improve habitat. NMFS's policy against 3 stocking, so what we're proposing is to 4 construct a bypass, a fish bypass, up at First 5 Dam up the Savannah River up at Augusta. 6 That dam blocks spawning, sturgeon 7 spawning runs, and would open up more of the 8 river to spawning by sturgeon. It would open 9 20 miles with just this action. It would 10 trigger some other actions that would open up 11 even more. 12 This is what the dam looks like, and this 13 thing would go around -- go through the trees 14 on the right side. Basically, it would look 15 like -- shaped like a horseshoe going around 16 the end of the dam. 17 It would be a number of kind of steps, 18 multiple robbing weirs, it would be like nine 19 inches in each of those steps, 75 feet wide. 20 And some of those other those other 6, 5% 21 of spring flow, that's a factor from the 22 fishery biologist of what it takes to attract 23 fish to a channel. Questions with that, Judy? 24 MS. JENNINGS: Well, no argument about the 25 plan except up to the point where what if we 44 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 take that dam out? 3 MR. BAILEY: Then we have to find other 4 mitigation. 5 MS. JENNINGS: I know this is another of 6 those chicken egg stories like the Jasper thing 7 kind of, but at what point in time in the 8 process do you have to decide whether the cost 9 benefit, you know, your mitigation plan, or 10 wait and see if the dam is going to come out? 11 There might be -- I mean, there might be 12 structural changes to the dam. I don't know. 13 There's a lot of conversation about what's 14 going to happen to that dam. 15 MR. BAILEY: Yes, there is. What I am -- 16 what we're proposing right now is to have this 17 in -- in the GRR and the EIS, and with that an 18 amount of money for that, and then the proposal 19 would be to keep that amount of money. 20 And if the dam is taken out, or if 21 Congress funds the rehab of the dam and puts 22 this bypass in as part of that project, then we 23 would have that amount of money we would use 24 for short-nose sturgeon mitigation. 25 We would work with National Marine 45 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 Fisheries Service to figure out what to do with 3 that amount of money to help short-nose 4 sturgeon. That's how I'm writing it up. We'll 5 see if the Corps folks in Washington agree with 6 that. It does seem reasonable to me. 7 MS. JENNINGS: I don't know what else you 8 can do with that. I don't have any great 9 suggestions. You can't be sure the process is 10 concurrent or -- 11 MR. BAILEY: The way I have it written was 12 to continue to monitor what's going on, and the 13 construction of a deepening, they're thinking 14 that would take three years, so one year into 15 that, the Corps and the agency would get 16 together and say all right, what do we think 17 is going to happen? 18 Make a decision one year in, does it look 19 like something already happened, does it look 20 like Congress is going to do something, you 21 know, make a decision then, and either put in 22 this ramp in those final two years or go look 23 for something else? If it's already being 24 done, go look for something else. 25 MR. DYSART: Joel and Will, please. 46 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. FLEMING: Yeah. I've got a couple of 3 questions slash comments. The first question 4 would be -- first comment then a question. All 5 right. So this -- this plan was developed and 6 more or less finalized without funding in the 7 late '90s, but fish passage itself has come -- 8 has made some advancements in different ways, 9 specifically for sturgeon. 10 Sturgeon passage was iffy at best, I 11 guess, when these plans were developed. Is 12 there going to be an opportunity for agency 13 comment on the technicalities or the specifics 14 of the design itself? 15 I know like for example in this whole 16 process, you know, we're looking at short-nose. 17 Atlantic sturgeon is likely to become 18 threatened or endangered in the range or in 19 this area. 20 Certainly that would bring some emphasis 21 on Atlantic sturgeon passage as well. So -- 22 and not to mention that this -- this plan 23 wasn't necessarily designed for sturgeon alone. 24 I mean, there was obviously a benefit to 25 lot of an array of species hopefully, primarily 47 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 American Shad. 3 MR. BAILEY: My understanding is that the 4 design was for sturgeon. 5 MR. FLEMING: It was the option best 6 suited to possibly pass sturgeon is the way I 7 recall, but -- 8 MR. BAILEY: When we hired the contractor, 9 we told him that was what he had to design for. 10 MR. FLEMING: I guess I'll leave it at is 11 there going to be opportunity for fish passage 12 experts to come and comment maybe with some new 13 -- new options? 14 MR. BAILEY: We have shared this with the 15 agencies already. We are putting this on the 16 public website this month. We will be putting 17 it in a draft EIS at the end of the year. 18 We'll be putting it in a final EIS in the 19 spring. So yeah, there are several places for 20 agencies to give us better information if they 21 have it. If you've got it today, I'll take it. 22 MR. FLEMING: So this potentially could be 23 adapted a little bit? 24 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 25 MR. FLEMING: So which brings us to the 48 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 next question I have, and I know we discussed 3 amongst a lot different agencies in regards to 4 a lot of mitigation, the success criteria, you 5 know, if we build this thing and it doesn't 6 work, what would be the next plan at that 7 point? 8 MR. BAILEY: We have monitoring as part of 9 it. We'll be talking about that later in a 10 presentation. Well, I'm not sure, since the 11 agencies couldn't come up with anything else to 12 do, I'm not sure what else there is. Do you 13 have an idea? 14 MR. FLEMING: I've got lots of ideas for 15 sturgeon mitigation, we could do a lot of 16 different projects, not necessarily in this 17 system, maybe in this basin. 18 I mean it's a different type mitigation. 19 We are talking about something that we can have 20 a discussion whether it truly mitigates the 21 loss of estuary habitat or not. 22 But, you know, I guess to ensure success 23 of short-nose sturgeon passage, I think it 24 would have to be a success to be determined, 25 obviously, between the agencies which is 49 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 something we have to do. 3 MR. DYSART: Will. 4 MR. BERSON: I apologize. I really was 5 trying to pay attention. Is the funding for 6 this element that you are proposing for 7 mitigation, tentative mitigation, dependent 8 upon Congressional action use of interlocking 9 dam or is it a part of the harbor project? 10 MR. BAILEY: This is a part of the harbor 11 project. The larger issues -- well, the 12 Congress authorized -- the Corps initially 13 proposed taking the dam out. 14 The local community didn't like that. 15 They said they would take the dam if we just 16 fixed it up. 17 MR. BERSON: Ownership of it? 18 MR. BAILEY: Yes. Congress authorized 19 fixing it up with the fish way, but has not 20 funded that, and that's been seven years, 21 almost eight years. So now people are pursuing 22 removal of the dam again. So I'm not sure 23 exactly what's going to happen. 24 MR. BERSON: Okay. Thank you. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. 50 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Striped bass, this is 3 similar. We're using criteria, habitat 4 suitability criteria developed by the agencies. 5 The project would reduce suitable habitat. The 6 effects vary, again depending on what 7 combination of things you are looking at. 8 The maximum impacts, adverse impacts, 9 range from 9 to 16%; sometimes egg habitat, 10 sometimes spawning habitat. We looked at 11 impacts by depth, by river flow, by life stage. 12 What we did is came up with a weighted 13 average of impacts across the river flows for a 14 given depth. That weighted average comes out 15 to this, basically between 12 and 17%. Again, 16 the agencies couldn't identify something to 17 change to make habitat better in the estuary, 18 so we're proposing to fund -- stock part of 19 DNR's stocking program. 20 The funding would equal -- a funding 21 percent would equal the impact percent. DNR 22 gave us the cost for -- for the entire program, 23 the stocking program. So we're proposing a 24 percentage of that. 25 These are how the numbers work out, 51 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 between 40 and $55,000 a year. That's it for 3 this one yeah. Questions on this one. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Well, for you and maybe 5 Carl, back to striped bass, there weren't any 6 options in the Back River like around the tide 7 gate? 8 MR. BAILEY: Tide gate is coming out as 9 part of those flow altering features. 10 MS. JENNINGS: I didn't know that as fact. 11 MR. BAILEY: That's one of the proposals 12 proposed mitigation. 13 MR. HALL: The impacts are accruing from 14 the Front River, right? 15 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure. 16 MR. HALL: I would think so. 17 MR. BAILEY: That's where with all those 18 flow plans the Back River part becomes fresher 19 than it is now, so I think to get that, the 20 Front River has to the become saltier. 21 MR. DYSART: Hope, Priscilla and then 22 Kelie. 23 MS. MOORER: Bill, that's not the total 24 amount that's in the plan, though, for striped 25 bass at each depth, it's over a number of 52 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 years? 3 MR. BAILEY: What we're proposing, another 4 part was basically the lump sum, bring that all 5 -- take 50 years of that and give it in one 6 chunk, lump sum math, but it's dependent on 7 that amount, those amounts per year. 8 MS. JENNINGS: And it's all just assumed 9 that the tide gate comes out? 10 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 11 MR. DYSART: Priscilla. 12 MS. WENDT: Yeah, that sort leads to my 13 question. Bill, when you show maximum fishery 14 impacts, whether it's sturgeon or striped bass, 15 you're talking about the maximum impact after 16 you implemented these flow altering plans? 17 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 18 MS. WENDT: Do you also have a slide that 19 showed the maximum impact, in terms of loss of 20 habitat for different species or without those 21 flow altered scenarios? 22 MR. BAILEY: No, I don't have anything 23 with me. 24 MS. WENDT: Okay. It is substantial more, 25 as I recall. The flow altered scenarios reduce 53 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 the impact. 3 MR. BAILEY: Let's see. 4 MS. WENDT: I think for sturgeon, it was a 5 lot more, but I'm not certain of that. 6 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure. 7 MS. WENDT: I think it would be 8 instructive to see. 9 MR. BAILEY: We have some tables for the 10 effects without mitigation and with mitigation. 11 MS. WENDT: Right. 12 MR. BAILEY: That's in those documents. 13 MS. WENDT: Right. Okay. I just think 14 it's important to note the maximum impacts, I'm 15 pretty sure, are with flow altered scenarios. 16 If you look at the maximum impact of 17 deepening without doing all these engineering 18 things to modify the flow are a good bit more. 19 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. Those numbers are with 20 the other mitigation features already included, 21 with the DO system, with the flow altering. 22 MS. WENDT: And flow altering, you had a 23 couple different flow altering, 6-A and 6-B, 24 6-A for 48 feet or 44 feet and 6-B for the 25 deepening scenarios. 54 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. BAILEY: Other way around. 3 MS. MOORER: Other way around. 4 MS. WENDT: Other way around -- which flow 5 altering scenario would be using 6-A or 6-B or 6 was it check one appropriately for 48 foot. 7 MR. BAILEY: Yeah, which one goes for each 8 depth. 9 MR. DYSART: Kelie. 10 MS. MOORE: Asked and answer. 11 MR. DYSART: Joel. 12 MR. FLEMING: To shed some light on 13 Priscilla's question, I think, someone correct 14 me if I'm wrong, but as far as short-nose are 15 concerned, the mitigation options actually 16 impact short-nose habitat further, because what 17 they're essentially doing, all the options 18 divert more water out of the Front River into 19 the Back and Middle Rivers. 20 Therefore, as identified by this project, 21 the primary habitat for the short-nose sturgeon 22 was in the Front River. So anything you take 23 away from that Front River, if it increases 24 salinity up the Front River, decrease DO, 25 whatever it may be, it would take away from 55 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 short-nose sturgeon habitat. 3 So the mitigation option actually 4 exacerbated the situation for short-nose, aside 5 from passage. The flow altering plans make it 6 worse. 7 MR. DYSART: Steve. 8 MR. WILLIS: Yes. Both the striped bass 9 and sturgeon for those mitigation plans, do you 10 have examples of other places where those 11 mitigation plans have been used, and what the 12 long-term results were? 13 It seems like we've got a lot of rivers 14 and a lot of Corps' projects and a lot of fish. 15 It seems like there would be a lot of history 16 behind people using these mitigation techniques 17 to see if they were effective or not. 18 MR. BAILEY: Not for striped bass. 19 MR. WILLIS: I'm not talking about for 20 species specifically, but these strategies, it 21 would be interesting to know how these 22 strategies have been used in other places and 23 what's been successful. 24 MR. BAILEY: Well, I guess for striped 25 bass in Savannah, in Savannah River, the 56 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 population crashed. Georgia DNR started a 3 stocking program. It increased the population, 4 it built back up again, so that they recently 5 reopened the season to fish for it. 6 I think that that stocking program was 7 successful, you know, even in the Savannah 8 River. So I think that's an example -- pretty 9 local example. 10 MR. WILLIS: Right. 11 MR. BAILEY: Fish -- getting fish past 12 dams -- 13 MR. WILLIS: I understand salmon in the 14 Northwest has been less than successful. 15 MR. BAILEY: They've had troubles out 16 there, you're right. 17 MR. DYSART: Will, did you have a comment 18 or question? 19 MR. BERSON: I was going to let you 20 finish. 21 MR. BAILEY: That was it. 22 MR. BERSON: That was it. Okay. Well, I 23 did have one question. Earlier in your 24 presentation you were talking that based on the 25 modeling, 91% of the cells showed improvement. 57 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 Does that mean they met the DO standard? 3 MR. BAILEY: No, no, it's still far from 4 that. 5 MR. BERSON: Okay. 6 MR. BAILEY: There were some other 7 modeling done it would take about 10 times as 8 much oxygen to meet the standard. 9 MR. BERSON: I asked it the wrong way 10 because your job was not to meet the standard. 11 Did 91% of the cells meet before project? 12 MR. BAILEY: Yes. It would better than 13 before project. 14 MR. BERSON: Okay. I can ask a good 15 question 16 MR. DYSART: Kathy, Carl. 17 MS. CHAPMAN: Would you go back over how 18 you were going to fund it, when you were 19 starting to talk about the lump sum rather than 20 the per year thing? 21 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure of the right 22 term. I'm not a banker. It's basically taking 23 the present value of that income stream, how 24 much money today would equal those amounts 25 every year. 58 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. DYSART: Carl. 3 MR. HALL: So in response to Steve's 4 question, in the current conditions in the 5 system, there's no evidence that the river will 6 never be sustainable again, and without 7 stocking the fishery would have to be closed 8 again under current conditions. 9 MR. DYSART: Comment, questions. 10 MR. DESA: I've got a comment. He just 11 mentioned something about did anyone have 12 experience or see the success of some of these 13 fish diversion projects. 14 I think the Bonneville Dam which they used 15 to -- when they changed the flow of the 16 Columbia River, they literally made -- I didn't 17 believe this when I went there to look at it, 18 someone said that the fish ladders, you can 19 see the salmon and the Shad go up probably 200 20 feet high series, and they count the fish. I 21 just thought I would share that. 22 MR. DYSART: I was there last March and 23 those salmon were going by. I said, where are 24 the salmon? They said wrong season, but I have 25 seen them. Judy. 59 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MS. JENNINGS: I'm not sure as I am 3 totally square on the striped bass thing 4 because the fishery isn't sustainable. Carl, 5 you said it probably never will be. 6 MR. HALL: Well, it appears it's not going 7 to sustain itself under current conditions 8 without -- it requires stocking and without the 9 stocking we'd have to close the fishery. 10 MS. JENNINGS: So that's what I thought I 11 had heard which leads me to not understand the 12 plus minus numbers, plus minus of what if it's 13 not a sustainable fishery now, and it's 14 dependent on stocking, how does it get better 15 or worse. 16 MR. BAILEY: Acres of suitable habitat, 17 the sustainability, I believe, is talking about 18 fish spawning, getting new fish into the 19 population, and a stocking program gets you 20 over the initial steps, gets you over the 21 spawning, gets you over the egg habitat, 22 nursery habitat and gets you gets you to little 23 fish. 24 Then you still need good habitat for the 25 fish to live the rest of their lives. The 60 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 plusses and minuses were on acres of suitable 3 habitat. What we looked at were those early 4 life stages but, you still need suitable 5 habitat for the fish to grow in. 6 MS. JENNINGS: I guess my question mark is 7 I agree with you, but we clearly don't have it 8 now. I'm just trying to figure out how you 9 take away from zero. 10 MR. BAILEY: It's the sustainability is 11 the early life stages, that's the part the fish 12 have trouble with is the reproduction and 13 getting a fish I don't know how big, but once 14 you get the little fish then they can grow. 15 As is demonstrated now, the fish have 16 grown. There are big fish out there now. 17 People are catching them. 18 MS. JENNINGS: I don't know whether those 19 are stocked or whether -- 20 MR. BAILEY: Either way they still grow in 21 the river. They're not stocking fish this big. 22 They're stocking little ones. So they grow 23 okay. I don't know if there's enough of them, 24 but the self-sustaining part, I think -- I 25 believe that the choke point in the population 61 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 size is in the early life stages, spawning, egg 3 habitat, the early early parts. 4 MR. HALL: Egg larvae survival with 5 conditions, egg larvae early life conditions 6 with salinity, local issues, current conditions 7 -- different than what it was historically or 8 back in the -- 20 years ago pre-tide gate and 9 then even after the tide gate prior to the 10 previous deepening, early life history. 11 MR. DYSART: Ed. 12 MR. EUDALY: Just like to add a little 13 information that there is a good bit of natural 14 reproduction of striped bass now in the river. 15 The tide gate did have a huge impact and 16 it took a long time of stocking to -- for that 17 population to start to recover. There is a 18 good bit of evidence in recent years their 19 natural reproduction has increased. 20 There may not be enough natural 21 reproduction to maintain a sustainable 22 population, but it has been increasing 23 gradually, so that we're getting to the point 24 we're getting a fair amount of natural 25 reproduction. So it's not like there is no 62 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 habitat there. We have viable habitat, but it 3 may not be enough to maintain the population. 4 MR. HALL: Maintain the fishery part. 5 MR. EUDALY: Right, right. So we do have 6 habitat there. It is used and there is natural 7 reproduction occurring. 8 MR. HALL: A viable fishery. 9 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Bill. 10 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Chlorides, the project 11 would increase chlorides at the city's water 12 intake. Again, the effects differ depending on 13 what you're looking at. It doesn't have any 14 effect on average and high flows. 15 It would have an increase in chloride 16 levels of about 3% with the largest depth. 17 That increase is during low, low river flows. 18 We looked at a lot of different ways to 19 address that; basically building ponds, storage 20 tanks to hold. The effect is not only during 21 droughts, but it's also dependent on lunar 22 cycles so the chlorides go up the most, has the 23 largest effect during like neap tide. 24 So we looked at providing storage during 25 -- during a week, so a week's worth of period 63 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 where the city could draw from that holding 3 pond during the neap tide. We looked at a 4 number of locations. And then we looked at 5 moving the supplemental intake line further up 6 river, and looked at whole replacement, and 7 then looked at different approach which was to 8 try to address actually the chlorides levels at 9 the intake. 10 That's the additional flow down Bear 11 Creek. We just talked with the city about 12 these things. That's gone back and forth to 13 them. 14 We have an idea, they would have comments 15 on it. So we'd try something else and they 16 would have comments on that, suggest something 17 else, and we would look into that. Bear Creek 18 is above -- upstream of I-95. I-95 is down 19 here. This is the main river. City's water 20 intake is over here off of Abercorn Creek and 21 this is Bear Creek. 22 We're proposing to increase flows down 23 Bear Creek. Water, freshwater comes down here, 24 splits and goes down both of these arms and 25 ends up freshwater coming past the city's 64 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 intake here. 3 In 2000 we worked with the city to 4 increase flows down Bear Creek, put in a flow 5 diverter up here, and they cleaned out, 6 loosened snags and dead trees that had fallen 7 across the creek. They moved them in the 8 upper, I think, three quarters of a mile up 9 there, and monitored that for about a year and 10 a half, and found that there was more -- more 11 water coming down Bear Creek, and the chloride 12 levels at the intake went down. 13 Then they had a large -- had a large or a 14 normal, I'm not sure which anymore, had spring 15 flows, large flows that flooded out most of 16 that area, and an upper portion, that upper 17 three quarters of a mile had some snags back in 18 it again. 19 So the flowing dropped back down. The 20 chloride level went back up. So we're looking 21 at trying to get more water coming down Bear 22 Creek again. And that's our proposed 23 mitigation is to increase flows down the creek. 24 Back to the map, let's see -- unless you 25 can remember very well from the map early on 65 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 which I can't exactly, I think this -- Jane 3 tell me where your land is -- I think this 4 side down to here, this is all refuge land and 5 then it comes across here -- 6 MS. GRIESS: That's not the refuge, not 7 currently. It's privately owned. 8 MR. BAILEY: -- and all this -- 9 MS. GRIESS: Pretty much that's correct. 10 MR. BAILEY: So part of. So I guess the 11 creek -- you guys don't own any of this over 12 here? 13 MS. GRIESS: Yeah, we own both sides. 14 MR. BAILEY: Both sides over here. All 15 right. This is private and this is private 16 down here. Anyway, this creek flows through 17 the refuge. The refuge appropriately doesn't 18 want this to be a big smooth ditch, so we've 19 been talking with them to find out if we 20 increase flows down there how can we increase 21 flows without doing a lot to the creek. 22 They have given us some procedures that 23 the American Fisheries Society developed for 24 removing obstructions in creeks. And I think 25 we think we can follow those, and increase the 66 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 flows down the creek. So that's what we're 3 going to be proposing to do to address the 4 chlorides, and that's it. 5 MR. DYSART: Comments, Steve. 6 MR. WILLIS: Is this the diversion of more 7 water down Bear Creek, is that being modeled? 8 Is that obviously going to cause more salinity 9 in the main channel? 10 MR. BAILEY: It comes back in again before 11 crossing 95. 12 MR. WILLIS: But it's being sucked up to 13 be used by the City of Savannah, and the reason 14 you're diverting it is to be used. 15 MR. BAILEY: The City of Savannah won't 16 increase the amount of water it uses from that 17 intake. 18 MR. WILLIS: There's no projection for an 19 increase in Savannah for industrial use? 20 MR. BAILEY: They probably have some, but 21 it's not dependent on additional water down 22 Bear Creek. They're going to take -- they will 23 try to meet their demands for drinking water. 24 MR. DYSART: David. 25 MR. KYLER: Steve, are you concerned that 67 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 Savannah, in reaction to this mitigation, would 3 then exploit it as if more water were available 4 in a way that would compromise the benefit of 5 the mitigation; is that what you're saying? 6 MR. WILLIS: Well yeah partly, but I'm 7 also saying I know that the City of Savannah 8 has industrial growth plans. They'll use this 9 water for their industrial operations. So 10 therefore they will be requiring more and more 11 water from out of the river. 12 That water is already taken out at that 13 point, and if more water comes down there, it's 14 true. That will reduce the chlorine levels, 15 but it will -- I just have been assuming that 16 you're considering that increased need and 17 withdrawal from the river Savannah projects as 18 part of the overall. 19 MR. DYSART: Keith and then Ed. 20 MR. PARSONS: The City of Savannah would 21 have to get additional permits from EPD, from 22 DNR, to increase their withdrawal at that site. 23 During that review process, these 24 questions would have to be addressed in regards 25 to that, particularly any additional impacts to 68 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 the Savannah River itself, or in the instance 3 of increasing withdrawals, they may be running 4 into increasing chlorides in their own water 5 supplies. 6 All those technical issue would have to be 7 addressed at that point. The City of Savannah 8 would have to come in and seek a large 9 withdrawal permit at that point. 10 MR. DYSART: Ed then Laura. 11 MR. EUDALY: I just want to clarify, we're 12 still in the evaluation process. This proposal 13 and service doesn't support -- I mean, we don't 14 have a position at this time. 15 At this time, we're looking very carefully 16 at any work as very minor. There is the 17 maintenance needs that are supposed to be 18 carried out by the city on upper end of Bear 19 Creek. 20 There are a few obstruction, logs across 21 the creek, that sort of thing. Our goal if 22 this is done will be ensure any work is the 23 least that we can get by with to maintain flow. 24 There's some question as to how flow -- 25 how much difference this would make in flow. 69 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 We have some question about how effective it 3 would be in terms of changing chloride levels 4 at intake. Our main goal would be if there is, 5 it's proposed to minimize the work and do it in 6 a very low impact fashion, probably using hand 7 equipment, and we're not talking about any kind 8 of channel work or anything like that. We 9 wouldn't have objections to that sort of thing. 10 We're just looking at a minor clearing of 11 snagging if anything is done. 12 MS. WALKER: I wanted to clarify one 13 thing. The surface water the City of Savannah 14 receives from Abercorn Creek is not just for 15 industrial purposes. It supplies a large 16 residential population. 17 We're required to reduce residential 18 intakes; therefore groundwater, surface water, 19 or the increase in surface water usage is 20 something we are looking at, due to our 21 requirement to reduce groundwater consumption. 22 MR. DYSART: Hope. 23 MS. MOORER: Bill, you said that when that 24 area in that upper part of Bear Creek where the 25 city hasn't maintained it, when it was cleared 70 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 out it did increase flow in Bear Creek? 3 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 4 MS. MOORER: Rus, you did canoe trip and 5 found there were trees down throughout. I 6 mean, does it look like it could be done by 7 hand throughout there potentially? 8 MR. WEBB: The thing about it is flow is 9 obstructed by the trees for sure, but we got to 10 an area, I think three miles in, and the tide 11 was coming very strong there and the water 12 associated with that incoming tide was all from 13 the river. 14 I'm not sure that the taking out of the 15 trees would increase the flow that much such a 16 long way from the mouth of Bear Creek to the 17 intake, but there were a lot of obstructions in 18 there. I think it was 30 significant log jams 19 probably at least. 20 MR. BAILEY: Rus went with some of our 21 folks, and I think a Georgia DOT guy went also. 22 They basically had to drag the canoe over 23 everyone of these things, and they GPS'd the 24 location, and they had 39, the guys said, 25 significant obstructions and another 60 not 71 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 significant. 3 MR. WEBB: We went to a spot over my head 4 and throughout the whole of Bear Creek, so 5 that's something to consider also. There's not 6 a huge amount of water that's sent down that 7 creek -- I think maybe even if we clear the 8 debris out of there, if that makes any sense. 9 MR. DYSART: Carl and then Judy. 10 MR. HALL: I just want to make a mention 11 in the original 1135 project, the design there 12 was not really to increase flow for water use 13 purposes or for salinity, or maintenance, but 14 to increase the water quality of that project. 15 That was the original purpose of the project. 16 I don't know how that would tie into it. 17 MR. DYSART: Ed. 18 MR. EUDALY: I just want to clarify again 19 most of the structures are in the upper Bear 20 Creek, and it depends on how significant -- 21 most of them would be considered relatively 22 minor, using the American Fisheries Society 23 Guidelines. 24 I don't remember the design flow for the 25 1135 project, but it was relatively modest 72 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 coming down Bear Creek, and the amount of 3 tidal flow in Abercorn Creek through that whole 4 tidal system is very large compared to the 5 maximum flows coming from Bear Creek. 6 I'd be surprised if you could demonstrate 7 an increase in chloride levels no matter what 8 you do there. I wanted to clarify if this work 9 is done properly, we'll take a look at it, we 10 could probably do it, but my opinion is it 11 probably won't have much of an impact on 12 chlorides. If somebody can come up with an 13 analysis that shows that, that would be good. 14 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Ron. 15 MR. MICHAELS: Bill, didn't you say back 16 in 2000 that the obstructions were removed 17 and chlorides did go down? 18 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 19 MR. MICHAELS: Obstructions weren't 20 removed and the level went back up? 21 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 22 MR. MICHAELS: So there was a 23 demonstration of a change. 24 MR. DYSART: Excuse me -- Ed, do you have 25 further comments? 73 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. EUDALY: I wonder if you could post 3 that on the website for people interested in 4 chloride levels. You said did it have an 5 effect. I guess my other comment is whether 6 that took a look at all the variables involved. 7 We've had discussions that there have been 8 so many changes in flow, a lot of drought 9 conditions and yes, chloride levels might 10 change. 11 Does the analysis change or control flow 12 and other variables? I don't think you can say 13 chlorides might have gone down because you did 14 this work, this was a cause and effect 15 relationship. 16 I think you have to look at the flows in 17 the river and all those other conditions to see 18 whether it actually had an effect. 19 MR. DYSART: How long is this going -- 20 we're go ahead and take a 10 minute break. 21 (Short Break) 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's -- let's 23 reconvene the meeting, and we will have Bill 24 Bailey continue his impact presentation. Okay. 25 Bill, take off. 74 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. BAILEY: I passed out a brochure on 3 the -- the Corps did not produce this -- on 4 invasive species. It's just other information 5 not related to this project. 6 Okay. We looked at some other resources, 7 looked at impacts of other things. I guess the 8 bottom line of these things are these are 9 resources that our evaluation showed did not 10 have significant impacts, and we did not need 11 to mitigate for. 12 We looked at groundwater, effects for the 13 aquifer, the drinking water aquifer. We looked 14 at Tybee Beach, the erosion there, looked at 15 erosion along the river including at 16 Ft. Pulaski, and the city front, looked at 17 hurricane surge, looked at a little bit of 18 traffic, air quality and then cultural 19 resources. 20 We want to have a little bit on air 21 quality and cultural resources. These other -- 22 most of the other ones you've seen the 23 presentations on those. I just want to 24 summarize them here in this context. 25 Air quality, remember we did an analysis 75 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 of the emissions from the container vessels, 3 gave that to EPA. They wanted a little more -- 4 a lot more. 5 We wanted it to include all vessel types, 6 even those that would not necessarily need the 7 deeper harbor. They wanted the landside 8 equipment on private terminals and wanted air 9 toxins. So those -- most of those are things 10 that would not be affected by a deeper channel. 11 They wanted us to look at them and we did. 12 We had identified -- with that analysis, we 13 identified the larger sources of air emissions 14 in the harbor, compared the harbor emissions to 15 those of the entire county, and then identified 16 the impacts from the harbor deepening. 17 The deepening would not increase air 18 emissions on a long-term basis. The emissions 19 during construction would be minimal. The 20 conclusion was no mitigation was warranted. 21 I think next month, if you want, we can 22 talk in some more details on that, on the 23 numbers and what we looked at. 24 MS. MOORER: Yes. We had discussed that 25 at the interim SEG meeting and delayed that to 76 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 next month, so we could go through the impacts 3 and mitigation this meeting. So next month it 4 will hopefully be done for us. 5 MR. DYSART: David. 6 MR. KYLER: Question, Bill. You said 7 container vessels, is that virtually all 8 traffic; why were only container vessels looked 9 at? 10 MR. BAILEY: We initially looked at 11 container vessels because that's all that uses 12 the deeper channel. That's all that would 13 benefit from the deeper. 14 MR. KYLER: Okay. 15 MR. DYSART: Judy. 16 MS. JENNINGS: I guess I can say just a 17 quick question about the air; you looked at 18 landside including the trucking, right? 19 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 20 MS. JENNINGS: We'll do it more next time. 21 MR. BAILEY: Okay. The cultural, we knew 22 what was -- we have some idea of what's along 23 the river. We looked at, from previous 24 surveys done, we know what's along the river. 25 We looked at impacts to those. We're still 77 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 going to evaluate the impacts to -- up in the 3 mitigation areas, up in the refuge areas. 4 Old Ft. Jackson had been an issue in 5 Tier I. That's since been -- the shoreline 6 there has been stabilized. CSS Georgia has 7 been an issue. We had a presentation here on 8 that. 9 That's being impacted by the existing 10 project and the resource needs to be 11 documented, and they will be doing an 12 archeological recovery of that resource kind of 13 independent of harbor deepening. 14 So that's all the different pieces. It'll 15 go into what we believe is a comprehensive 16 mitigation plan for deepening the harbor. 17 Also, we'll be proposing a monitoring and 18 adaptive management program, and this follows 19 steps, CEQ steps. I think in 2002, 2003 that 20 was some document out about updating NEPA, and 21 they had these steps in the process. 22 So what we're talking about now is these 23 bottom two, if you decide to implement that you 24 should do some more, so that's what we're 25 proposing. 78 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 We do some pre-construction monitoring. 3 You basically go out and look before 4 construction starts, look during construction 5 and then look after construction. And this, 6 the post-construction, we're proposing five 7 years monitoring. 8 It includes both physical and biological 9 components for the physical. I'm talking 10 continuous water quality monitors, also an 11 intense monitoring program like they did when 12 they -- when they obtained data to calibrate 13 the water quality models, go out and do that 14 again before the harbor is deepened. 15 On the biological side, they'll monitor 16 the wetland vegetation the way they have in the 17 past, repeat what they have done -- South 18 Carolina DNR has done for sturgeon, go up and 19 at look fish movement up at New Savannah Bluff 20 Lock and Dam pre-construction. 21 The continuous water quality monitoring 22 station, we would add three stations, upgrade 23 some, and we'd operate some other ones. So of 24 those seven that we'd operate, we would upgrade 25 three of those. 79 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 And the stations were taken from -- we 3 started with this 2006 USGS monitoring plan, 4 that USGS came up with, in consultation with 5 other federal agencies. 6 So they looked at what had been monitored 7 before, what people were looking at, and 8 suggested some new locations. So we'd be -- we 9 started with that plan and we'd be implementing 10 some of that. 11 The initial wetland monitoring proposal 12 was again taking, kind of continuing from 13 things that stations that had been looked at 14 before and adding some new ones. It's probably 15 going to shift a little bit, but this was the 16 initial proposal. The shifting a little bit 17 would be changing locations, not decreasing the 18 amount of monitoring. 19 For monitoring during construction, we 20 would continue to operate those continuous 21 water quality monitors, continue the wetland 22 vegetation monitoring, and do another round of 23 the monitoring for sturgeon. For after 24 construction, again continue those water 25 quality monitoring station. 80 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 We'd do two more in the five year period, 3 do two more of those intense monitoring 4 programs, water quality monitoring. Continue 5 with the wetland vegetation monitoring, do a 6 couple for short-nose sturgeon, see where they 7 are, and then to monitor fish passage up the 8 New Savannah Bluff. 9 For adaptive management, this is then what 10 we would do with all that information. All the 11 monitoring would be to see what is happening 12 out there. During construction is to see if -- 13 if something's occurring that's outside or 14 beyond what you predicted; that's the purpose 15 of doing it during the middle of construction. 16 So it would be that's kind of a safety -- 17 somewhat of a safety mechanism. The after 18 construction is really seeing how the 19 mitigation pieces, how they're really 20 functioning; are they doing what you thought 21 they would do. 22 Adaptive management is if they didn't work 23 out like you thought, what do you have to do to 24 fix them? 25 What we put in here is essentially some 81 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 money to adjust each of those things, all those 3 flow altering features, to adjust those a 4 little bit. 5 One of the things we're proposing is a 6 sill at the bottom of the sediment basin, so 7 that would fill in naturally. One of the 8 modifications would be, well, you may end up 9 making that sill a little bit higher or maybe 10 making it a little bit lower. You may have to 11 adjust it a little bit, so there would be money 12 in there for that. 13 One of the things that we're going to 14 recommend is that the money for the adaptive 15 management, this program, would be obtained as 16 part of the construction dollars and then held 17 over to see if you really needed it. 18 There's -- looked at whether or not 19 there's a procedure for making decisions with 20 all this information, whether you need to 21 modify any of those features. 22 It talks about a report on the program, 23 public review of that report, and if a 24 modification is needed, monitor for another 25 year after that. 82 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 This is a summary of all these things. 3 This is a work in progress. These are 4 technical recommendations, and that's how we're 5 writing documents up now preparing a draft 6 EIS. 7 So at this point it's not an agency 8 position. It's not an agency recommendation. 9 The draft -- the draft document will go through 10 reviews to see if the Corps agrees with it, 11 have an independent technical review, have a 12 quality control check. 13 We'll be doing that. When we complete 14 those two steps, then it will go out to the 15 public for official comment, and that will be 16 the end of this year. Present dates, I think 17 is the end of October, the draft EIS would be 18 sent out. 19 So you would have November and December. 20 You could send the Corps a nice Christmas card 21 with your comments -- send that in. So these 22 plans, we've talked to the cooperating agencies 23 and the state agencies. We have talked about 24 these plans with them, but I'm not saying that 25 they approve these things. We haven't asked 83 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 for an official position. 3 Basically, their official position is when 4 they get this draft document at the end of the 5 year. So we've got features, mitigation plan 6 features for these, those resources, and then 7 the monitoring and adaptive management plan. 8 Again, this is a summary of those 9 features; acquire and preserve wetlands, 10 supplemental oxygen, fish passage to New 11 Savannah Bluff, funds for stocking striped 12 bass, increased flows down Bear Creek, and 13 monitoring and adaptive management. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Before 15 we have questions, Mary would you introduce 16 yourself on the record? You came in a while 17 back and I forgot to call on you. 18 MS. LANDERS: I'm Mary Landers with 19 Savannah Morning News. 20 MR. DYSART: Anyone else? 21 MR. BARRETT: Tim Barrett with Region 22 Southern Fisheries, Georgia DNR. 23 MR. DYSART: Thank you, welcome. Anybody 24 else? First comment and question from Kelie 25 then Will then Priscilla and then Judy. 84 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MS. MOORE: Will you be adding beneficial 3 use of dredge materials as one of your 4 mitigation features? 5 MR. BAILEY: I think we looked at that 6 beneficial use. We didn't identify any. The 7 sediment placement plan we're proposing is that 8 near shore plan we talked about a couple of 9 years ago. 10 MS. MOORE: Yes. 11 MR. BAILEY: We have added to that, what 12 to do with the maintenance material, and some 13 of that would be put near shore -- in those 14 same near shore areas. So that would be a 15 continuing action after that. 16 MS. MOORE: That wouldn't necessarily be 17 addressed as a mitigated measure? 18 MR. BAILEY: Correct, it's not mitigation, 19 not considered mitigation. 20 MR. DYSART: Will. 21 MR. BERSON: With respect to your adaptive 22 management, I want to make a suggestion. I 23 think in some ways it's very difficult to 24 divorce what's happened in the past with 25 respect to the Savannah River, and I think you 85 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 would do well if you put -- I guess I just 3 don't want to see the SEG process end. 4 I guess you might want to have some 5 people, in addition to the Corps, reviewing 6 impacts at that stage. I'm sort of thinking 7 back to the tide gate question where people 8 were saying it's causing a problem and the 9 Corps said it wasn't causing a problem. It 10 ended up being a long time fixing the problem 11 because you had to prove that there was a 12 problem. 13 I think that's something you don't want to 14 get into in adaptive management. I think you 15 would do well to have a spectrum of folks that 16 were sort of evaluating what the results of 17 monitoring was. 18 MR. BAILEY: Yes. I wasn't clear. In the 19 middle there it's got a report on the 20 monitoring program. What I'm trying to write 21 in the documents is all these different reports 22 of these different people would be put 23 together. They would go to -- I forget how -- 24 I think it was the report would go to all the 25 different resource agencies to comment on. 86 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 They would comment on them, revise the 3 report, and then send it out to the public for 4 comment, come back, and then the federal 5 cooperating agencies would make a decision then 6 on what was needed, if an action was needed on 7 the adaptive management. So, it wasn't going 8 to be a Corps' decision -- 9 MR. BERSON: I think that makes -- that 10 increases the confidence level in what you're 11 doing and that's what everybody wants. 12 MR. DYSART: Priscilla. 13 MS. WENDT: I just wanted to mention I 14 think the mitigation -- the draft mitigation 15 plan touches very briefly on the effect of 16 closing Rifle Cut to boating access to the Back 17 River, but the South Carolina DNR would like to 18 see that addressed a little more specifically, 19 and how that mitigation option will effect 20 recreational boating access. 21 MR. BAILEY: Do you or the refuge know how 22 many people use that -- use Rifle Cut -- pass 23 through in boats? 24 MS. WENDT: I don't know. I know our 25 research folks used it frequently. 87 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. BARRETT: Bill, I would say the 3 majority of people that use the Back River that 4 put in at the land bridge access Back River 5 through Rifle Cut. 6 There's not a big difference as far as 7 distance to go down Front River around the 8 jetties to get to Back River depending on where 9 you are going to fish, but -- nor do I -- I 10 don't know if you want all that recreational 11 traffic going up down Front River though. 12 MR. BAILEY: Do you know how much -- how 13 much traffic that is? 14 Mr. Barrett: We have some data from that 15 ramp. We could get at it, around it. 16 MR. BAILEY: Okay. If you have got that, 17 send it. 18 MR. DYSART: Judy. 19 MS. JENNINGS: A couple of things about 20 monitoring and adaptive management. You said 21 one year monitoring if there was an 22 implementation of a change. You know, that 23 makes sense to me. If it's like, you know, the 24 sill example that you gave, but it doesn't seem 25 like a lot of time if it turns out to be 88 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 something of a much greater nature. 3 Is there some way to write something 4 provisional rather than one year? I mean, I 5 don't know. We keep going back to the tide 6 gate. I mean, is there something, can you 7 write something provisional other than that, 8 just one year? Because I don't know, your 9 example one year suits me. 10 MR. BAILEY: I have to put a time on it to 11 figure a cost and tell people how much money 12 this thing is going to cost. Without a time, I 13 don't know how to do that. 14 MS. JENNINGS: I see your problem. I'll 15 think about it. The other is, you know, the 16 wetlands, the mitigation wetlands, DO, 17 sturgeon, bass, chlorides; and so far you 18 recommended no mitigation required on air 19 quality, but will there be monitoring as part 20 of the program on air quality? I mean, besides 21 what EPA does because they're supposed to 22 monitor water quality -- air quality -- 23 MR. BAILEY: We're not proposing that. 24 The only impacts we see are from the dredges 25 from the actual construction. A portion, a 89 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 large portion of that will be out in the ocean, 3 so not -- so I think those emissions would have 4 less of an effect on the city than dredging in 5 the city. 6 We haven't separated out those effects to 7 get that fine a detail. We're not proposing 8 monitoring of emissions from the dredges. 9 MS. JENNINGS: But that's not all you 10 looked at. I guess we can talk about it more 11 when we deal with air quality. 12 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 13 MR. DYSART: Ed, David and Steve. 14 MR. EUDALY: I just want to make a few 15 comments about a few things. The model, first 16 of all that Bill started talking about, the 17 EFDC model used for evaluation. 18 He is accurate in that we, the service and 19 all the other agencies did say EFDC model was 20 acceptable for project evaluation. However, 21 I want to elaborate a little bit on that in 22 that when we did say that, we also pointed out 23 there were some concerns about the model in the 24 Back and Middle River. 25 That especially comes into play when you 90 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 look at the mitigation features that are 3 channel and flow modifications. So there is a 4 degree of uncertainty about how these flow and 5 diversion features will work. 6 We agree that the model is the best tool 7 to evaluate the project, and that's what we 8 intend to use to evaluate it. I just want to 9 point out those, though, these predictions that 10 are made by the model, they may be very 11 accurate. They may not be. 12 There may be quite a substantial 13 difference when the project is put in place, if 14 it is. And so we have those concerns. 15 Having said that, if we do use the model 16 to evaluate the project and all the other 17 information we've got to date, the impacts to 18 fish and wildlife resources are substantially 19 less at the 44 and 45 foot depths than the 46 20 and 48 foot depths. 21 So using that tool that's the direction, 22 based on the information we have so far, as to 23 where -- what we think the impacts would be, 24 substantially less at that depth -- those 25 depths. 91 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 I just wanted to mention that the service 3 recently completed a planning aid report on 4 this project which evaluates the information 5 available to date, and we can -- I assume we 6 can put that up on the SEG website. 7 MS. MOORER: Yes. Can you send that to 8 Larry? 9 MR. EUDALY: Yes. And so that will be 10 available if people want to take a look at 11 that. That's it. 12 MR. DYSART: David. 13 MR. KYLER: Are you far enough along you 14 have any feel for the ball park percentage, the 15 marginal effect of the mitigation or the 16 adaptive management contingency fund, so to 17 speak? 18 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure what -- the 19 amount of money, I'm not sure what it is. I've 20 had a lot of numbers flying around recently. 21 I've been trying to write. I've not paid 22 attention to the numbers. I've been trying to 23 write. 24 MR. KYLER: And keeping with the agenda, 25 is there going to be more discussion of 92 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 economic factors down the list here? 3 MS. MOORER: If there is from Bill, I 4 think it's just going to be an update. We're 5 trying to schedule the economist here. She is 6 still working on getting her economics review. 7 MR. KYLER: As an example of a very 8 obvious wild card, in all this cost estimating 9 and predicting, let's not forget about energy 10 costs which have thrown off everyone's 11 predictions predicting into this period, 12 because of what's happened with fuel costs 13 driven by petroleum wholesale costs over the 14 last year. 15 But another little item I wanted to pick 16 on -- pick up on related to, I think, what Judy 17 alluded to, what mitigation needs are more than 18 just to use your phrase adjusting a little bit. 19 What if a mitigation effort, either 20 because of interactive effects of different 21 mitigation steps taken for different purposes, 22 or because of some just counterintuitive effect 23 of a mitigation has a greater adverse impact, 24 deviant impact than just a minor adjustment 25 would allow; what kind of contingency will be 93 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 built into the adaptive management process for 3 that? 4 MR. BAILEY: I think that's the reason we 5 would do the monitoring during construction is 6 to see if anything like that is happening. And 7 the process would then be we would have to, if 8 it's beyond what we thought was going to 9 happen, we'd have to go get approvals to do 10 something about it, because we wouldn't have 11 approvals to do it. We don't know what it may 12 be, you know, lots of what ifs. 13 MR. KYLER: Yeah. 14 MR. BAILEY: So we can't ask for approval 15 to do it. We have to define it to ask for 16 approvals. 17 MR. KYLER: So the way you just described 18 that, I assume that means in terms of 19 compensating for significantly deviant 20 mitigation, under this new arrangement would be 21 no different than under the old arrangement 22 which means go back to Congress for a separate 23 allotment to deal with the problems as they 24 arise, is that correct? 25 MR. BAILEY: Correct. 94 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. KYLER: In my mind, that deviates 3 significantly from the recommendation we made, 4 that memo that was finally adopted at the last 5 meeting in how to use information in guiding 6 the project, because you remember, I think it 7 was that third paragraph of the one page memo 8 that I drafted that referred to building in the 9 costs for all conceivable contingencies as part 10 of the cost of the project. 11 So that delay in correcting deviant 12 mitigation or deviant impacts of any kind would 13 not be a problem in future projects as it has 14 been in the past project. I would just point 15 that out. 16 MR. BAILEY: All conceivable 17 contingencies, that's a pretty high standard to 18 be -- 19 MR. KYLER: Yeah, and intended as such. 20 Anyway, is there the precedent for use of 21 contingency funds, even in the modest way 22 you're talking about here, based on this 23 adaptive management concept, or is this an 24 entirely new direction for the Corps? 25 MR. BAILEY: Go ahead. 95 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MS. MOORER: I had my card up to recognize 3 Dave's effort in the very beginning for pushing 4 for an adaptive management plan and process. 5 This is, I think, because of what the 6 division office has said. One of the first 7 projects that kind of codified with the process 8 and the project, certainly in a deep draft 9 navigation project. 10 And there are contingencies for adaptive 11 management and some funding set aside. I think 12 in the eventual plan, Bill's plan is to do 13 that, but not for every conceivable thing that 14 might happen. 15 I think in this process, it's going to be 16 different and tough getting this through the 17 Corps bureaucracy. So when this is put out for 18 public comment, I would encourage you to 19 support the adaptive management component of it 20 in your comments, because it hasn't been set 21 aside previously. 22 MR. KYLER: Yeah. Well, I don't want to 23 misrepresent what my concept was or allow it to 24 be misinterpreted, but it seems to me since we 25 base, for example the dynamics of the 96 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 hydraulics and salinity on modeling from 3 historic data and historic characteristics of 4 the river, likewise would we not present an 5 alternative vision for a future that's 6 different than what we predicted, based on 7 previous failures to predict the future? 8 So if you have examples of worst case 9 scenarios that have occurred previously, why 10 not use them as a basis for determining the 11 contingency fund to deal with like deviations 12 in the future? 13 MR. DYSART: Steve, then Judy. 14 MR. WILLIS: I'm always interested in like 15 having a broad and clear understanding of what 16 people are doing. I guess sort of what I'm 17 very concerned about is what I call the straw 18 that broke the camel's back effect. 19 For instance, if -- if we go forward with 20 this project and all the mitigation activities 21 that you have specified, and another project 22 like for instance if Atlanta keeps growing the 23 way it's growing people and go to interbasin 24 transfer, or they construct the new expansion 25 of Vogtle Plant, these are not wild, 97 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 unimaginable things. 3 These are things that almost certainly 4 will happen, if we keep going down the road 5 we're on right now. If these things cause 6 essentially all the mitigation plans to become 7 ineffectual, and in fact the impact of the 8 harbor deepening could be much worse than you 9 ever imagined it to be. 10 It's a situation where maybe the harbor 11 deepening maybe 60% of the problem and the 12 interbasin transfers might be 30% of the 13 problem, but let's say you deepen the harbor 14 first, how does that fit into your adaptive 15 management? 16 Is it not your problem since you caused 17 your problem first, it's the next guy's? I 18 mean, how's is that going to be viewed when you 19 have got these combinations of impacts that are 20 predictable that we can -- we know very likely 21 will happen, but that aren't being considered 22 now in the plan? 23 MR. BAILEY: The Corps -- the EIS has a 24 cumulative effects portion that did identify 25 those things as possibilities out there. The 98 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 decisions, basically the governments have to 3 make decisions at points in time. 4 When they make a decision, things may come 5 -- may be proposed after that, and those 6 projects have to stand on their own merits and 7 address their impacts. So I think if -- 8 MR. WILLIS: Sort of first come first 9 served. 10 MR. BAILEY: I think that's the way our 11 system works. 12 MR. DYSART: Judy. 13 MS. JENNINGS. Ed, I just want, if you 14 don't mind, I don't get sit in on interagency 15 meetings, it's so great to have folks to talk 16 about the model and services position, fine for 17 it in evaluating the project. Then there was 18 a but. I'm not sure I clearly understood the 19 caveat, the but. 20 MR. EUDALY: Okay. There is a -- what 21 we're trying to point out is there's a good bit 22 of uncertainty about the model's performance in 23 the Back and Middle Rivers. This was pointed 24 out when we said the model is acceptable to 25 use. 99 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 We did point out as did several other 3 agencies, that there were some concerns in the 4 Back and Middle River. So when we look at 5 these mitigation scenarios which involve the 6 channel and flow modifications, then you have 7 to keep that in mind when you are interpreting 8 results. 9 So what we see predicted by the model may 10 be different than what we actually get. We 11 still think it's the best tool to look at the 12 project and we're going to do that, but we also 13 want to point out what we see when the project 14 is done, if it is, then it might be different 15 from what was predicted. It might be -- it 16 could be quite a bit different in some areas. 17 MS. JENNINGS: Because of flow 18 alterations? 19 MR. EUDALY: Yes, because you're changing 20 that whole -- well we don't know how well the 21 model will perform. There are various features 22 in the model to represent flow and closed 23 channels and so forth. So we're talking about 24 fairly big changes in the system here. 25 MS. JENNINGS: Right. 100 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. EUDALY: And so it would probably be 3 unrealistic to expect it's going to be accurate 4 in all places. So that's what we're trying to 5 point out. There is a good bit of risk and 6 uncertainty about what we'll actually see, as 7 compared to what we see on paper now. So 8 that's something that needs to be taken into 9 account when you evaluate the project. 10 MR. BAILEY: We also -- also early on the 11 agencies asked us to look a number of different 12 scenarios. And the average river flows that 13 they ended up recommending we use show the most 14 impacts of the other scenarios. 15 Drought flows or two levels of sea level 16 rise, and so we looked at those. Today we 17 don't know how much sea level rise is going to 18 be in 20 years. 19 We ran the model with a couple of 20 different levels and they both show less 21 impacts than average flows that we're doing all 22 this mitigation and planning based on. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Last question, I was trying 24 to follow it on the map about Bear Creek and as 25 it comes through wildlife property. Rus, you 101 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 said probably even if you remove all that 3 debris, it's not going to significantly change 4 the flow down into Abercorn Creek. 5 I got lost in who owns what up there. 6 Regardless of who owns it, it looks like the 7 wetlands up at the confluence at Bear Creek, 8 I'm just wondering, you know, if the water is 9 coming more directly downstream, then it may 10 not be spreading out and feeding wetlands above 11 the headwater at that point. I mean is that 12 something we need to ask? 13 MR. BAILEY: If we are talking about the 14 wetland flows within the banks anyway, we're 15 not talking about the outer banks. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. Here's my thinking. 17 You've got this little stream and it's all 18 clogged up. I mean, so how far does it not go 19 out of the banks or would he banks change? 20 MR. BAILEY: In the spring it goes out of 21 the banks. All we'd be doing is taking the 22 trees out blocking the flow. We're not doing 23 any excavation of the banks or river bottom, 24 creek bottom. 25 MS. JENNINGS: I'm just thinking it is 102 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 sort like a dam. Water kind of backs up on the 3 other side of the dam. I'm just wondering, 4 would there be a change to the wetland north of 5 that point after you removed the blockages? 6 MR. BAILEY: This thing is what -- 30, 40 7 feet wide, knee deep, which is less than half 8 the bank height. Those are the kind of 9 pictures that I saw when you guys were out 10 there. 11 MS. JENNINGS: I don't know it at all. 12 I'm just asking. 13 MR. WEBB: The point I was trying to 14 stress, this is just my opinion from being out 15 there, it appears to me -- the City of Savannah 16 might hate to hear this -- 90% of the water is 17 coming from the river, the river channel and up 18 Abercorn Creek. 19 It may be dead high first hour outgoing 20 there might be some Bear Island water coming 21 intake, and that's just from my opinion being 22 out there, paddling, traversing from the Bear 23 Creek through Collis Creek to Abercorn Creek. 24 All of those three creeks kind of converge. 25 I was just trying to -- and I don't know 103 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 if that's going have an impact if we clear. It 3 would be nice to be able to traverse the creek 4 and recreate in Bear Creek. I don't know if 5 it's going to have an impact on water intake. 6 MR. DYSART: Keith, did you have a comment 7 earlier? 8 MR. PARSONS: No. I did, but I decided 9 not to voice it at this point. 10 MR. DYSART: Jane. 11 MS. GRIESS: Judy, I was just going to 12 follow up on your comment, I think by clearing 13 the debris out of the river it's not going to 14 really change the forced wetlands that are 15 upstream. 16 MS. JENNINGS: That was my question. 17 MS. GRIESS: Yeah, because the river gets 18 -- the normal hydrology is during the spring, 19 the river gets out of the banks and floods 20 those wetlands or those forced wetland areas. 21 It might speed up the water coming off a little 22 bit, but it's not going to change, I don't 23 believe, the components of the force up there. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Sorry to say I haven't been 25 there. 104 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MS. GRIESS: That's all right. It's hard 3 to envision unless you've seen it. 4 MR. DYSART: Anymore comments? I believe 5 we're through with that item. Next, economics 6 analysis and economic data cost-risk. What do 7 you have for us on that, Bill? 8 MR. BAILEY: Just that they're still 9 working on the economics. Don't have anything 10 to the present now, not in August, we're hoping 11 in September. That's it. 12 MR. DYSART: Does that mean we're ready 13 for Hope? 14 MS. MOORER: I think mine was covered. 15 Bill, did you have anything prepared on the 16 cost-risk analysis or value engineering at all? 17 MR. BAILEY: Not really. 18 MS. MOORER: Not really. Well, we can 19 defer that to the next time. I mean, I can 20 talk about it, but it's not in great detail. 21 I'm not very informed on what it is, what those 22 processes are, but as far as the reox project 23 that was discussed earlier, I gave you the 24 update on all that. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. That gets us to old 105 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 business. Will has something for us under old 3 business. 4 MR. BERSON: I -- 5 MR. DYSART: I might say, this came from 6 a huddle before the meeting involving Bill 7 Farmer, Hope, yourself and so forth. This was 8 kind of a consensus you would bring this up. 9 MR. BERSON: Bill still would like to 10 discuss how to reconcile the Operating 11 Guidelines charge with how we're evaluating 12 studies. 13 And I think we're going to take that up in 14 an Operating Guidelines Committee Meeting that 15 we will set up and distribute with Cathy's help 16 so everybody knows where and when. 17 I don't know that we're going to have -- I 18 think we're looking to have an SEG meeting in 19 August, so we won't have the usual interim in 20 between. So we'll have to set up a time that 21 works for both, if anybody has any suggestion. 22 MS. MOORER: If anybody is interested, 23 we'll send out the e-mail to everyone, but if 24 anybody is interested in definitely attending 25 besides the normal suspects that are there, let 106 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 us know so we can try to plan a meeting around 3 peoples' schedules who are interested in 4 attending. So -- 5 MR. BERSON: With some luck, we might be 6 able to address this substantially before the 7 meeting with an e-mail such that we can make 8 it a fairly short exercise. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any other old business 10 which was not brought up earlier? Okay. Are 11 there any committee reports? Seeing none, move 12 on. There were no items of new business 13 suggested. 14 MS. MOORER: I don't know if this is, this 15 isn't really new business, I'd like to take 16 this time to remember someone who contributed a 17 great deal of time to this group, and a lot of 18 hours to the Aquifer Working Group, and that's 19 Mr. Chris Schuberth who has passed away. I 20 just wanted to honor his efforts with all of us 21 here in trying to get the best project that we 22 can, and the best study certainly that we can. 23 So I just wanted to take this time to remember 24 him. 25 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Thank you for 107 1 OLD BUSINESS 2 bringing that up, and I'm sure that there are 3 many people around the table who go back to the 4 very beginning and appreciated Chris' way of 5 getting everybody's attention, and promoting 6 good, credible science, and he brought a great 7 deal to this body. We appreciated that. 8 I think somebody said last time that there 9 should be some comment about somebody else who 10 is not with us. Who was going to say something 11 nice about John? 12 MS. MOORER: John -- we meant to last time 13 and that's John Robinette. That's another 14 person who spent many, many hours working on 15 behalf of the study with this project. 16 John Robinette has accepted another 17 position with the service in Tennessee, the 18 state of his great love, and he's not with us. 19 But I think he's still involved hopefully. 20 MS. GRIESS: He will be. I was afraid you 21 were going to say he passed away. 22 MS. MOORER: No, no, but certainly we 23 appreciate all John's efforts as well. 24 MR. DYSART: John was somebody over the 25 years very economical in the use of words. 108 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 John leaned forward toward the end of the 3 meeting and you knew something was getting 4 ready to come out that was important, and 5 needed to be noted, and was intentionally being 6 put on the table to be noted. Anything else? 7 Okay. Next meeting date. 8 MS. MOORER: I think Will has already 9 alluded to this, but we have enough information 10 that we delayed from this meeting, that we 11 talked about at the interim SEG meeting, to 12 have certainly a meeting on August 5th. It 13 looks like it's the first Tuesday. 14 Air quality analysis, sediment quality 15 analysis, and we'll have updates on some other 16 items. We can defer the cost-risk analysis and 17 value engineering studies, the explanation of 18 what those are by the Corps, and so I think 19 we'll have a full meeting. 20 Also, there was a request from the 21 National Park Service, Ft. Pulaski, to make a 22 presentation, a brief presentation at that 23 meeting as well. So certainly August 5th, and 24 I would hopefully within the economics 25 discussion, I'd likely go ahead and reserve on 109 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 your calendars that September date too, if at 3 all possible. 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. I think we have an 5 obvious consensus on that. I did -- in the 6 interest of engineering humor, I will point out 7 there seems to be a consensus that some things 8 were indeed counterintuitive today in the 9 specific data there Bill explained. 10 We always -- some of us can remember back 11 in the days when it was hard to find anything 12 that we could find a consensus on in a meeting, 13 so I want to celebrate that. 14 Okay. Anything else to come before the 15 body? If not, we thank Bill for his 16 presentation. I thank many people who put a 17 number of thoughtful questions and comments on 18 the table to help improve the project and move 19 things forward. I declare the meeting 20 adjourned. 21 (Concluded 12:00 p.m.) 22 23 24 25 110 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 G E O R G I A : 5 CHATHAM COUNTY : 6 7 I Hereby certify that the foregoing 8 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 9 caption, and the questions and answers thereto were 10 reduced to typewriting under my direction; that the 11 foregoing pages 1 through 109 represent a true and 12 correct transcript of the evidence given upon said 13 hearing, and I further certify that I am not of kin 14 or counsel to the parties in the case; am not in 15 the regular employ of counsel for any of said 16 parties; nor am I in anywise interested in the 17 result of said case. 18 This the 19th day of July, 2008. 19 20 _______________________________ 21 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 22 Reporter, B-2041 23 24 25