1 2 3 4 5 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6 7 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 8 9 JUNE 3, 2002 10 9:00 A.M. 11 MIGHTY 8TH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 12 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 5 I N D E X 6 7 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3 8 9 AQUIFER IMPACTS COMMITTEE --------------------- 6 10 DREDGING AND DISPOSAL ------------------------- 72 11 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES --------------- 72 12 MTRG ------------------------------------------ 72 13 STRIPED BASS ---------------------------------- 85 14 ECONOMIC WORKINGS GROUP ----------------------- 86 15 OPERATING GUIDELINES -------------------------- 91 16 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 118 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. It's 9:10. Let's call our 3 meeting to order. Everybody find a seat, please. 4 This month I'm back to sitting over here to keep 5 Will Berson in line. I've let him go several 6 meetings without my constant attention. It's time 7 to get back over close to him. Maybe he would say 8 he's sitting next to me to keep me organized. 9 I'll call the meeting to order. The first 10 thing we'd like to do is go around the table and 11 introduce yourself, and tell us who you are 12 representing. Start with Will and go this way. 13 MR. BERSON: Will Berson. I'm with the 14 Georgia Conservancy. 15 MR. COX: John Cox. I'm with Applied 16 Technology Management. 17 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan with Lockwood 18 Greene, Georgia Ports. 19 MR. SCHALLER: I'm David Schaller, Georgia 20 Ports Authority. 21 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for Georgia 22 Ports. 23 MR. KYLER: David Kyler, Center for a 24 Sustainable Coast. 25 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers. 4 1 2 MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon representing the 3 Savannah Harbor Committee. 4 MR. SCHUBERTH: I'm Chris Schuberth, Chatham 5 Environmental Forum. 6 MR. SCARDINO: I'm Tom Scardino running for 7 office in District 125. 8 MR. SHELBY: John Shelby with the League of 9 Women Voters Savannah/Chatham. 10 MS. LEFFEK: Teri Leffek, Fife and Clydesdale 11 Plantations. 12 MR. STAFFORD: John Stafford, Ogeechee Audobon 13 Society. 14 MR. JENNINGS: Cecil Jennings with Georgia 15 Department of Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 16 MR. REINHERT: Tom Reinhert, University of 17 Georgia. 18 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens with DNR, Coastal 19 Management. 20 MR. WILL: Ted Will, DNR, Wildlife Resources 21 Division. 22 MR. BROWNELL: Press Brownell National Marine 23 Fisheries Service. 24 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Island Beach Task 25 Force. 5 1 2 MR. CALHOUN: Andy Calhoun, Colonial Group. 3 MR. BROWNE: Tommy Browne, Savannah Pilots. 4 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo. 5 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, U.S. Fish and 6 Wildlife Service. 7 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, U.S. Fish and 8 Wildlife. 9 MR. DYSART: I'm Ben Dysart, the SEG 10 facilitator. By now the draft agenda should be 11 most of the way around, and I would ask you to 12 consider approving our agenda. 13 Take a look at it. Today we have a couple of 14 major reports. There's been a request that we 15 discuss the notion of a mitigation committee, and 16 other than that, it will be principally be 17 committee reports from within the group. 18 Is there anything you would like to add, any 19 topics you would like to put on the agenda for 20 today? Next, what is your pleasure concerning the 21 transcript of the last meeting? I determine that 22 there is a consensus it is considered to be 23 accurate as posted. 24 Okay. Next we'll get into old business. Teri 25 Leffek indicated that she would like to be involved 6 1 2 in discussion of a mitigation committee, and I 3 would ask her, would you like to do that now? 4 MS. LEFFEK: Under committee reports is fine. 5 MR. DYSART: Under committee reports. Okay. 6 We are now into committee reports. Chris, how 7 about give us a report from the Aquifer Committee. 8 MR. SCHUBERTH: Thank you. I continue to 9 marvel at how we become ever more time efficient. 10 It's not even quarter after 9:00, and it's 11 committee reports. 12 So anyhow the Aquifer Committee is the report 13 that I'm going to talk about, and I deliberated in 14 my mind whether I should hand out the overheads. I 15 have to apologize to all technics here. 16 I have refused to become a Power Point 17 advocate. It's handicapped me at the university, 18 but I say a piece of chalky and an eraser is just 19 fine. 20 But I'll hand this out, and I know as soon as 21 hand it out y'all are going to read every single 22 page while I'm talking. But for the record, I'm 23 going to read everything that's up on the screen. 24 I really have no smoking gun. I know there's 25 a tremendous interest in this subject, as there 7 1 2 should be. And I did some quick looking up, and 3 the very first meeting -- I already lost my little 4 note -- the very first meeting of the Aquifer 5 Committee goes back to February of 2000. Sorry. 6 June 26th of 2000 was when the Aquifer 7 Committee met for the very first time. For those 8 of you who are not part of the earlier discussions 9 of this group, the Aquifer Committee was formed by 10 approval of the Stakeholders Evaluation Group in -- 11 to express concern whether the 1998 Army Corps of 12 Engineer report addressing the Floridan Aquifer, 13 based upon the best available information was 14 accurate to say that deepening the harbor up to 15 additional six feet would have minimal to no impact 16 on the aquifer. 17 That basically was challenged by some folks. 18 It got into a fairly lengthy, perhaps somewhat 19 acrimonious discussion in the SEG. Then it was 20 decided well, let's form a committee and let them 21 deal with the question. 22 So the Aquifer Committee was formed probably 23 sometime in mid 2000, and I was asked to chair that 24 committee. 25 Only one person nominated me to chair that 8 1 2 committee, and that person isn't here, and there 3 seemed to be no opposition, so I had the 4 distinction of chairing the Aquifer Committee, 5 which is written down there at the very bottom, and 6 now I'm presenting the results of that. 7 At the fifth meeting of the Aquifer Committee, 8 which was on February 2nd of 2001, the Aquifer 9 Committee decided that we have to have another 10 committee, a subcommittee of experts, I mean the 11 experts, capital T capital E, because we had 20, 30 12 people show up at the Aquifer Committee meeting. 13 And at times, there was as many people at the 14 Aquifer Committee meeting as there were at the SEG 15 meeting, so it became unwieldy and difficult to 16 work with. 17 So this group came to be called officially, 18 and I've now unilaterally given it a capital T, The 19 Working Group. So The Working Group consisted of 20 experts in the field of this subject. And they 21 came up with the title, A Recommended Conceptual 22 Study Plan to Determine Potential Impact to the 23 Upper Floridan Aquifer from Savannah Harbor 24 Expansion Alternatives, the Final Determination. 25 I did not create this language. This is the 9 1 2 language that I simply copied as an ecclesiastical 3 monk, typed it in and created my own overheads, and 4 that's what we're looking at here, a plan developed 5 by The Working Group of the Aquifer Committee. 6 Today is June 4th and I'm presenting it. The 7 individual members of The Working Group, and they 8 are the important people, not really the members of 9 the Aquifer Committee, but the individuals who 10 comprise The Working Group. 11 And I didn't identify them by institution or 12 by profession, but what I've covered up will 13 explain kind of who they are, but I want to say for 14 the record that all of us owe John Cox a round of 15 approval -- applause for chairing this group, and 16 putting together what I consider a masterful 17 document that summarized the issue historically. 18 And there's more information than you would 19 ever want to know, and that's what I'm not going to 20 share with you -- all the information. The 21 information is there. 22 The information is on the web page. Don't ask 23 me to photocopy 60 or 65 pages of information. 24 It's all on the web page. Just go to the Aquifer 25 Committee and you can read for hours the stuff 10 1 2 that's there. 3 Jim Reichard, Jim Henry, Camille Henry, Rick 4 Krause -- I'm sorry, Camille Ransom. I was gone 5 for three weeks and I put this together yesterday. 6 I'm sorry. This is Camille Ransom, R-A-N-S-O-M. 7 My apologies. Rick Krause, Jim Landmeyer, Harold 8 Gill, Bill McLemore, Card Smith, John Clarke, and 9 of course, John Cox. 10 These participants include active and retired 11 geology, chemistry, and hydrology faculty members 12 of regional universities such as Georgia Southern 13 University, Georgia State University, federal and 14 state government agencies such as the United States 15 Geological Survey, the United States Army Corps of 16 Engineers, South Carolina Department of Health 17 and Environmental Control, and the Georgia 18 Department of Environmental Protection Division, 19 and groundwater and geological or engineering 20 consultants currently engaged in private practice. 21 So these are the individuals that John moved 22 through the process of saying okay guys, what is it 23 that we need to address. 24 I started to say a little bit about the 25 history because it's been long in the process, and 11 1 2 this comes from the document that John put together 3 very nicely. 4 And this is available, if anybody would like 5 it, I don't have the technology to do something as 6 fancy as this. 7 The Aquifer Committee was formed by the 8 Stakeholders Evaluation Group in response to 9 concerns regarding the hydrologic integrity of the 10 Upper Floridan Aquifer confining unit. 11 These words are carefully chosen. These words 12 are carefully chosen to represent the thinking. 13 The Working Group was formed to directly support 14 the mission of the Aquifer Committee; that is, the 15 mission to identify the concerns regarding the 16 potential effect upon the Floridan Aquifer of 17 dredging the Savannah River navigational channel to 18 the maximum depth required to maintain a project 19 depth of negative 48 feet mean low water, and 20 recommend to SEG the scope of scientific or 21 engineering investigation or investigations plural, 22 an analysis or analyzes plural, to address these 23 concerns. 24 I have to say we probably spent an entire 25 meeting on those words; that is, the Aquifer 12 1 2 Committee spent an entire meeting to get those 3 particular words that define the mission. 4 The Working Group met March 13th and 14th of 5 2001 to determine the relative technical concerns 6 that should be addressed. 7 What are those concerns? I've mentioned them 8 at other meetings here. I repeat it, it's in the 9 minutes, it's in the minutes, it's in the minutes. 10 The rate and quantity of saltwater leakage 11 through the Upper Floridan confining unit that may 12 result from harbor deepening is unknown. 13 There's some confusion among some about where 14 saltwater comes from and saltwater comes different 15 places. 16 This concern is from above. This concern is 17 from above, not laterally, which relates to the 18 cone of depression. This has nothing to do with 19 the cone of depression. 20 This has to do with saltwater moving in from 21 above. It's called vertical leakage. It's a 22 mathematical number. We don't want to deal with 23 mathematics, but it is a concern because it's not 24 known. 25 I'm not saying that. I'm not a hydrologist. 13 1 2 I've said that 100 times and I'll say it one more 3 time, I'm not a hydrologist, so I cannot speak for 4 that profession, but I am geologist so I can speak 5 for that profession. 6 Changes in chloride concentration; that is, 7 salinity with time in the Upper Floridan Aquifer 8 that may be caused by harbor deepening also is not 9 known. 10 The hydrologic properties, salinity, and 11 hydraulic head, by hydraulic head we mean the 12 difference between what's high and what's low 13 that's lets water move from high to low, it's a 14 very technical concept, and it's an important 15 component of all of this, because basically the 16 aquifer is like a garden hose. 17 Water comes in at one end and goes out at the 18 other. And either it moves through the host or it 19 doesn't move through the hose. It happens that it 20 moves through the hose. 21 It's under pressure. That pressure is 22 hydraulic head. The hydraulic properties, salinity 23 and hydraulic head within the Upper Floridan 24 confining unit, are poorly known, as is the spatial 25 variability of these parameters. 14 1 2 The confining unit is the unit that's the 3 rubber of the hose. That confines the water. 4 There is basically a layer of impervious -- doesn't 5 transmit water -- impervious, that's called a 6 confining unit, also called an aquitard. 7 So there's a lot that isn't known. Why? 8 Well, unlike geology where stuff is at the surface, 9 you can see volcanoes erupt, you can see 10 earthquakes take place, you can knock rocks and get 11 pieces in your eye when you break them, this is all 12 underground, like mining underground. It's a 13 special field. 14 People who are involved in this have x-ray 15 vision. They can look underground and see what's 16 going on 4, 500 feet below, in a manner of 17 speaking. 18 It's an underground science, hydrology is. 19 When I say why do we know all this stuff? Well, 20 because the Floridan Aquifer has been a motherload 21 of water for ever since we punched the first hole 22 into it. The motherload -- it's probably one of 23 the most prolific aquifers on the continent. 24 The hydraulic properties and geometry on the 25 paleochannels are poorly understood. Now, what in 15 1 2 the world are paleochannels? Paleo is ancient, 3 ancient channels. Whether we like it or not, we 4 once went through an Ice Age. We weren't around. 5 This is about 18,000, 15,000 years ago. 6 Sea level was minimally 300 feet lower than it 7 is today, so the coastline lay about 80 miles 8 offshore. So if you want to go out to Tybee, you 9 drive another 80 miles. 10 Mammoths and mastodons are running around. 11 Sabertooth tigers are running around. Shrimpers 12 dredge up their fossils constantly -- make them 13 into wonderful doorstops. They're big guys, big 14 bones. 15 Two Michael Jacksons on top of each other 16 would go from the foot to the top of mammoth, 14 17 feet at the shoulder. Well, rivers were draining 18 out there, and these rivers cut channels just like 19 the Savannah River, and the Ogeechee River, and 20 the Altamaha River today are cutting channels. 21 When the sea came back again, the channels got 22 filled in with newer sediment, and you can tell 23 those. These guys have x-ray vision. They can see 24 these channels down there, and the property of 25 sediments in those channels differ from the 16 1 2 non-channel sediment. 3 So Jim Henry is working on these 4 paleochannels. Which direction do they go? They 5 happen to be going northeast. That was a different 6 drainage pattern. We kind of got to know where 7 they are. Well, we think we have to know where 8 they are. The geologic framework needs to be 9 better defined. 10 Again, let me point out that these words are 11 carefully chosen. These technical concerns are 12 recommended to and accepted by the Aquifer 13 Committee on April 20 of 2001. One, two, three, 14 four, five. That's it. 15 The Working Group status report was presented 16 to the SEG on May 1st of 2001, and I guess I did 17 that, and probably most of have kind of forgotten 18 about it because that's a long time ago, but it's 19 on the web page. Just navigate. Larry has a 20 superb web page. You can navigate through that 21 very, very easily. 22 So The Working Group reconvened. That's 23 pulling all these people together face to face. No 24 easy task for two days. We weren't sitting around 25 twiddling thumbs. They stopped what they were 17 1 2 doing and got together for this. 3 Identify 10 potential study tasks. They 4 preferred to use the word task. Determine an 5 initial draft study plan was prepared and 6 distributed to The Working Group for review and 7 comment, and much of this was done electronically. 8 The Working Group met again on December 6th of 9 2001, six months later, to discuss the initial 10 draft study plan and to refine the study tasks. 11 Now, I did not attend any of those meetings. 12 I couldn't. They conflicted with my teaching 13 schedule. I only went the afternoon of December 14 6th just to see the sense of it all. 15 So I'm the barer of the information. And if 16 you don't like the information, don't attack me. 17 Don't do the ad hominem act. I'm just bearing the 18 information. 19 Six -- this is important -- six work tasks 20 were retained in the draft final study plan. 21 Two additional tasks were not retained. Those two 22 tasks that were not retained were by vote. Sorry, 23 consensus doesn't work here, and the vote was very, 24 very close. 25 The draft study plan is presented to the 18 1 2 Aquifer Committee, which met for the first time in 3 almost a year to the date on April 5th, 2002. Now, 4 I'm just digressing for a moment. I didn't make 5 this front to back. I left the back pages blank so 6 you can write down voluminous notes, so I used 7 extra paper. 8 So if you need to make notes, please use the 9 back of the paper. So we're still dealing with the 10 history. 11 Now, here's what y'all came to hear, and I'm 12 not springing any surprises on you because you've 13 already read the whole thing as I was talking. 14 The tasks that are being asked for are a 15 seismic reflective survey. That's sending off 16 little explosive charges and sound waves go through 17 and come back up again to, for example, define 18 better where the paleo channels are as an example. 19 More accurately determine the thickness of 20 the upper Floridan confining unit. Here we go. 21 This is the guy. Is he too thick, too thin, is he 22 there, not there. If he's not there, are we going 23 to have a problem? If the little that's there is 24 taken away, is that going to be a problem? 25 We don't know very much about that upper 19 1 2 confining unit in this area. What we do know is 3 the unit, the stratigraphic unit, the layer of rock 4 that holds the hold -- in geology we use the term 5 plunge -- it's a layer that slopes to the south. 6 So the farther south you go, the deeper down you 7 have to go to a particular reference point. 8 The plunge is south, which means the farther 9 north you go the closer to the surface that 10 reference point is. 11 The question is, you got to even find the 12 confining unit, and there's going to be 13 disagreement among stratigraphers whether this is 14 the confining unit, or it's not the confining unit, 15 it's another unit. 16 Stratigraphers are notorious for not accepting 17 what somebody else wants to identify it as. We 18 call these units. We call them formations. They 19 have formal names like you and I. We name these. 20 They're like brothers and sisters, parents, with 21 names. 22 Gain better resolution of the geometry and 23 orientation of the paleochannels, something I just 24 mentioned a moment ago. 25 Seismic reflective survey will determine that. 20 1 2 Identify potential exploratory drilling locations 3 along the navigation channel. 4 Remember, this is underground. The only way 5 we can really see what's underground is through 6 reflective seismic studies and through drilling. 7 Drill holes. See what comes up. 8 Secondly, second task, a geologic transect to 9 obtain hydrologic data. Correlate stratigraphic 10 units. Correlation is a big term in geology. 11 Correlate means to link a layer of rock in one 12 location with what you think is the same layer of 13 rock 100 miles away. That's correlation. 14 So if this is the layer of rock, my index 15 finger, the correlative rock cannot be my middle 16 finger over here. That's not correlative. This 17 one is either going to be younger or older, higher 18 or lower. Stratigraphers correlate. Their whole 19 life is correlating layers of rock. 20 Develop a geologic section, that is to 21 graphically display scale down what's underground, 22 because we can't get an enormous bulldozer and 23 trench 100 foot deep channel for 5 miles, let's 24 say. You create a section. Develop a chloride 25 concentration profile. So that's what that task 21 1 2 would do. 3 Task three is to construct monitoring well 4 clusters, to obtain hydrologic head data, the 5 differential between the high and the low that 6 let's the liquid move. 7 Task four, an in-channel, it's in the channel 8 exploratory drilling to determine the thickness of 9 -- here come those paleochannels again. They may 10 not be a problem but we don't know, not only the 11 thickness, but their regional extent left to right. 12 Determine hydrologic characteristics of those 13 sediments. They're going to be different than the 14 rest of the sediments that are outside of those 15 paleochannels. Develop chloride concentration 16 profile within the paleochannel sediments. 17 Task five, to compile database to research all 18 relevant historic data, and that's already been 19 started. John pulled an enormous body of technical 20 reports that have been written, and they're on the 21 page. 22 Access them. I don't know. John, what was 23 it, about 60, 65. 24 MR. COX: I don't know if it was quite that 25 many, Chris, maybe 40 or 50. 22 1 2 MR. SCHUBERTH: Forty or 50. All right. So 3 they're there. There's information, but there's 4 not enough information. Develop a digital 5 database. 6 Task six is to develop numerical model of 7 the hydrologic system including the underlying 8 navigation channel. 9 Now, here's the kicker. Predict vertical, not 10 lateral -- vertical, not lateral -- vertical 11 saltwater encroachment into and transport within 12 the Upper Floridan Aquifer that may result from 13 Savannah Harbor expansion alternatives. Provide a 14 tool for future decision making. 15 Now, those are the tasks, and Larry had 16 questioned whether they were there. They're there. 17 They're buried in. They're in the minutes of the 18 seventh meeting of the Aquifer Committee meeting, 19 together with -- together with the extensive 20 discussion centering around a difference of 21 opinion. 22 I can't speak to it. It's not my field. Two 23 additional tasks have been identified by The 24 Working Group, but those two additional tasks were 25 not included in the final document, following a 23 1 2 close vote of The Working Group members. 3 I referenced that about 10 minutes ago. When 4 presented to the Aquifer Committee, this was on 5 April 5th, and following a continuing lengthy 6 discussion by Aquifer Committee members, the two 7 tasks were reinstated. 8 Who reinstated them? The Aquifer Committee. 9 Who took them out? The Working Group. That's the 10 dynamics. 11 The two tasks are, and in my presentation 12 here, are identified by letter to distinguish them 13 from the others that are all no problem with them 14 identified by number. And that's to avoid 15 confusion. 16 To conduct in-situ, that's in place hydraulic 17 test of the Upper Floridan confining unit. Now, 18 you may heard this, read this word hydraulic test 19 or pump test, because this was the central issue 20 down in Richmond Hill when they wanted to drill and 21 extract water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer. 22 And after a very lengthy debate on that issue, 23 the permit by the state was denied to drill into 24 the Lower Floridan Aquifer because, basically, what 25 was being said in brief summary is that the pump 24 1 2 test or this hydraulic test that was being 3 conducted was inadequate. 4 It was a time frame of 72 hours, so on and so 5 forth. That's a technicality. But it would be the 6 same kind of a pump test. 7 Now, I have made it a point to take the 8 language exactly as it's in the minutes. There's 9 nothing new here, no editorializing. No 10 Schuberth-isms are in here. This is exactly the 11 way it's in the minutes. 12 A pumping well would be installed at Ft. 13 Pulaski transect site in addition to the monitoring 14 well cluster. The pumping well would be open to 15 the uppermost water-bearing part of the Upper 16 Floridan Aquifer. 17 Well specifications for the pumping well would 18 be developed upon further review of the lithologic, 19 that means rock type, lithologic data obtained 20 during the completion of task two. 21 After installation of monitoring well clusters 22 or pressure transducer array and the pumping well, 23 an in-situ hydraulic test of the Upper Floridan 24 confining unit would be conducted by the pumping 25 water from the uppermost part of the Upper Floridan 25 1 2 Aquifer and monitoring head changes within each 3 monitoring well or pressure transducer and the 4 pumping well. 5 The duration and rate of pumping of the Upper 6 Floridan Aquifer necessary to induce measurable 7 hydraulic responses within the confining unit are 8 unknown at this time. You can't say it's going to 9 be 72 hours or 720 hours or 7,200 hours. 10 That was the issue with the Richmond Hill 11 scenario. The pumping rate and duration needed to 12 induce a measurable response would be estimated 13 during the actual design of aquitard test, and be 14 based on reasonable estimates of vertical hydraulic 15 conductivity and storativity of the confining unit. 16 You don't want to know the definitions of 17 those terms. They're standard technical terms in 18 hydrogeology. 19 The rationale, the minority position of 20 Working Group members for conducting in-situ 21 hydraulic test of the Upper Floridan confining unit 22 are, and there are five of them, vertical hydraulic 23 conductivity is a scale dependent parameter. 24 Aquitard tests are recognized as the best 25 approach to determine estimates of vertical 26 1 2 hydraulic conductivity. That number three 3 shouldn't be there. Sorry. 4 Three, laboratory derived estimates of 5 vertical hydraulic conductivity are less 6 representative of field conditions than are 7 aquitard tests. 8 And four, the cost associated with conducting 9 aquitard testing is nominal, and aquitard testing 10 is the best approach to determine vertical 11 hydraulic conductivity deemed critical parameter by 12 the entire Working Group. 13 Now, don't ask me why it was decided to be 14 left out. Don't ask me why the SEG -- the Aquifer 15 Committee decided to put it in. I cannot speak to 16 this. 17 I can speak to correlation. I can speak to 18 stratigraphy. I can't speak to this. Others in 19 this room can. 20 The second task is to evaluate that data. 21 That's a natural corollary that follows. So 22 there's no need to elaborate on that. That would 23 simply be to evaluate and analyze the data that is 24 developed by this in-situ hydraulic test. 25 Here we have some of John's research, and 27 1 2 finding the literature with individuals like Hayes 3 in 1979 calculated this and this and this. 4 Rather than read all of that, because it's on 5 the web and it's in your notes, I'll forego that 6 discussion. That's technical. 7 Finally, the initial in-situ hydraulic test 8 would be evaluated to determine the feasibility and 9 necessity of conducting additional tests at other 10 locations along the geologic transect row. 11 One test alone may not be adequate. One test 12 alone may be adequate. Should the initial aquitard 13 test be successful in eliciting a measurable head 14 response, thereby allowing vertical hydraulic 15 conductivity to be computed additional aquitard 16 tests should then be performed at other sites. 17 Field testing would cease following the first 18 unsuccessful test or following the fourth or fifth 19 successful one. That is about four or five tests 20 should be sufficient to complete the tasks and meet 21 study objectives. 22 If the field vertical hydraulic conductivity 23 values are different than the lab derived data, 24 then a correlation factor will be applied to the 25 existing lab derived data. 28 1 2 Again, I think we are absolutely beholding to 3 this Working Group. We're beholding to John, who 4 is sitting in that corner there. He's a very quiet 5 guy, he doesn't like to promote himself very much, 6 who really did a herculean task in bringing all of 7 this to this point, almost a year and a half after 8 this whole thing initially got started. 9 In the geological context of time that was 10 very, very fast. I can't ask you for any questions 11 because I probably wouldn't be able to answer them. 12 When I e-mailed to Ben Dysart I said, after my 13 presentation, I said who knows what will happen. 14 So Ben it's all yours. 15 MR. DYSART: Thank you. I was telling Will 16 you really stayed on message there nice and clear. 17 I appreciate that. I'm sure there is discussion. 18 Are there comments? I presume John would be 19 available -- is anybody else here who would be 20 willing and able to respond on behalf of The 21 Working Group or the committee? 22 MR. COX: I think I'm the only person from The 23 Working Group present. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. Who would like to address 25 comments or questions to either Chris or to John? 29 1 2 Tom. 3 MR. SCARDINO: Chris, you described the 4 aquifer as, in one manner of phrase, a garden hose 5 and the thickness of the rubber, the amount of 6 protection that's afforded above that would prevent 7 the vertical intrusion of saltwater. 8 If I may, I notice as one of the tasks of the 9 group is to develop a visual model. I think it's 10 in the second major task, develop geologic section. 11 MR. SCHUBERTH: Right. 12 MR. SCARDINO: So you could actually look at 13 it and see. Is it just to get a sense of that 14 visually? 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: I'm not sure in what detail. 16 John can speak to that. I'm not sure how detailed 17 that section would be. 18 You can make a very general section that 19 doesn't show very much except very broad 20 relationships, or you could make a very close 21 microscopic view of a part of that section 22 sort of enlarged. 23 MR. SCARDINO: Right. 24 MR. SCHUBERTH: That depends on the scale on 25 which that section is being produced. I don't know 30 1 2 John, what was the -- 3 MR. SCARDINO: Just to get a very simplified 4 visual image, if you had a garden hose running 5 through thick grass, and the dredging is the 6 lawnmower that's coming to cut the grass. And the 7 issue is if the top of that hose is nicked, how 8 much pressure will it withstand before we have 9 intrusion? Is that anywhere near -- 10 MR. COX: I guess that's a reasonable analogy. 11 The plan would call for five discrete sites which 12 are for exploratory borings to be advanced and 13 penetrate the full thickness of the upper confining 14 unit, Upper Floridan confining unit. 15 There is a certain amount of variability, 16 depending on geographically on where even one is 17 in the relatively short distance between Savannah 18 and the end of the bar channel. 19 Thicknesses probably range from maybe 120 feet 20 here in Savannah to as thin as maybe 40 to 50 feet 21 out toward Tybee. 22 Part of the study plan or aspect of the study 23 plan would be to get a better handle on the 24 thickness of the upper confining unit, as well as 25 the hydraulic properties. It's not purely a 31 1 2 function of how thick that unit is. It's also a 3 function of the ambient hydraulic properties of 4 that unit, how well it transmits water. 5 One thing Chris said earlier in the 6 presentation, which I think does bare 7 reexamination, he mentioned we are interested in 8 the vertical leakage of saltwater. That's very 9 much the case. We are interested in that. 10 But that is also a function of the cone of 11 depression which has been established here in 12 Savannah over the -- well, since about the 1930s. 13 Certainly, that cone of depression is what is 14 driving or allowing local recharge of saline water 15 and freshwater, depending on the water type near 16 surface into the Upper Floridan Aquifer. 17 It was probably moving through that confining 18 unit. That's a direct result of the reversal of 19 the ambient hydraulic gradient. Before, the 20 development of the aquifer was virtually upward. 21 So freshwater was flowing up through that 22 confining unit, and there was no threat whatsoever 23 of vertical saltwater intrusion. Even if there was 24 no confining unit, the water still would have been 25 flowing upward or much thinned. 32 1 2 I can't say it was completely unconfined, 3 exactly how the hydraulics would have been. Over 4 the years through pumpage of the resource to the 5 tune of 80 million gallons a day, that hydraulic 6 gradient has been exactly reversed and now water 7 is moving vertically downward instead of 8 discharging vertically up. 9 So there are a combination of factors that 10 play into how vulnerable the Upper Floridan Aquifer 11 would be to vertical movement of saltwater. 12 Thickness of the confining unit is one. 13 Hydraulic conductivity of the unit is another. 14 And the hydraulic gradient, the vertical gradient 15 which will vary also is kind of a third component 16 that would determine it. Does that answer your 17 question? 18 MR. SCARDINO: Yeah. And is it certain that 19 the project would compromise that layer in specific 20 locations? 21 MR. COX: Well, I think there certainly are 22 locations within the dredging, the proposed 23 dredging prism where additional dredging or 24 deepening would touch the Upper Floridan confining 25 unit. 33 1 2 Similarly, I believe there are the areas where 3 it will not, even the deepest dredging would not 4 touch the confining unit. So anywhere that 5 additional confining material would be removed, no 6 one disputes that that would cause some increase in 7 vertical recharge of whatever is above the 8 confining unit at that point, be it you remove one 9 millimeter or one meter, there would be some 10 increase in movement of water through that 11 confining unit. 12 And like I say, there are, at least from my 13 opinion in looking at the number of boring logs 14 that have been drilled over the years, I think 15 there's a substantial portion of the channel where 16 that unit won't even be touched, even in the 17 deepest alternative. 18 MR. SCARDINO: Thank you. 19 MR. DYSART: Further questions, comments? 20 David. 21 MR. KYLER: I'm not sure I have a grasp on a 22 point made on page 10, in rationale of the minority 23 position on this in-situ approach. Item one, the 24 vertical hydraulic conductivity is a scale 25 dependent parameter. 34 1 2 That means that different site locations, as 3 you were describing, both the hydraulic and 4 thickness characteristics would be different. How 5 does that relate to this -- 6 MR. COX: I think the argument there for item 7 number one is that -- let me back up. No one on 8 The Working Group believes that a reasonable 9 determination of vertical hydraulic conductivity of 10 the upper confining unit is an unimportant factor. 11 We all agree that's important information. 12 There were differences of opinion of how to get 13 there. 14 You essentially have two alternatives. You 15 can drill, and advance core barrels, and get 16 discrete samples, which are small diameter samples, 17 and take those samples to a geotechnical 18 laboratory. 19 Typically, on this they would use falling head 20 permeameter tests, and they would come up with a 21 value that would say this is the hydraulic 22 conductivity of this particular section of sample. 23 It affects a very small area. The idea of 24 a pumping test, in-situ sort of test, is that your 25 area of influence where you could pick up any 35 1 2 secondary permeability enhancing features would be 3 accounted for because you might be affecting an 4 area that might have a radius of several tens of 5 feet, several hundreds of feet, as opposed to a few 6 inches. 7 The counter to that, though, is that getting 8 core samples and running laboratory permeameter 9 tests is much easier done, and you can get hundreds 10 of tests at a much greater geographic distribution 11 than you can for the same amount of effort than you 12 can with pumping tests. 13 And one of my personal arguments is that if 14 you do a pumping test at a discrete point, or even 15 four or five pumping tests, you still have to plug 16 those values into the conceptual model, and the 17 conceptual model will have a lot of variability 18 depending on where you are. 19 I think you could actually do a better job of 20 defining that variability of discrete sample, ie, 21 core samples taken to the laboratory, are we likely 22 to pick up secondary on a one-to-one ratio, pick up 23 secondary permeability -- probably not as well 24 on a pump test. Does that answer your question? 25 MR. KYLER: In part. I thought previous 36 1 2 discussion of this at the SEG level had to do with 3 the fact core samples would possibly miss some 4 vertical conduits that would exist in the stratos. 5 MR. COX: That's a possibility. I would also 6 argue that a pumping test may well also. There's 7 so many lines of evidence in the research that I've 8 done, and the papers that I've looked at that argue 9 against any substantial secondary permeability in 10 the upper confining unit. 11 I can interpret that the group voting that 12 issue down felt it's unnecessary to do these 13 pumping tests. We can have a high enough level of 14 confidence in the discrete -- 15 MR. KYLER: The term secondary refers to the 16 figures or conduits? 17 MR. COX: That would be any kind of process 18 that enhances ambient permeability of any rock 19 unit. In the Upper Floridan Aquifer, secondary 20 permeability is solutionally enlarged pathways and 21 channels and water has moved through that rock 22 matrix. 23 It is dissolved limestone to some extent. It 24 enhances the permeability of that unit. The Upper 25 Floridan confining unit, which for the most part 37 1 2 behaves ductally, the only real secondary 3 permeability I can think of would be the fractures 4 or joints. They would have to be interconnected 5 through the entire thickness of the unit. 6 And I think the way the unit would behave, 7 under a deformational stress, would be it would 8 bend, more likely bend rather than break. 9 It's going to behave more plastic than brittle 10 rocks that don't have hydrostatic or lithostatic 11 pressure on them or are unsaturated. 12 MR. KYLER: Was Fred Rich involved in this 13 process, Dr. Rich? 14 MR. COX: Not in The Working Group, he 15 declined to participate in The Working Group. He 16 did participate in the Aquifer Committee. 17 MR. KYLER: Because as I recall, he was one of 18 the geologists, or hydrogeologists, who had done 19 some research of the so-called confining unit and 20 had raised some specific questions -- 21 MR. COX: No, no. He hasn't done any research 22 of the confining unit. He has found two outcrops 23 in Coastal Georgia waters that have joints and 24 fractures, which correlate with the regional 25 tectonic stress field, but those sediments were not 38 1 2 part of the upper confining unit. They were 3 isolated outcrops at land surface, not at 4 depth, not saturated. 5 MR. KYLER: Are they not -- you say 6 outcrops, is that not the same geologic formation 7 that forms in the confining unit? 8 MR. COX: No, not necessarily. I don't think 9 he looked at miocene-age materials. I would also 10 say you could probably go to any aquifer system on 11 the face of the earth, and look at shallow sediment 12 outcrops. You would find joint fractures. That 13 doesn't mean it's not a confined aquifer under the 14 lime. 15 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 16 MR. STEVENS: I'm not sure if this is best 17 addressed to Chris or who. I'm going to ask a so 18 what question. I'm looking at a recommended 19 conceptual study plan, so now what? 20 Do we implement the plan or what happens now 21 that we have a conceptual study plan? 22 MR. COX: Chris, I'm going to defer that to 23 you as chairman of the Aquifer Committee. 24 MR. SCHUBERTH: Stuart, we carried out, that 25 is the Aquifer Committee carried out a 39 1 2 recommendation by the SEG to address the concerns 3 that had been raised at the SEG back there then 4 regarding the geology hydrology of the aquifer. 5 That's -- this is the result of that concern. 6 SEG sits with the authority to recommend 7 studies. So I guess what's being said by this 8 brief presentation, and by the work of the Aquifer 9 Committee, and the additional work of The Working 10 Group, is that these are recommendations, tasks, to 11 determine more accurately what impact there may be 12 on the aquifer, particularly the upper confining 13 unit, should the channel be deepened. 14 Now, we have these other recommendations on 15 fish. We have these other recommendations, so I 16 see this as part of all of those other 17 recommendations for the gathering of additional 18 information. 19 So I said to Ben, what happens now? I don't 20 know. I guess, you know, I guess the SEG needs to 21 say well, I think we have all the information that 22 we need. This is not going to add any -- it's not 23 going to enlarge our picture. It's not going to 24 clarify our picture. 25 I know some of the folks on The Working Group 40 1 2 said if we were able to get this information that 3 would really be -- using the language of kids -- 4 that would be neat, that would be nice to know. 5 There's a lot of unknowns. 6 On the other hand, I always remember Dave 7 Schaller's admonition very early in the process, 8 we're not going to study buffaloes. So if we look 9 at it in that sense, then I guess it just doesn't 10 go anywhere further. 11 I think it's relative. I think it's 12 important. I think all the members, all the 13 participants who are involved in this discussion 14 feel that there is -- further information would be 15 fruitful. 16 What further information would we want, well 17 that's what The Working Group defined. So I say it 18 would only be these few tasks. Now, each tasks may 19 be a major undertaking. I don't know. 20 I mean, it's like asking somebody to define 21 the geology of Wyoming. Yeah. It's only one state 22 of 50. To do that, it's a herculean task. I don't 23 think this is out of reach. 24 MR. DYSART: Chris, let me ask, are you, on 25 behalf of the committee -- is there a committee 41 1 2 recommendation that comes with the presentation. 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: This is what Larry had asked 4 me. I guess this is where I may have fallen short. 5 I kind of just assumed, of course, assumptions are 6 always so dangerous -- I just had assumed when The 7 Working Group, after a year of deliberations, 8 decided these were the tasks, I simply in my own 9 mind replaced the word task with recommendations. 10 So as I said to Larry this morning, these 11 would be buried in those minutes. These are the 12 tasks which would be translated into the 13 recommendations. 14 So we could say, even the cover heading says 15 recommended study plan would be to carry out, I 16 don't know what the number is -- these six tasks or 17 eight tasks because we added A and B, that would be 18 the recommendation. 19 MR. DYSART: So that is -- 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: Let me just finish. The 21 reduction to these six plus the A and B -- A has 22 already been done. It started out with 10. It got 23 reduced down to these. Now, you could say okay. 24 Chris, take this back to the Aquifer Committee and 25 The Working Group. 42 1 2 We want you guys now to reduce it down to 3 three. I mean, that's always a possibility, I 4 guess. So I don't know. That's why I said at this 5 point, this is what the folks would like to see 6 done. 7 These are the recommendations. This the 8 conceptual study plan, task one, task two, task 9 three, task four, task five, task six, task A, 10 task B. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. So this is the 12 recommendation from The Working Group. 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: The Working Group approved by 14 the Aquifer Committee, and that approval was based 15 upon reinserting tasks A and B back into the menu, 16 because The Working Group had taken A and B out. 17 That's why I said and made it very clear, here 18 we have page nine, the difference of opinion which 19 is very, very, very important. That's the way 20 science works. No gospel truth. 21 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 22 MR. STEVENS: It just seems to me that when 23 this issue first came up, and we all discussed how 24 critical impacts to our freshwater resources might 25 be, this committee was created. 43 1 2 I had an expectation the committee would go 3 off, hopefully bring some recommendations about the 4 potential impacts. It seems like we've got a 5 recommendation we need further data before any 6 decision might be made. 7 It's not unlike what we looked at in wetlands, 8 fisheries, or other potential impacts. If we need 9 more data to make the right decision, it seems like 10 this body would say, let's get the data to make the 11 best decision we can. 12 I don't know how necessarily we would proceed 13 with that. Maybe we make this recommendation to 14 GPA and GPA looks at the six or eight tasks and 15 decides is it doable or not, then discuss -- maybe 16 we can't do all eight of them. I don't know. 17 It appears the best experts we can get 18 together can't make a decision about whether we 19 should go forward or not without additional data. 20 So it seems like we've got to have some data. 21 MR. DYSART: Bob. 22 MR. SCANLON: I would just like to comment 23 that -- quoting Patty McIntosh -- one of the 24 non-ologists that was present at the Aquifer 25 Committee meetings, someone who did -- I did read a 44 1 2 lot. I've read all of the documentation preceding 3 the meeting. And just to give a little insight as 4 to why the committee felt it important to put these 5 tasks back in, even though we admit we're not 6 professionals, was the experts there were split. 7 It was a very, very close decision. I mean, 8 we were basically down to counting the hanging 9 chads. The majority of the Aquifer Committee felt 10 that the consequence of making the wrong choice 11 here is very significant, and we are looking at the 12 health of the drinking water supply for the City of 13 Savannah, Hilton Head, Tybee Island. 14 There is a very significant potential negative 15 impact if we make the wrong decision. So the 16 committee felt that it was important to put these 17 tasks back in, to get as much information, so that 18 we can make the best decision based on the best 19 science that would be available to make that 20 decision. 21 That was the reason for the committee voting 22 to put these two tasks back in, with the hope that 23 all of this study would, in fact, be conducted 24 before a decision is made on the deepening of the 25 channel. 45 1 2 MS. JENNINGS: Judy. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Ben, John, not to pick on you, 4 maybe Chris, I think we need to be plain about why 5 there was some lack of you unanimity among The 6 Working Group about whether or not to do in-situ 7 hydraulic test. 8 My understanding was just that the possibility 9 that if you do it, that you might not be able to 10 create the conditions that would produce answers. 11 You might not. John, help me. 12 MR. COX: Well, that was a consideration. 13 MS. JENNINGS: When we say not unanimity about 14 not going forward, we need to be clear about 15 why The Working Group had some disagreement. 16 MR. COX: That was one of several concerns 17 that were raised by the majority that voted against 18 in-situ testing. 19 Certainly, there is some question as to what 20 the likelihood of success of the test is that 21 would yield meaningful data. 22 MS. JENNINGS: Success meaning it would or 23 would not yield meaningful data. 24 MR. COX: Yeah. To do a pumping test and come 25 up with a value of hydraulic conductivity which 46 1 2 would be the objective of such a test, you have to 3 have a measurable response in the zone that you are 4 monitoring. 5 One could say, geez, we pumped this thing 60 6 days and didn't get a measurable response. Does 7 that mean it's useless? The only thing you could 8 say there is we didn't see a response. 9 You have to have some number other than zero 10 to back in and plug into your equation by which 11 you derive values of hydraulic conductivity. 12 If we didn't get a measurable response, that 13 could be argues then that would represent a failure 14 of the test. While we were not specifically to 15 consider costs, I did bring that up to The Working 16 Group. 17 I said, I think we do need to keep in mind 18 what value are we getting, what will be the 19 relevant value versus the cost to do something. 20 And some people in The Working Group said oh, the 21 cost to do pumping tests were nominal. 22 I would argue that's in the eye of the 23 beholder. They would not be insignificant costs 24 associated with doing pumping tests, especially if 25 more than one was done. 47 1 2 So I think the bottom line to say to interpret 3 why the majority of The Working Group voted the way 4 they did was that there were concerns about the 5 technical feasibility of doing such a test. 6 There were concerns about where will we stop, 7 where will we say, well, we pumped it for 90 days. 8 If we pumped it for 95 days, we would have seen a 9 response. 10 It was going to be very difficult to establish 11 clear-cut criteria by which we would say okay. 12 We're going to terminate this test and say we 13 didn't see a measurable response. 14 There's a lot of ambient interference. All 15 the pumpage in the area of Savannah and Tybee. 16 You've got barometric considerations. You've got 17 tidal considerations. 18 They can be accounted for, but they do 19 interfere with the test and they will have to be 20 accounted for in the data reduction and data 21 analysis or analyzes. 22 Also, there were concerns about well, okay. 23 If we do one here and it's unsuccessful, we're just 24 going to keep chasing until we find a site it is 25 successful. And I personally have a hard time with 48 1 2 that. I think some of the other members of The 3 Working Group did as well. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I guess my response to 5 that would be the fact that the recommendation of 6 the committee, of the Aquifer Committee, was not 7 to chase it relentlessly, but to conduct a test. 8 MR. COX: Well, you asked me why -- I think 9 you asked me why -- 10 MS. JENNINGS: Why, you're right. You 11 answered. 12 MR. COX: -- The Working Group voted it down. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Right. 14 MR. COX: And that was why. Keeping in mind 15 that at the April 5th meeting of the Aquifer 16 Committee, those very things, those two very items, 17 the pumping test or in-situ test and the analysis 18 of any data derived from that test have to be 19 plugged back in. 20 The Aquifer Committee, in essence, overrode 21 the recommendation on that particular issue from 22 The Working Group. I'm not here arguing take 23 that back out. You asked what was the majority 24 opinion. That was to the best of my recollection 25 what it was. 49 1 2 MR. DYSART: David. 3 MR. KYLER: This is jumping backwards in the 4 evolution of this conversation, but I still think 5 it's relevant. The hydraulic test producing a zero 6 result after any period of time is viewed as an 7 unsuccessful test, and yet is it not true, at least 8 over that period of time whatever is applied to 9 that, the outcome reveals there's no hydraulic 10 conductivity between the surface waters and the 11 aquifer, is that right? 12 MR. COX: Yeah. You could qualitatively say 13 there's no effect, but you wouldn't then have a 14 number or numbers that you could plug into to 15 derive -- 16 MR. KYLER: And because that's considered by 17 some as unsuccessful for the purposes mentioned, 18 that means that there's no consensus among the 19 geologists/hydrogeologists that say after a given 20 period that outcome of zero that determines there 21 is no conductivity to speak of. 22 MR. COX: Are you asking is there like a 23 prescribed number of days? 24 MR. KYLER: Yes. 25 MR. COX: No. Every case is unique. Every 50 1 2 case is absolutely unique, and no two tests, to the 3 best of my knowledge, are ever identical. The 4 duration of pumping may vary. The pumping rates 5 may vary. The monitored zones will vary. 6 It would be very unreasonable, in my opinion, 7 to try to apply a standard to every pumping test. 8 If there is a standard, the only standard I'm aware 9 of is that people say, or the experts in hydraulics 10 say a pumping test should be run a minimum 72 11 hours. 12 That's about the only standard or anything 13 approaching a standard I'm personally aware of. 14 One could argue such a pumping test that gives 15 value where there was no measurable result was done 16 at Tybee. I believe it was in '97, a group out of 17 Clemson did a pumping test of what they thought 18 was the Upper Brunswick Aquifer. 19 It would appear that they were actually 20 pumping the upper portion of the Upper Floridan 21 Aquifer. They did not see any draw down effects, 22 at least for the duration of those tests under 23 those conditions. There was no measurable response 24 across the confining unit. 25 Now, not having the access to the test data, 51 1 2 the raw data, I can't speak to was the test 3 properly run. I only can assume it was. A similar 4 situation could also be said, but it applies to the 5 lower confining unit wherein Bob Fay, a former 6 USGS gentleman, did a very conservative model 7 looking at the pumping test data at Richmond Hill, 8 and concluded that by pumping Lower Floridan -- I 9 forget what the pumping rate was -- maybe around 3, 10 400 gallons a minute pumping 24 hours a day 7 days 11 a week for infinity, the maximum draw down he 12 expected to see in the Upper Floridan Aquifer was 13 about .4 feet. 14 So that would suggest variable 15 interconnectiveness in the lower zone. Also, if 16 you prescribe to Fred Rich's model, you would have 17 to assume the upper confining unit is fractured and 18 has secondary permeability so that lower zone. 19 There was no interconnectiveness demonstrated 20 during that pumping test and the subsequent 21 modelling under very conservative assumptions. 22 MR. KYLER: This is the Richmond Hill Lower 23 Floridan test you're talking about? 24 MR. COX: Yeah. That was the -- 25 MR. KYLER: Weren't there some very credible 52 1 2 questions about the legitimacy of that test? 3 MR. COX: I think the question that I'm aware 4 of revolved around how long was the pumping, the 5 duration of the test. 6 MR. KYLER: Right. 7 MR. COX: Again, Bob Fay, using modelling 8 techniques, he could account for the duration. 9 He could take the data that was derived and project 10 it out into the future. 11 Now, I don't know all the ins and outs of the 12 particular model he used or the data set he used. 13 I have seen his presentation of those results, and 14 I see him as a very credible person. 15 MR. DYSART: Will. 16 MR. BERSON: Well, speaking as a non-ologist 17 who attended the aquifer meeting, I sort of wanted 18 to relay one point I thought I took away from the 19 meeting that I thought impacted -- that affected, 20 in fact, these two items. 21 That was, I asked the question, it seems to me 22 we're very long on models with respect to the 23 aquifer and we're very short on in-field data. 24 Everyone around the room shook their head and said, 25 yes, that's exactly what's going on. From that 53 1 2 perspective I felt as if some work in the field 3 was warranted, just in order to confirm the models 4 that a lot of people were assuming were accurate. 5 And that -- if I misunderstood that, took that 6 away from the meeting, I'd love to hear about it 7 now. I wanted to report back to the SEG that that 8 was, for me, a very important point in reinserting 9 the two tasks that were taken out. 10 MR. COX: If I could respond. 11 MR. DYSART: Please. 12 MR. BERSON: Yes, please. 13 MR. COX: I think it's also important to 14 remember that John Clarke pointed out that during 15 the calibration process of any model that might be 16 used, that the one value that probably would be 17 manipulated to calibrate the model would be the 18 vertical hydraulic conductivity. 19 That's probably the most sensitive parameter 20 as well. I think it's important to think in terms 21 of we were a group who were put into a room and 22 said, you know, in a perfect world you had 23 unlimited resources, what study would you come up 24 with. 25 And I don't personally feel like this study 54 1 2 would be a bad study or would misrepresent 3 anything. I think it would be a fine study. I'm 4 not convinced that there aren't simpler 5 alternatives that could be done to come up with a 6 reasonable, predictive analysis of what might 7 happen. 8 I think, for instance, one could end points of 9 reasonable estimates of hydraulic conductivity 10 without the doing any field tests, for that matter 11 even doing anymore geotechnical or in-situ tests, 12 simply run models based on these end point 13 parameters and see what happens. 14 If you come up with reasonable scenarios, that 15 gives you some idea of what may happen. We were 16 tasked with okay, if you had a perfect world, 17 unlimited funds, and wanted to do this study; what 18 would you do. 19 This is what we came up with. Specifically, 20 we were told you don't have a budget to work with. 21 As I mentioned before, I did interject that if 22 nothing else to kind of keep things in reality, so 23 that we weren't discussing the hydrogeology of 24 Mars. Obviously, that's not relevant to this. 25 I don't want anyone to construe that I think 55 1 2 the study plan is non-relevant. It is. I'm just 3 saying I think things could be done on a more 4 simpler scale. It, at least, gives us some 5 reasonable estimate of what may or may not happen 6 if you dredge one millimeter, one meter, two 7 additional meters. That would give us, I think, a 8 reasonable level of confidence of what to expect. 9 MR. REINHERT: I think what needs to be done 10 is the Aquifer Committee needs to tell us what is 11 the information absolutely that has to be known 12 before we go forward with this. You know, like the 13 path that you were talking about, if you had an 14 unlimited budget in a perfect world, this isn't a 15 perfect world, and there is a budget. 16 So what needs to be known before we go 17 forward. Models can only take you so far. You 18 need data that encompasses that model. You can't 19 predict beyond the scope of the data. 20 How you -- I'm not a geologist or hydrologist, 21 but you need to come up with -- information 22 absolutely has to be known before we do something 23 that's irreversible and put that before the -- 24 MR. COX: I think that comment is more 25 appropriately addressed to the Aquifer Committee 56 1 2 than The Working Group, which I am the chair or was 3 the chair. I don't know if The Working Group is an 4 intact institute or not, but I don't dispute what 5 you are saying. 6 Again, just to lay the framework for the realm 7 we were working in, if you were going to answer 8 this question, how would you go about doing it. 9 I think if this plan were implemented, it 10 would answer the question. I think it would be 11 a very defensible plan. I think any -- any data 12 any predictive analysis would be very defensible. 13 Is it absolutely necessary to do this to get a 14 reasonable, predictive analysis. I'm not sure. My 15 feeling is there probably are simpler things that 16 could be done. Again, with the framework, the 17 realm of what we were asked to do, this is what 18 we've come up with, less, I point out, the two 19 tasks that were the reinserted by the Aquifer 20 Committee. 21 MR. DYSART: Chris. 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: In response to that previous 23 comment, there really are no absolutes in science, 24 unfortunately. The sun still travels around the 25 earth, physically, or does it? 57 1 2 It would be nice to have irreversible answers, 3 but it's really, I think, very difficult to 4 achieve. In terms of the discussion regarding task 5 A, that particular task probably has more 6 differences of opinion whether it should or should 7 not be carried out. 8 You go to any conference and you will hear 9 strong arguments for or against, very much like two 10 medical doctors on a case that say diametrically 11 opposite viewpoints, yet both are credentialed MDs. 12 This task A is probably one in which there's 13 going to be lengthy discussion. And my -- my 14 comeback on that, and I said so at the Aquifer 15 Committee meeting, whether you get the information 16 that you want, or you really don't get the 17 information you want, probably to get the 18 information even if it's negative is important. 19 That was a point that was made out -- that was 20 made at the meeting. The term redundancy also came 21 up. Of course, engineers are always working with 22 the concept of redundancy. It would seem to me 23 that if it's not going to add an exorbitant cost, 24 and I can't define an exorbitant cost. 25 In the report here it mentioned it would be 58 1 2 nominal. Again, nominal can be exorbitant to 3 someone else. It should be done. To now go back 4 and say can we simplify this equation further, I 5 think is unfair, in that The Working Group did 6 exactly that. 7 They said what is it that we really must know 8 in order to draw a particular conclusion, and 9 that's what they came up with. 10 MR. DYSART: Tom. 11 MR. REINHERT: That's great. If that's the 12 case, I think what's necessary is the scope of work 13 and budget to accomplish these tasks and put that 14 before the SEG. 15 MS. JENNINGS: It's here, Tom. 16 MR. REINHERT: Okay. Great. 17 MR. DYSART: Further comment. Reaction, 18 discussion. Judy. 19 MS. JENNINGS: This is so general, but I have 20 to say everything we do has some degree of risk 21 associated with it. There's no prediction analysis 22 or compilation of facts that you can derive a 23 prediction from that doesn't involve some degree of 24 risk. 25 So the fact one suggestion may or may not give 59 1 2 us the result, any results that we're looking for, 3 it's just one of the things that you do in science 4 that may or may not be productive. 5 I mean, you can't second guess science. I 6 think the question is on the table. I've heard the 7 Aquifer Committee make a recommendation. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. The recommendation of the 9 Aquifer Committee has been put on the table for 10 action, whatever you desire to do -- this body. 11 MR. SCHUBERTH: Let me just clarify to make 12 sure that the recommendation, since there is some 13 ambiguity, the recommendation is the language 14 described in tasks one through six and tasks A and 15 B. That's the recommendations. That gives you a 16 total of eight tasks, the way they're described in 17 here. 18 MR. DYSART: So we have a recommendation or a 19 motion from the committee. Does GPA or anybody 20 wish to comment on this -- comment or questions. 21 Okay. No more discussion. What is the pleasure of 22 this body? 23 A recommendation has been presented by Chris 24 on behalf of Aquifer Committee. Is there -- is 25 there, again, support for moving this to GPA, 60 1 2 getting them to respond? 3 MR. REINHERT: I move that the SEG adopt the 4 recommendations and put it before GPA for 5 consideration for funding. Is that the appropriate 6 language? 7 MR. SCANLON: Second that. 8 MR. REES: Can you repeat that? I couldn't 9 hear, Tom. 10 MR. REINHERT: I just made the motion the SEG 11 adopt the report from the Aquifer Committee, their 12 proposed recommendations, put them before GPA for 13 funding. 14 MS. JENNINGS: I agree with that, but can we 15 specify a time line, so that it's done sooner 16 rather than later. 17 MR. SCHALLER: I don't know what you mean by 18 that. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Well, do we care when it's 20 done? 21 MR. SCHALLER: Of course. 22 MS. JENNINGS: We do. 23 MR. SCHALLER: Sure. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Shall we make that decision 25 here. 61 1 2 MR. SCHALLER: I don't think we can. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Why not? 4 MR. SCHALLER: We're not in a position to make 5 that decision. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Why not -- who is? 7 MR. SCHALLER: That's going to be a 8 collaborative process with the Corps and relevant 9 experts who can make a determination about what 10 needs to be done, what that cost is, how long it 11 will take, what specifically those tasks will be. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Good. 13 MR. DYSART: David. 14 MR. KYLER: If I may presume to, what Judy is 15 trying to get at, were you not asking if we could 16 not get a time by which that decision of when to 17 proceed would be made? 18 MS. JENNINGS: I jumped over that assumed we 19 were going to do that. Sorry. I know that hasn't 20 happened, but I'm sorry. I did jump. 21 MR. KYLER: Would that not be a relevant thing 22 to know? 23 MS. JENNINGS: Yes. 24 MR. KYLER: As I understand the structure of 25 this decision, by the way, it's not a motion vote 62 1 2 kind of thing anyway. 3 MR. DYSART: Right. 4 MR. KYLER: It's a consensus decision. Some 5 of the newer people at the table may not understand 6 that. What we are seeking to do is reach consensus 7 on this package of recommendations, including the 8 eight points, with a concurrent understanding that 9 the decision on proceeding on these by those who 10 needed to make that decision for funding, it would 11 be made by a date certain sometime in the future. 12 What that time frame is is yet to be determined. 13 MR. DYSART: David. 14 MR. SCHALLER: I think if anyone, excuse me, 15 in the room is interested in moving this process 16 forward, it's the sponsor. But we have a situation 17 here, I think, if we look backwards for just a 18 moment of a Aquifer Committee that was convened two 19 years ago, has been working very hard, very 20 diligently for the last two years. 21 To expect us to make a decision in a week or 22 10 days or two weeks, I think is a bit unrealistic. 23 I think there's a lot more that has to be done, 24 before we get to that decision point, if you will, 25 about what it is that's going to be done, how much 63 1 2 is it going to cost, how long it's going to take, 3 and all of those things. 4 MR. DYSART: Will. 5 MR. BERSON: Can I propose a compromise? Can 6 we ask GPA, we can as a body adopt by consensus 7 this particular recommendation by the Aquifer 8 Committee, and then ask GPA report back to us on 9 what you think at the next meeting. 10 MR. SCHALLER: I'm not going to commit to the 11 next meeting. I will tell you this, as has been 12 our past practice, the recommendations of the SEG 13 will be fairly treated. 14 In fact, I think we've committed to pass them 15 on to the Corps, with respect to what the study 16 parameters must be with respect to identifying 17 impacts, and that's exactly what we'll do. 18 MR. BERSON: Okay. Could I nominate this for 19 an agenda item for next meeting. You can tell us 20 wherever we stand at that point. 21 MR. SCHALLER: Surely, Will. I'm not ducking 22 your question. 23 MR. BERSON: I know. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy. 25 MS. JENNINGS: I think you are ducking it. 64 1 2 Nothing here is new. Nothing is new. As a matter 3 of fact, the slowest thing on earth, I think even 4 slower than the SEG has been the Aquifer 5 Committee's work. This can't be a surprise to 6 anybody. Geology moves this quick. I don't think 7 it's new. I don't think it's a surprise. I think 8 you should be fully prepared to say do it. 9 MR. DYSART: David. 10 MR. SCHALLER: Thank you for that comment, 11 Judy, but for the record I'm not ducking the 12 question. 13 MS. JENNINGS: It's a matter of semantics. 14 I'm sorry. That's the way I see it. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. Is there -- is there 16 anybody who can't live with accepting the 17 recommendation from the Aquifer Committee on their 18 view of recommended studies? I see no objection 19 around the table. I declare a consensus to accept 20 this and pass it on for study and recommendation 21 back. Chris. 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: Having reached this juncture 23 now, in reference to the brief interchange as to 24 what happens now, I think is part of the bigger 25 picture of what influence or what lack of influence 65 1 2 the SEG has in this total process. 3 It's something that we've been debating pretty 4 aggressively in the last couple of meetings. What 5 I would not like to see happen is that in a figure 6 of speech, this recommendations go on a shelf and 7 kind of collect dust, and privately conversation 8 would be this just came out of there. You guys now 9 are the ones we're going to work with. What do you 10 think of this? They will read it for five minutes 11 and say some of stuff is good stuff. 12 I'd like to think that the amount of energy 13 and creative thinking by experts that went into 14 this is valued. I'm not saying it's not going to 15 be valued. I'm not saying that. I'm just 16 emphasizing the fact I'd like to think it is 17 valued, so that if this went out to California and 18 say, what do you think of these eight tasks? We 19 had this particular issue. Let me give you 10 20 minutes to describe the issue. 21 We've got a river. We've got a harbor. We've 22 got a channel. We've got an aquifer. We need to 23 do some additional studies. You give it to the 24 greatest guru out in California in groundwater 25 geology, and he'll read this and say, yeah, makes 66 1 2 sense to me, which is what I'd like to think 3 anybody would say. I would also add to that that 4 same groundwater geologist, that groundwater guru 5 would say I have a difference of opinion on task A. 6 Oh really, I'm not surprised, because we too had a 7 difference of opinion on task A. 8 So I'm going to give it to somebody else who 9 may have a different opinion than yours. There we 10 go with two medical doctors in court. 11 But what I would like not to see happen is 12 that, and I'm not using this in a pejorative sense, 13 I'd like not to think that this study will simply 14 be dismissed and it will go to -- and I don't mean 15 this negative -- an inner circle of close advisors 16 who will say hey, deep six this and this is what 17 we'll do. And whether David is saying that or not, 18 I don't think he's saying that, but there is always 19 that possibility that this could simply be 20 dismissed. I think when Judy asked her question 21 and David responded to that question Bill -- Will 22 was commenting, I think we're touching on this 23 concern, what happens now. 24 That's why I said to Ben, that is kind of 25 anybody's guess. So I would like to see this to be 67 1 2 valued with a capital V. 3 MR. DYSART: So noted on the record. Let's 4 go ahead and take our break. 5 (Short Break) 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. So let's return to our 7 discussion. Is there further discussion concerning 8 the Aquifer Committee report? Chris. 9 MR. SCHUBERTH: In light of the discussion 10 that followed, I would like to make the suggestion 11 that the draft of the agenda reflect updates of the 12 status of the Aquifer Committee's work -- have that 13 as an item under old business, or something that 14 would simply be an update on the status of the 15 aquifer report. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. 17 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think John probably feels 18 the same. I can't speak for him, but there is some 19 proprietary sense a lot of creative energy went 20 into this. A lot of good thinking went into this. 21 I would like it not to fall off the table, if 22 it's here even. If there's something to say and 23 there's no report, at least the record will reflect 24 there's no further report regarding the status of 25 the work done by the Aquifer Committee. 68 1 2 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 3 MR. STEVENS: I was confused. What finally -- 4 I got confused. What's now going to happen with 5 respect to an agenda item or what? Can we say 6 what's going to happen with respect to this? 7 MR. DYSART: So far as the agenda, there will 8 be an agenda item next time calling for an update 9 on the status of the Aquifer Committee report. 10 MR. STEVENS: Then David had said you're going 11 to go back and talk to the Corps about the 12 potential of doing something like that? 13 MR. SCHALLER: Yes, most definitely. I'm 14 going to try to not get emotional about some of the 15 -- if there is a presumption we're going to put 16 it on a shelf, that couldn't be further from the 17 truth. 18 We're going to take the recommendation, submit 19 it to the Corps, and undertake the normal process 20 -- what I think has been clearly an interim process 21 -- to examine all of the issues related to the 22 aquifer. And that's where we're headed. 23 I can't answer a question about yes, we'll do 24 it. I have no idea what, you know, the budget is. 25 I can't do that here now. I think that would be, 69 1 2 frankly, irresponsible. So it will go to the 3 Corps, and there will be a collaborative process to 4 deliberate these issues that these folks have put 5 in a lot of time and effort developing. 6 And that's the best I can do. I mean, 7 obviously, it is a very important issue to us as 8 a local sponsor, no doubt to the Corps, and to 9 everybody at this table, everybody in town. It's 10 important issue, and it will -- it will get its 11 due. 12 MR. SCHUBERTH: And I say thank for 13 clarifying. 14 MR. DYSART: I think we've gotten good closure 15 on that and appreciate your presentation, Chris, 16 and I appreciate John's presentation, and I 17 understand that he needs to duck out and start a 18 thousand mile drive, so forth. We thank you for 19 being here with us today. 20 Okay. Next, do we have anybody who wishes to 21 give us an update on Beach Erosion? Anything to 22 report there? Seeing none -- 23 MR. SCHUBERTH: I'm sorry. I just shook 24 John's hand. He was starting on a long journey to 25 wherever. I just heard that the chair of the Beach 70 1 2 Erosion Committee is no longer the chair of the 3 Beach Erosion Committee. I just heard that 45 4 seconds ago. 5 So I've got some concerns because I'm on that 6 committee, and it's been moribund -- is that the 7 right term to use -- it hasn't met for a while. 8 I'm interested in seeing movement and this has been 9 an important issue. 10 I understand some studies are under way or 11 completed, reviewed, whatever. I do think the 12 Beach Erosion Committee needs to meet physically at 13 the Crab Shack sometime soon. 14 MR. DYSART: Are you calling a meeting? 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: I can't. I'm not the chair. 16 MR. DYSART: I think the last meeting or two 17 it was suggested that the committee would like to 18 perhaps select a new chair. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: Well, I also understand 50 20 seconds ago that the good mayor and council of 21 Tybee has placed Freda Rutherford in a leadership 22 position. My I right or wrong -- no? 23 MR. OFF: She was appointed to take Bill 24 Farmer's place. 25 MR. SCHUBERTH: So Freda was appointed to take 71 1 2 Bill Farmer's place, but Bill Farmer is the chair, 3 past chair. So if she's taking his place, is she 4 the chair? 5 MR. DYSART: I would presume that is for the 6 committee to decide. 7 MR. SCHUBERTH: So the committee should meet 8 soon? 9 MR. DYSART: That's how you started this 10 discussion. I declare a consensus in Chris' mind. 11 MR. KYLER: Hooray. 12 MR. DYSART: A Herculean task. 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: I missed that. Was I supposed 14 to respond something? I saw a lot of laughter. 15 MR. DYSART: Perhaps you would like to assume 16 the responsibility of suggesting that the members 17 get together somehow and select a chair so that we 18 can -- 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: All right. This is what I'll 20 do; I'll communicate with Freda and tell her that 21 the Beach Erosion Committee of the SEG should meet 22 at some point, and I'll work it out with her, and 23 let Freda and me call a meeting. 24 I mean, it's a fairly small committee. Larry, 25 and Bo, and Stuart, John, one or two others had 72 1 2 been sort of in and out of those meetings. Bill 3 was a couple times, Doug, so forth. I'll work it 4 out with her. As long as it's understood, we'll 5 try to reenergize the Beach Erosion Committee. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Dredging and 7 Disposal. Fred. 8 MR. BEASON: We're still on hold waiting on 9 some information that's forthcoming out of ATM's 10 model. 11 MR. DYSART: Will, what's happening in the 12 Fisheries area? 13 MR. BERSON: As the agenda says, we have not 14 met. I'm going to defer and listen to Ted Will. 15 We're going to set up a new system for meeting. 16 Hopefully, that will -- everyone will have a little 17 more consistency in their life, and help get 18 meetings scheduled more easily. Ted's going to 19 make an announcement. We'll get to that in a 20 minute. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. MTRG. 22 MR. ELLIS: I'm passing around a report, a two 23 page report from a meeting that we had in March, 24 March 1st. I'll give that a second for all the 25 reports to get around. It should be noted that 73 1 2 it takes about a month or so to coordinate the 3 draft. 4 After the meeting, we usually wait until the 5 next meeting, if there's a meeting coming up, to 6 make sure everybody is comfortable with the wording 7 of the status report. We have the March 1st 8 meeting here, and we're coordinating that April 9 status report. It should be finished actually this 10 week at our next meeting. 11 We do have a meeting coming up this week, June 12 6th at 10:00 a.m. in Atlanta at the EPA offices, 13 but this status report, just so everybody is clear, 14 is from our meeting in March, March 1st. 15 And we had three main goals to present; the 16 updated hydrodynamic and salinity calibration, to 17 discuss the transfer function for use with the 18 salinity model output, and to begin discussion of 19 the characteristics of dissolved oxygen and key 20 modelling parameters for the water quality model of 21 the Savannah Harbor. 22 You see a list of attendees for the meeting, 23 and we did not receive any written comments prior 24 to the meeting. So all of the discussion took 25 place within the meeting. Just following the three 74 1 2 agenda items, the first was the status of the 3 hydrodynamic and salinity model calibration. We, 4 ATM, presented the most recent calibration runs at 5 the time and showed the comparison to the data and 6 comparison to the federal expectation goals that 7 were set forth in a document earlier and shared 8 with the MTRG. 9 There was a discussion on model sensitivity, 10 and how adjustment of certain parameters would 11 change the modelling results. And that was 12 presented and discussed. 13 The three main areas on page two, beginning on 14 page two, that we discussed were the status of the 15 salinity calibration. This is all part of the 16 hydrodynamic model calibration. Generally, the 17 salinity statistics in the Front River was improved 18 from the calibration run from our earlier 19 calibration report. 20 That was the sort of benchmark, a major 21 milestone, that we continually referred back to. 22 We also showed that simulated salinity on the 23 Little Back River at the GPA Station 15 and the 24 Back River GPA 7 and 5 were improved and were 25 capturing the overall trends. 75 1 2 We did a better job of capturing the higher 3 salinity events above Houlihan Bridge, improvement 4 in the 90th percentile, but we were not able to 5 replicate all the brief peak salinity spikes seen 6 in the data. 7 That caused the need for the transfer 8 function that's covered on page three, but before 9 that, the water surface elevation, we showed an 10 improvement in the water surface elevation 11 predictions for the Front, Middle, and Little Back 12 Rivers, and it was pointed out and discussed quite 13 a bit through this calibration process, you're 14 always balancing the overall performance of the 15 model looking at all these different outputs. 16 And sometimes when you improve water surface 17 elevations, you lose a little bit of salinity, and 18 we were at that point where we were going back and 19 forth a little bit. So there was discussion where 20 we wanted to end up in that balancing process. 21 The temperature calibration, basically, the 22 temperature was shown to meet the goals set forth 23 in the federal expectation document throughout the 24 river. 25 We did have a discussion of a shading term 76 1 2 that was used upstream of I-95, basically from Clyo 3 river mile 63 down to the I-95 bridge which was 4 river mile 27.7. That shaded term was used and it 5 looked like with the shading term, we had very 6 good agreement with the data. 7 There was some discussion as to whether that 8 was too simplistic, but at the end, the MTRG agreed 9 that the use of the shading term was appropriate 10 and a reasonable method to improve the calibration. 11 On page three, like I said, the hydrodynamic 12 model, the salinity -- the performance of the 13 salinity predictions needed help in replicating 14 those high spikes that we see up in the upper part 15 of the estuary. 16 And what we had discussed earlier in MTRG 17 meetings was the use of the salinity transfer 18 function being developed to represent the brief 19 duration salinity spikes that were seen in the 1999 20 data. 21 A presentation of the performance and use of 22 that transfer function was made and it did show 23 that with the transfer function, the federal 24 expectation goals, the goals in that document, were 25 met using the transfer function. It was also 77 1 2 verified and used to accurately reproduce the 1997 3 data, using the transfer function. So it was used 4 in both cases. 5 The third agenda item was a discussion of 6 characteristics of dissolved oxygen in the lower 7 Savannah River estuary. This was a compilation of 8 a lot of the data analysis that has taken place, 9 since the data was collected in 1999, and the 10 report was presented. And the data analysis has 11 shown that the five major parameters affecting 12 dissolved oxygen were temperature, the freshwater 13 flow at Clyo, tidal amplitude, tidal range, the 14 flushing as a result of the diurnal tidal signal, 15 and the spring/neap cycles, the marsh point and 16 point source loadings, organic loadings, and 17 primary productivity which is the photosynthesis, 18 the introduction of dissolved oxygen from plant 19 life in the water. 20 MR. KYLER: Question. Item four, is that 21 meant marsh non-point and point source loading? 22 MR. ELLIS: Probably so, that wasn't picked up 23 by the committee. This is -- this is what the 24 committee report says. I will say that the marsh 25 loadings are representative as a point source in 78 1 2 our model. 3 We have picked up representative points 4 all along the harbor to introduce loadings from the 5 marsh, but as you can imagine, the flow of the 6 regular tidal flows and any rain event would be a 7 non-point source load from the marsh. So it's sort 8 of semantics. There are points in the model that 9 represent those loads. 10 MR. KYLER: Well, whether they're called point 11 or non-point attributable to the marsh, those are 12 distinguished in item four from other point source 13 loadings, right? 14 MR. ELLIS: Yes, yes. The loads from the 15 marsh are represented in the model as point 16 sources, and that's a good question. The purpose 17 of that discussion was to get feedback, from the 18 MTRG, on the overall objects of the application of 19 DO model, to get feedback on the how we would like 20 to see the comparison of model representations with 21 the data, and actually a presentation of the 22 preliminary model calibrations were made at that 23 later meeting at the end of April, which is not 24 contained in this status report. 25 The final item we discussed was distribution 79 1 2 of the acceptance package. We're at the point with 3 the hydrodynamic model where the federal agencies 4 are making final reviews of the model and an 5 acceptance package was developed and distributed to 6 the federal agencies and copied to the MTRG. 7 MTRG was asked to provide comments and 8 feedback on that package. Those comments were also 9 taken to the later meeting in April. Like I said, 10 we did have a meeting April 30th to discuss all of 11 these items a little bit more. 12 We have a draft status report that hasn't been 13 finalized yet. We will have finalized it this 14 week. We do have a meeting Thursday at 10:00 a.m. 15 in Atlanta at EPA. Any questions, I'll be glad to 16 answer them. 17 MR. DYSART: Will. 18 MR. BERSON: Just for us model-impaired folks, 19 what is post-processing transfer function? 20 MR. ELLIS: Post-processing is the model. You 21 have to specify inputs and then the model crunches 22 the numbers and gives you output. Anything you do 23 with that data, it comes in, you know, in streams 24 of data. You can -- you can write other models, 25 other algorithms, process it through other models 80 1 2 and tools and data, many analyzes. Any of that 3 work, after the model has spit out the output, is 4 post-process. 5 MR. BERSON: So adding another black box onto 6 the black box you ran the numbers through, 7 basically, is just another series of model on top 8 of model results, is that -- 9 MR. ELLIS: Yes. It can be modelling. It can 10 be just statistical comparisons of that data, 11 anything you do -- raw data that comes out of the 12 model is post-process. 13 MR. MIKELL: Bo, can you tell me a little 14 about the salinity spikes, are they one tidal 15 cycle, what is the duration and how big a problem 16 is that coming into play with the model? 17 MR. ELLIS: It's very dynamic. As you can 18 imagine, up in the upper part of estuary where you 19 go from fresh to some degree of salinity over a 20 tidal cycle, the change occurs very quickly and 21 mathematical models just tend to smooth over those 22 spikes. 23 It's very, very difficult to replicate with 24 the type of model where you have diskrotized your 25 system into cells or grids. You just can't 81 1 2 represent the full dynamic range. They vary quite 3 a bit, depending on the spring/neap cycle. They 4 vary quite a bit because of flows from Clyo. 5 But we did see several significant spikes in 6 the 1999 data that we were able to represent well 7 the trend. We just didn't capture the very top 8 part. 9 MR. MIKELL: That's what this transfer 10 function does -- 11 MR. ELLIS: Yes. 12 MR. MIKELL: -- replicates the facts during 13 the spike? You have four or five peak events that 14 greatly increase the salinity. You can plug that 15 in with the mathematical formula, whatever it is. 16 MR. ELLIS: Right, looking at the Clyo flow, 17 the tide range, those major things and you can. 18 MR. MIKELL: You can put a number on the 19 salinity? 20 MR. ELLIS: Use the absolute output more 21 carefully. 22 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 23 MR. STEVENS: Yes, sir. Thank you, great 24 report, Bo, and the question for you is related to 25 salinity, as well in your report page two under A 82 1 2 where you talk about salinity calibration. You 3 mention that you're not able to replicate the brief 4 periods of salinity Rob was also bringing up. 5 The gentlemen I asked, Harvey Simon and Jack 6 Blanton, they have been reporting back to me, and 7 both of them are seriously concerned about the lack 8 of the model's ability to predict salinity. 9 And in fact, it says the model does okay with 10 water levels and current, but cannot reproduce the 11 details of salinity structure. They went on, 12 specifically, the Middle Back River. 13 That's a problem, and if the model -- if it's 14 important to know salinities in the short-term like 15 six hour ranges, then we've got some problems in 16 the model. 17 I don't know the answer to that. We might ask 18 the fisheries people whether that's important or 19 not. It does seem to me there's questions about 20 the model's capability to predict salinities and 21 how that might be used to predict what happens to 22 the ecosystem. 23 I wanted to bring that to your attention. 24 Please focus some more work with your team to see 25 if we can fix that problem. 83 1 2 MR. ELLIS: Well, we coordinated quite a bit 3 with the federal agencies, as well as the MTRG. We 4 are reaching the practical bounds of the model. 5 Any comments that they continue to submit, we bring 6 them to the meeting. If he's submitted that 7 recently, I'll guess that we'll be discussing it at 8 the meeting on Thursday. 9 MR. STEVENS: This was comments based on the 10 April 30th meeting that was held following this 11 report you provided to us. 12 MR. DYSART: Other comments or questions for 13 Bo? David. 14 MR. KYLER: I have a question. 15 MR. DYSART: David had a question for you, Bo. 16 MR. KYLER: This spiking in the summer of 17 1999, from your experience or your perspective or 18 data for other years, is that a new occurrence or 19 a unique occurrence in that year? 20 MR. ELLIS: It's been fairly regular during 21 the drought. 22 MR. KYLER: During the summer? 23 MR. ELLIS: No, no. Actually, this drought 24 has been going since May of 1998. We've seen these 25 spikes throughout the year. They're just hasn't 84 1 2 been -- the reservoirs upstream are still filling 3 up. There's not a flow in the river. 4 MR. KYLER: If the spike is more frequent 5 during the drought because of drought, why do you 6 mention the spikes of the summer of '99 in 7 particular? 8 MR. ELLIS: To go back to what the MTRG did, 9 we designed a very, very comprehensive data 10 collection effort back in 1999. All the 11 calibration work is comparing, we're looking at 12 the model's performance comparing it back to 13 data collected in 1999. 14 Those are just spikes we're trying to 15 represent in the model, but we have data throughout 16 the system for that salinity, but those do occur, 17 from time to time, when the conditions set up. 18 They still occur throughout the year, as long as 19 the Clyo flows are down as low they are. 20 MR. KYLER: Maybe this is an elaborate way of 21 stating the obvious. Due to drought, whatever 22 salinity issues would be involved, in analyzing a 23 project like this could be heightened because of 24 salinity increases in general resulting from 25 drought, is that right? 85 1 2 MR. ELLIS: That is going to be the worst case 3 condition when the flows are low, and there are 4 certain things on the tide range you want to look 5 at. 6 MR. KYLER: Yeah. 7 MR. ELLIS: But that would -- we felt like we 8 were very close to capturing the worst case 9 condition in 1999, if that's what you are asking. 10 MR. KYLER: Yeah, thanks. 11 MR. DYSART: Further questions. Okay. 12 Striped Bass. Ted. 13 MR. WILL: The Striped Bass Committee has not 14 met. We will be meeting after this meeting here to 15 hopefully pin down a meeting date. It's been a 16 long and lengthy process, over the last month, 17 trying to get the group together. 18 I'm asking the Fisheries Committee also to 19 convene with us after this meeting, and we'll also 20 discuss maybe some agenda items. That's an update 21 for the Striped Bass Committee. 22 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Communication, is 23 anybody here from the Communications Committee. 24 MR. REES: Nothing happened. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. Economics Working Group. 86 1 2 Judy. 3 MS. JENNINGS: I've actually tried not to do 4 paper a whole lot with you guys. I actually did 5 paper today. This is a summary. You've heard me 6 make reference to the white papers we've gone 7 through, and that was a grouping of summations and 8 issues that we didn't think were initially explored 9 that we called examine items. 10 Fleet projections and trade projections took a 11 lot of time, I'll tell you. I hesitate to 12 circulate this piece of paper. I really do because 13 it's seven pages and it seriously belies the work 14 that went into it. 15 This is over a year of active meetings on 16 mostly a monthly basis. We might have skipped a 17 month -- 17 meetings worth of work, three or four 18 hours long. 19 I hesitate to give to you this in this form. 20 I tried to summarize what we said. I might should 21 say that we did our best for consensus. Not 22 everything we did was 100% unanimity. Every topic 23 remains open, so I tried to incorporate the 24 feedback that came to me as I circulated this. 25 We adopted some papers, simply because so much 87 1 2 of the information had already been discussed in 3 great detail, and the information had been online 4 for quite some time. Most of the items -- all of 5 the items, to my knowledge, will be reevaluated in 6 the GRR. 7 So, I really tried to boil it down for you and 8 to emphasize it's as close to consensus as we could 9 come. Sometimes, any one item could have taken up 10 to an hour or more with one committee going well, I 11 still have issues here. 12 So that's the spirit in which I offer this. 13 So if you'll take it with a little more gray than 14 the black and white in which it's being 15 distributed; however, I do feel 95% sure of its 16 black and whiteness now. 17 Another topic we've worked on, this is meant 18 to be a summary of white papers, not a summary of 19 the working group work -- that would be harder and 20 longer and we are still working on that. 21 Dave Kyler and I need to chat about the forum 22 on the evaluation of economic resources. We've 23 assembled some degree of some number of co-sponsors 24 including the Corps and GPA's moral support and 25 anything to add there, Dave? Dave and I online 88 1 2 need to be working on the letter and explanation 3 and invitation. 4 MR. KYLER: The letter is for sponsorship or 5 for participation? 6 MS. JENNINGS: I'm being political -- 7 invitation and explanation. I thought that we need 8 to work on it with committee members, so that's a 9 work in progress, unless you have more to add. 10 MR. KYLER: No, just to remind everyone this 11 is some time off. We projected at the very 12 earliest late this first quarter of next year, a 13 two day forum on environmental evaluation and 14 methods, how they would apply in this project in 15 particular. 16 MS. JENNINGS: We're looking forward to 17 collaborating with the Corps, and a number of 18 engineers, and GPA. We have no source of funds, 19 but actually anticipate little need. That's it for 20 me. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. Questions, comments? 22 MS. JENNINGS: Let me say that committee 23 attendees, some of the folks are incredibly 24 regular. I didn't include everybody whosoever 25 drifted into an Economics Working Group meeting, or 89 1 2 committee attendees, folks who have attended on a 3 fairly regular basis and religiously contributed to 4 the Economics Working Group. 5 MR. DYSART: David. 6 MR. KYLER: Didn't you say GRR? 7 MS. JENNINGS: General Review and 8 Reevaluation. 9 MR. KYLER: Explain what that is. I'm not 10 familiar and I assume others are not. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Actually, I probably should 12 have Bill Bailey. My explanation is going to be my 13 understanding of the document that accompanies the 14 EIS Tier I. It's been out there so long, it has 15 to be reevaluated. Tier II EIS, the Corps' 16 product of general review and reevaluation, will be 17 composited at the same time, Bill? 18 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 19 MR. KYLER: What does that mean -- GRR? 20 MR. REES: GRR is the acronym for general 21 reevaluation report and that describes it, 22 reevaluation. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. Thank you. 24 MR. KYLER: Is it routinely invoked? 25 MR. REES: It is a routine, standard process 90 1 2 in the Corps for anything. Again, I would defer to 3 Bill for any analysis, that is subsequent to a 4 project authorization, that leads to either an 5 affirmation of the original decision or a 6 modification of the original decision is contained 7 in general reevaluation report. 8 MR. DYSART: Will. 9 MR. BERSON: I just wanted to let y'all know, 10 I drifted through these meetings quite often. I 11 just wanted to say that this summary represents 12 really a huge amount of work. 13 I didn't make every meeting, but Morgan did, 14 and I think it's worth noting he was physically 15 present each and every time we met, which really 16 represents a fair amount of effort and resources on 17 GPA's part. 18 And I don't take that for granted at all. I 19 wanted to say thank you. We don't often put a bow 20 on things around here. This pretty much has one. 21 This couldn't have happened without Judy's 22 work and John Shelby to her left. They were real 23 kind when I had problems with lots of things during 24 the process. I wanted to say thanks. 25 MS. JENNINGS: Thank you. 91 1 2 MR. DYSART: We always count on you for good 3 stuff, Will. I hope when there's other good things 4 they are brought to the table and shared, that we 5 do all make a point of remembering that that is 6 appreciated, I'm sure, by all. Okay. Through with 7 Judy? 8 MS. JENNINGS: Barring questions. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. 10 MS. JENNINGS: By the way, we don't have 11 another meeting schedule over e-mail. We'll work 12 on the economic federation forum, and I'll put it 13 on there. If you want to be copied e-mail and 14 you're not already, let me know. We'll be doing 15 the next piece of business over e-mail. 16 MR. DYSART: Teri, how about Operating 17 Guidelines Committee. 18 MS. LEFFEK: Operating Guidelines Committee 19 met April 16th. I'm handing out -- it's coming 20 around -- our meeting minutes from a particular 21 meeting where we had several discussions. 22 One topic, in particular, took up most of the 23 time. We did touch on peer review. That 24 discussion is still on hold pending further 25 suggestions being brought to the table. 92 1 2 The other thing we talked about in committee 3 was mitigation and impact identification. And 4 again, we had a lengthy discussion. I want to 5 commend the committee members who attended and also 6 those that reviewed this document and came up with 7 great ideas. 8 We really, really worked through an issue that 9 had a lot of questions, and that we've discussed 10 here in the SEG, and that's looking at a mitigation 11 committee, or what is the SEG's role in mitigation. 12 Just to kind of highlight a few things in the 13 discussion, we confirmed that SEG will be involved 14 in the communication of any information as the EIS 15 is prepared. 16 Also, that we felt we should begin this 17 process of mitigation by brainstorming, and the 18 rationale that was given for that is the startup 19 time and learning curve involved in mitigation. 20 The sooner we do this the better. 21 What we did is we tried to answer the 22 question, does the SEG participate in the planning 23 itself, or does it react to and provide feedback to 24 information input that's provided by the 25 cooperating agencies and the Corps. 93 1 2 And we decided on the latter that the SEG, 3 rather than participate in the planning process, 4 instead reacts to and provides feedback. And the 5 rationale, again, we gave for that was that the SEG 6 doesn't have the time, the money, the technical 7 expertise that's required in developing a 8 mitigation package, as well as our role as a body 9 is advisory in nature. 10 So what we have done -- this committee has 11 done, if you'll look on the second page or second 12 and third page of the handout, we have a huge 13 recommendation here. 14 I'm not sure exactly how Ben wants to handle 15 this. This is our recommendation as to how to 16 handle mitigation. It's a work in progress. 17 Obviously, it's SEG's decision whether you want to 18 adopt this or you want to find something else. We 19 did try to put together something to begin with. 20 We offered a couple of questions that we 21 thought the SEG should answer as to how this 22 process should start, and also some basic 23 guidelines and groundrules to be adopted in 24 beginning this process. 25 So I'm not really sure where we want to go 94 1 2 from here. I will also let any committee members, 3 you know, if you have anything to add, please do so 4 in regards to this discussion. 5 MR. DYSART: David Kyler. 6 MR. KYLER: I'm a little confused here. I 7 have been participating in some of these meetings. 8 I was not at the April 16th meeting. Of course, I 9 probably wouldn't remember that just since my name 10 isn't up here, I'm assuming I was not here. I can 11 check my schedule. 12 The peer review paragraph starts with a 13 citation of Patty McIntosh's question. Unless I 14 missed it, Patty McIntosh is not listed among 15 attendees. Does that refer to a question in a 16 previous meeting? 17 MS. LEFFEK: Yes. That was from a previous 18 question. 19 MR. KYLER: Okay. That was my only point. I 20 should also point out, it doesn't have to be 21 reflected in these minutes, but the use of peer 22 review has also been one of my concerns and a 23 concern of our organization. 24 Interestingly, I was in a discussion with 25 Morgan before the meeting. It's been proposed 95 1 2 before Congress for some bills that would affect 3 procedures used by the Corps of Engineers in 4 projects like this, in the future, which include 5 that feature, independent peer review of projects. 6 MS. LEFFEK: That's one of the reasons we've 7 deferred the subject till we get some further 8 information. 9 MR. KYLER: There's some research being done 10 by the National Academy of Science on this topic. 11 Morgan knows more about it. We're hoping to 12 get some feedback on the results of that study this 13 summer. 14 MR. DYSART: Morgan 15 MR. REES: I would just add that the work 16 being done by the National Academy of Science is a 17 result of legislation passed by Congress to review 18 the peer review aspects of the Corps of Engineers' 19 process and make some recommendations. 20 This issue is very active at the Washington 21 level. We're certainly going to be guided by 22 whatever the folks in Washington figure out ought 23 to be done. 24 MR. DYSART: Teri. 25 MS. LEFFEK: Sort of to move a discussion 96 1 2 along then, I guess what the committee is asking, 3 we have two recommendations that we presented in 4 type in front of you. If you want, we can give the 5 SEG some time to work through this. 6 We'd like to know if you have any feedback. 7 Do you want to approve these; do you want to 8 institute these; but they're both on the table from 9 this committee. 10 MR. DYSART: So these two are presented as 11 recommendations of the Operating Guidelines 12 Committee for discussion, debate, action by this 13 body? 14 MS. LEFFEK: Correct. 15 MR. DYSART: Why don't you proceed with number 16 one -- why don't you read it into the record there 17 and let's see where it goes. 18 MS. LEFFEK: The first recommendation is 19 the role of the SEG in the identification of impact 20 and mitigation measures to provide input feedback 21 from information provided and produced by 22 cooperating agencies and the Corps. 23 The SEG has neither the time, funds, nor 24 technical expertise to identify impacts and develop 25 its own mitigation package. This is in accordance 97 1 2 with the advisory nature of the organization. 3 MR. DYSART: Okay. How about some discussion 4 on that? Will. 5 MR. BERSON: It's probably fair to say if you 6 were in the Operating Guidelines Committee meeting 7 you would know that I was the least interested in 8 this particular approach. 9 I think both of the recommendations -- I'll 10 speak on both of them right now -- I think both are 11 appropriate. 12 Mitigation has a certain chicken or the egg 13 quality to me. I don't know that you talk about 14 the mitigation until you know what the impacts 15 actually are. 16 I've been a little bit hesitant about right 17 way to move forward. Having said that, I think the 18 two things are appropriate and would enjoy my 19 organization's support and my personal support. 20 MR. DYSART: Thank you. David. 21 MR. KYLER: Since I wasn't at this last 22 meeting, I don't know the extent to which this has 23 already been covered. 24 I don't see anything that strikes out or 25 sticks in my mind related to this; that is, in this 98 1 2 mitigation planning or advice from the SEG about 3 mitigation planning, I think it's important that we 4 not forget that an important part of this should be 5 the monitoring and assessment of whatever 6 mitigation measures are eventually recommended, to 7 ensure that the mitigation has the intended effect, 8 and to serve as an early warning system. 9 If it does not have an effect or a contrary 10 effect, which the past mitigation measures have 11 had, I'm pretty the Corps already does that in 12 terms of a monitoring assessment. I think the 13 process would benefit, from the advice of this 14 group, in making the sure the bases are covered on 15 the monitoring, assessing the mitigation efforts. 16 MS. LEFFEK: That has been noted. 17 MR. DYSART: Further discussion on 18 recommendation number one? Teri, would it be your 19 advice -- as committee chair, would you like action 20 on number one? Do you want to go ahead and -- 21 MS. LEFFEK: Actually, number one, let's kind 22 of work through this. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. Will. 24 MR. BERSON: I'd like to move we accept 25 recommendation number one. 99 1 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. We don't do motions and 3 votes, that kind of stuff, however your vigorous 4 support is noted, and I'm sure is very influential. 5 Will has put his double seal of approval on it. I 6 see nothing but happy faces around the table. 7 I declare a consensus in support of 8 recommendation number one from the committee. Now, 9 would you like to read number two, or do you figure 10 everybody can read it for themselves? 11 MS. LEFFEK: It's up to the SEG. I can read 12 the beginning introduction if you would like. This 13 committee recommends that we begin the process of 14 providing input feedback to the Corps that the SEG 15 institute a brainstorming process rather than 16 establish a mitigation committee. 17 Providing mitigation ideas early on in the 18 development of the EIS is helpful, especially 19 considering the start-up time and learning curve 20 involved in mitigation planning. This committee 21 proposes the SEG determine the groundrules 22 guidelines for a brainstorming process. To assist 23 that effort, the following are offered. 24 You'll see the questions offered the SEG 25 should address and proposed groundrules guidelines. 100 1 2 MR. DYSART: Comments and discussion about 3 recommendation number two. Feel free to speak. 4 Will. 5 MR. BERSON: Okay. I've got one. If we were 6 writing this statutory language, the phrase would 7 be including but not limited to. I'd like for 8 there to be a recognition that other ideas might 9 come up outside of this particular brainstorming 10 session, that they're completely legitimate, might 11 even be more legitimate. I don't know. 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. 13 MS. LEFFEK: That's fine. The process is 14 always open -- always open to new ideas. 15 MR. DYSART: David Schaller, Stuart, and 16 David. 17 MR. SCHALLER: I just wanted to read into the 18 record the fifth bullet point on groundrules or 19 guidelines. Teri can as chair. 20 MS. LEFFEK: You can read it. 21 MR. SCHALLER: Any ideas input submitted 22 to the SEG will be given to GPA to be forwarded to 23 the Corps' communication chain currently utilized 24 and established. 25 MS. JENNINGS: Is that affirmation? 101 1 2 MR. SCHALLER: Yes. 3 MR. DYSART: How about the -- I guess it might 4 be appropriate if we thought about the general 5 concept of recommendation number two, if we are 6 happy with that, I think it would be appropriate to 7 have discussion on the various bullets below there. 8 Stuart and then David. 9 MR. STEVENS: I was going to offer I think 10 it's a good idea, certainly got to be a step 11 forward over our discussions at the last meeting, 12 and I would ask if there's any way -- I still 13 believe the main players in this effort will be 14 the people sitting at this table, maybe a few 15 others. 16 If there's any way we could try to work these 17 out today, or maybe have a half day session of the 18 SEG maybe next time in the afternoon, have a 19 facilitated session on it. It would save people 20 having to travel another day to another meeting. I 21 think that help us out a lot. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. Good idea. David Kyler. 23 MR. KYLER: Teri, do you want to respond to 24 that? 25 MS. LEFFEK: Let me make sure I'm 102 1 2 characterizing the discussion in Operating 3 Guidelines correctly. It was our vision that this 4 would be added as an agenda item and be part of the 5 SEG meeting, you know. If we could decide to spend 6 a half an hour, we don't have to spend a lot of 7 time, but it would be sort of a regular process. 8 If we decide as to question one, it would be an 9 open-ended effort, not just a one-time effort. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. 11 MR. KYLER: That's a timely response. That's 12 the point I was going to advocate. It seems to me 13 it would prove as a most useful dynamic to be 14 flexible too. If we had the main session planned 15 and facilitated beyond that, I think it's good to 16 keep some open door for future SEG meetings to add 17 to the output from the original brainstorming 18 session. 19 MR. DYSART: Judy. 20 MS. JENNINGS: Just to reinforce my vision of 21 this, it would be an ongoing process and intimately 22 linked to results from the studies, because 23 mitigation can't come before identification of 24 impacts. 25 So my vision of it was the people at this 103 1 2 table could become active with the studies. We're 3 not scientists. We can't go out and do them, but 4 hopefully, the results can be boiled down to a 5 point where we can understand, and get our arms 6 around it, and try to understand what's being said. 7 My concept of it was an ongoing process, not a 8 this is what we're going to do kind of thing, but 9 just a discussion of the results of scientific 10 studies that would help us. 11 Clearly, deepening is the issue. Also, my 12 goal is to make the river healthier and the 13 wetlands, all the habitat associated with it. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Tom. 15 MR. SCARDINO: Is it feasible to ask that the 16 various committees discuss this issue next time 17 they meet, and if they have ideas about mitigation, 18 whatever they feel should be brought up during this 19 brainstorming session. 20 It doesn't have to be only here. All the 21 committees should be asked would they consider this 22 as they come up with ideas. Everytime we have SEG 23 meetings, we have brainstorming sessions. Those 24 committee chairs can bring out the concerns of all 25 the committee members. 104 1 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. Good idea. 3 MS. LEFFEK: May I address that point? That 4 is one thing we discussed, what is the role of 5 the committee in developing mitigation, and 6 certainly this body welcomes input from any source 7 whether it's a committee, individual member here, 8 or even someone outside the process. 9 We did discuss what is the committee's 10 role in regards to mitigation. We decided that 11 mitigation is not a part of the mission statement 12 of committees, and that we would consider a 13 committee's role fulfilled when all the studies had 14 been identified, and had been completed, and that 15 really mitigation is a topic for the SEG in general 16 to look at, because we don't want to see things 17 fall through the crack. 18 What affects Fisheries might also affect 19 Striped Bass and might also affect wetlands. We 20 want to make it a holistic approach. Obviously, 21 this body is open to input. If things come up in 22 committee, please bring it to the table. We can 23 add it to the list. 24 MR. DYSART: Any further comments on 25 recommendation number two? I detect there's good, 105 1 2 broad consensus in support of recommendation number 3 two and will note that. 4 Let's go through the bullets below there. I 5 appreciate David's comment on one of them. Is 6 there anybody that wants to underline or discuss or 7 whatever, Teri, or other members of Operating 8 Guidelines, that you think is appropriate for some 9 special discussion why they're there, what's behind 10 them, or anything that's not evident? 11 MS. LEFFEK: I sense consensus -- this is 12 something the SEG recognizes as useful and would 13 like to begin. I don't really know how we want 14 handle it, how do we implement it. 15 I think really the question that needs to be 16 discussed is the who what when entity. Facility 17 brainstorming, is that something we can add to the 18 agenda as a regular item? 19 Ben, you will facilitate as you do for GPA 20 and the Corps. Who is going to write down the 21 ideas, what's the chain of command, where do we 22 take the information, how do we pass it along, I 23 think, is what needs to be answered. 24 MR. DYSART: Discussion of having this as a 25 continuing regular agenda item, would you like to 106 1 2 discuss that, versus having a separate session? 3 David. 4 MR. KYLER: I think this is intuitive. I 5 don't know if you have any experience in trying to 6 do this in other venues, but it would help to have 7 the expertise of someone to help facilitate, at 8 least in the initial session. 9 Secondly, if that person has related 10 professional experience to assist in the job of 11 organizing the procedure for thereafter, and 12 structuring the outcomes, that would be useful as 13 an initial effort, because the more we get into it, 14 and the more cross analysis there is of how 15 mitigation is intended to deal one type of impact 16 and compounds or complements problems of other 17 types of impact needs to be sorted out. 18 That can get very complicated. I think we 19 need help in organizing how that analysis is 20 conducted and maintained as mitigation is refined. 21 MR. DYSART: David Schaller. 22 MR. SCHALLER: I think maybe David's idea 23 does, in fact, go a little beyond the brainstorming 24 effort, as I understood it, proffered by the 25 committee. 107 1 2 I would suggest that to get it started we make 3 it agenda item. We let the facilitator facilitate. 4 We'll have a record of it through the court 5 reporter. 6 The Corps of Engineers will be ultimately -- 7 they will get a copy of that to put into the record 8 and build from there. 9 MR. DYSART: Teri. 10 MS. LEFFEK: It might be nice, in conjunction 11 with that effort, to have some sort of running list 12 maybe posted on the web site. 13 If the Corps is going to go through the 14 transcript and pull things out, I think we SEG 15 members, if we are going to continue the process 16 and bring new things to the table, need to have 17 some record, piece of paper, to look at and see 18 what is suggested, to make sure we're not 19 duplicating efforts -- make that a part of the 20 agenda that's added as a second page. When this 21 comes up, we can look at that list. 22 MR. SCHALLER: I think we have the big list of 23 issues that maintained. There's no reason we 24 shouldn't replicate that list of mitigation issues 25 items that we maintain. 108 1 2 MR. DYSART: David Kyler. 3 MR. KYLER: It's pretty hard to argue with a 4 list. I think as this evolves, it's going to be in 5 a tabular format that allows you to compare the 6 cross effects from one issue to another. 7 Initially, maybe a list is all we need. At 8 some point there's going to have to be a way of 9 indicating how the mitigation proposal is 10 attempting to address one type of impact and that 11 would affect the consequences of other impacts. 12 I think that's best displayed on a tabular type. 13 MS. LEFFEK: I think that addresses the second 14 question, what modifications might we make to this 15 process as it evolves. 16 MR. KYLER: Right. 17 MR. DYSART: David. 18 MR. SCHALLER: My understanding is that 19 certainly you can't build a mitigation plan without 20 doing -- excuse me -- what David said. What 21 mitigation feature is here, and how it might relate 22 to and/or impact or change or modify, whatever the 23 case may be, another mitigation feature addressing 24 an impact. 25 So I would think that's part of a mitigation 109 1 2 plan, as opposed to what I think we're talking 3 here; that is brainstorming mitigation ideas and 4 mitigation features. So I think they're two 5 separate tasks, if you will. 6 MR. KYLER: There's no doubt in my mind people 7 expert in mitigation planning would have more to 8 add to types of analysis, but I think the 9 brainstorming level, particularly the type of 10 expertise at this table in the SEG, probably is 11 going to have some intuitive anticipation of 12 conflicts or congruities between different 13 mitigation proposals for one or another type of 14 impact. 15 I think we're going to have some idea of that 16 initially, which would be refined as the process 17 continues. 18 MR. DYSART: How about initially, let's say at 19 the next meeting, we get into this since it's an 20 open-ended process? Let's see what the body 21 decides, if you need to go to something more 22 complex than a list, if necessary. 23 MR. BERSON: I don't disagree with any of 24 this. I guess in reading recommendation number 25 one, it seems to me that some folks, it doesn't 110 1 2 look like, would have to come and suggest these 3 measures. 4 I mean, it says cooperating agencies and GPA. 5 So I don't quite see how -- I like the process -- I 6 don't know who picks it, who is on the agenda at 7 next meeting, I guess my question is, for giving us 8 this list of ideas? 9 MS. LEFFEK: It's my understanding we're 10 generating a list of ideas, brainstorming in 11 different committees, putting together a total 12 package. We're really just getting the ball 13 rolling. 14 I've had several people comment we need to 15 start putting things on the table. Obviously, as 16 we get feedback and additional ideas generated by 17 cooperating agencies, those would have to come to 18 the table for us to look at and discuss and provide 19 further input. 20 MR. BERSON: I guess what I was saying, I 21 don't see me, because I don't work in the field, 22 coming to the table with a list of ideas. 23 I hope the folks at DNR and South Carolina 24 DHEC would be folks doing that. I don't think I'm 25 going to be here with a long list at the next 111 1 2 meeting. 3 MS. JENNINGS: I agree with Will. If we're 4 going to have this, there has to be some 5 preparation for it, as far as getting the right 6 players at the table who have a science background 7 and the information we need to draw on. 8 MR. BERSON: Even in a brainstorming capacity. 9 I don't feel competent to throw out ideas. I mean. 10 I'm wondering why my car makes that noise, but 11 that's about as far as I can go with sort of realm. 12 MS. JENNINGS: I don't change light bulbs. I 13 agree with Will, so it's just a matter of advanced 14 planning. What studies are there, what information 15 can be brought in; I'm not talking about reports 16 and presentations because we've had that, but we 17 need active participation of people with more 18 knowledge than Will and I have confessed to having 19 of the science. 20 MR. DYSART: Rob. 21 MR. MIKELL: I would like to say I agree 22 totally with Judy. You have to know the impacts. 23 It's fine to get started brainstorming, get talking 24 about the type of actions we can do to mitigate 25 things. Until we actually know how great the 112 1 2 impact will be, we can't even start talking and 3 seriously consider mitigation. 4 And I really think that whoever said it needs 5 to be linked with each one of the committees, 6 that's where it ought to go. It ought to stay 7 there. I've always had trouble with dealing with 8 mitigation before we address and find out what the 9 impacts are. 10 MR. SCHALLER: The point is well made with me 11 on behalf of the Georgia Ports Authority. In 12 trying to accommodate the Operating Guidelines 13 Committee recommendation here, my understanding of 14 the recommendation is that it is a more broad-based 15 approach to, in my own simple terms, you got DO and 16 we did -- there were some mitigation ideas -- let 17 me call them ideas, not recommendations -- in our 18 Tier I EIS. 19 And so if that's the approach then, I don't 20 think there's anything wrong with it. And I agree 21 completely this SEG certainly can't design 22 mitigation features for the reason, to begin with, 23 we don't know what the impacts are. 24 That's got to be the first step. Talking 25 generally, as I understand this recommendation 113 1 2 would have us do, is fine. 3 MS. LEFFEK: If I may address that, that's 4 exactly what we're trying to do is talk in general, 5 broad strokes. 6 We're not trying come up with a detailed plan. 7 I jumped ahead -- groundrules second to the last 8 item it says, the brainstorming process, begin with 9 more generic and broader categories such as 10 wetlands, dissolved oxygen, fisheries, et cetera 11 which are the resources involved. 12 Water quality, groundwater, cultural, historic 13 resources, we're beginning to throw things on the 14 table -- not very specific ideas, just to get us 15 thinking, you know, put some ideas on the table. 16 MR. DYSART: Judy. 17 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah, in response to David's 18 comment, I think mitigation, in this discussion, 19 has been an unfortunate word all along. That's 20 really not my exact vision when I agree to talk 21 about it. What I really envision, mitigation might 22 be the end game. 23 But I think this group largely has been a 24 paper tiger, unless we make an ultimate attempt to 25 put the studies on the table and get our arms 114 1 2 around what we've produced and what the results 3 are. 4 So a discussion of what the studies have 5 brought us, what the impacts of any given action or 6 inaction might be, is inherent at an early step of 7 discussing mitigation. 8 So this discussion to me never did mean 9 borrowing, buying, trading or anything like that. 10 I really want to discuss the environmental issues 11 that brought us here, and the $20,000,000 that 12 we've -- that GPA has spent in producing some 13 answers to it. 14 And from that, there might eventually -- we 15 might eventually begin to know what could be done 16 to make this better here, that better there. 17 Impact -- really, there's no -- I never had 18 any concept of discussing mitigation without a 19 thorough review of impacts, as they are indicated 20 by the scientific studies. 21 MR. DYSART: Will. 22 MR. BERSON: I hate to be the one that says 23 something discordant, I just hope as we move 24 forward to discuss mitigation generally, there is 25 some recognition that we're doing so without 115 1 2 impacts. There might be some impacts on a SUV 3 scale, and that mitigation is simply not 4 appropriate. As long as that's understood, I think 5 that's kind of a basic point we are saying in the 6 beginning. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Which is why I say impacts are 8 first. We're not obligated to ameliorate any given 9 thing, we can't. Amelioration is impossible. 10 Mitigation is a poor word. I'd be glad to name 11 this anything else. 12 I think mitigation is the lightening rod in 13 conversation. It wasn't my vision of what the 14 discussion was going to be about. It certainly 15 could be part of the result of conversation, but... 16 MR. DYSART: Further discussion? It would 17 seem to me that we have a basis for going forward 18 and putting this on the agenda next time, seeing 19 how this goes, being cognizant of the things that 20 have been put on the table and the discussion 21 around the table today. 22 And this is -- would be an open-ended process, 23 and we'll see how things go from time to time and 24 learn from it. We have a general consensus on 25 that, I believe. Okay. Thank you. Any new 116 1 2 business items that weren't proposed earlier? How 3 about the next meeting date? 4 MR. REES: We need Cathy to talk about that. 5 MR. DYSART: Cathy, let's talk about the next 6 meeting -- Cathy has said this location is not 7 available in October. We want to try to get an 8 idea about, kind of a tentative idea of, whether 9 there needs to be an October meeting so she can get 10 an alternative location. What about the next one, 11 do you want to meet in a month, two months, three 12 months? 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: We've been meeting every two 14 months. That seems to be -- people seemed to be 15 very pleased by that. I think we should maintain 16 that. 17 MR. DYSART: How about August -- August 6th? 18 It's been pointed out, people say gosh, this is 19 42nd meeting. It's the 42nd month. Cathy 20 suggested we clarify and state this is the 29th 21 meeting of the 42nd month in the life of the 22 Stakeholders Evaluation Group. 23 The reason I point that out is that I think 24 we need to be aware that dollars don't grow on 25 trees. Time is also important. Time is marching 117 1 2 on, so y'all have been in business for 42 months. 3 There has been a lot done. There's much going 4 on. There's work to do, and we'll look forward to 5 nice progress in the future. 6 Okay. August 6th it is. What's the gut 7 feeling about do you think you would probably want 8 to meet two months after that, so Cathy can get 9 something else lined up? 10 MS. VAUGHN: I've got tentatively the Coastal 11 Georgia Center. This room is not available. The 12 Coastal Georgia Center is tentatively held for us 13 right now. 14 MR. DYSART: That's all you need to know. 15 MS. VAUGHN: Y'all pass the word, it would be 16 posted. 17 MR. DYSART: That would be the potential for 18 October and the meeting in August is here right. 19 MS. VAUGHN: Right, right. 20 MR. DYSART: Anything else for the good of 21 the cause, if not, I declare we're adjourned. 22 Thank y'all. 23 24 25 118 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 I hereby certify that the foregoing 7 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 8 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 9 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 10 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 117 represent 11 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 12 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 13 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 14 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 15 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 16 anywise interested in the result of said case. 17 This, the 17th day of June, 2002. 18 19 20 ________________________ 21 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court Reporter, B-2041 22 23 24 25 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25