1 1 2 3 4 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP 5 6 MEETING 7 OF 8 MARCH 4, 2008 9 10 11 12 MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE MUSEUM 13 POOLER, GEORGIA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 I N D E X 4 5 6 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3 7 8 PRESENTATIONS 9 MACTEC PRESENTATIONS ---------------------- 8 10 MILESTONES UPDATE ------------------------- 124 11 COMMITTEE REPORTS ------------------------- 135 12 NEW BUSINESS ------------------------------ 148 13 14 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 168 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 (THE REPORTER: I am appearing here today 3 on behalf of my employer, Tom Crites & 4 Associates. My office was requested by Georgia 5 Ports Authority's office to provide a court 6 reporter today at 9:00 a.m. at this address. 7 Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well 8 as the instructions of my employer, I wish to 9 disclose that, other than accepting to serve as 10 your reporter, we have not entered into any 11 other contractual agreement with any party 12 involved in this case.) 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. Good morning. I'd 14 like to call the meeting of the Stakeholders 15 Evaluation Group to order. I'm Ben Dysart, the 16 SEG Facilitator. We have a very good crowd 17 today. 18 We have several people we haven't seen for 19 a little while, and we have some very 20 interesting material to be presented today, to 21 go along with what will probably be interesting 22 discussion as well. 23 So we're now to order, and you have before 24 you -- let's see, let's start introducing 25 ourselves. Margaret, would you start, please? 4 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 Just state your name clearly, and your 3 affiliation, whatever you choose to identify 4 your affiliation. 5 MS. TANNER: Margaret Tanner, I'm with 6 MACTEC Engineering 7 MR. NEAL: Larry Neal with MACTEC 8 Engineering. 9 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, a member of the 10 public. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia 12 Sierra. 13 MR. PARSONS: Keith Parsons, Georgia DNR, 14 Environmental Protection Division. 15 MS. COLLINS-RAHN: Lucille Collins-Rahn, 16 Georgia Sierra Club. 17 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of 18 Engineers. 19 MR. DuBECK: Guy DuBeck, Georgia DNR 20 Wildlife Resources. 21 MS. COLVIN: Elizabeth Colvin, Georgia 22 DNR, Wildlife Resources. 23 MR. MICHAELS: Ron Michaels, Georgia DNR, 24 Coastal Resources Division. 25 MS. MOORE: Kelie Moore, DNR, Coastal 5 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 Resources Division. 3 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, US Fish 4 and Wildlife Service, Savannah Coastal Refuge. 5 MR. WEBB: Rus Webb, US Fish and Wildlife 6 Service. 7 MS. GRIESS: Jane Griess, US Fish and 8 Wildlife Service, Savannah Coastal Refuge. 9 MS. CHAPMAN: Kathy Chapman, US Fish and 10 Wildlife Service, Georgia Ecological Services 11 in Brunswick. 12 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 13 Authority. 14 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for 15 Georgia Ports. 16 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia 17 Ports Authority. 18 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant to 19 Georgia Ports. 20 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 21 Authority. 22 MR. SAWYER: John Sawyer, City of 23 Savannah. 24 MR. WILLIS: Steve Willis, Center for a 25 Sustainable Coast. 6 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. DYSART: Ben Dysart. 3 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, Georgia 4 Conservancy. 5 MR. KYLER: Dave Kyler, Center for a 6 Sustainable Coast. 7 MS. WENDT: Priscilla Wendt, South 8 Carolina DNR. 9 MR. PERRY: Bob Perry, South Carolina 10 DNR, Office of Environmental Programs. 11 MS. DAVY: Kay Davy, NOAA Fisheries. 12 MR. MIKLOS: Adam Miklos, International 13 Paper. 14 MR. WRIGHT: Tom Wright, local citizen. 15 MR. DYSART: Thank you. You have before 16 you a draft agenda for today's meeting. Input 17 was received from the interim committee that 18 keeps track of what science is ready to be 19 reported to the body as a whole. 20 We've had an opportunity to look at this; 21 are there any changes, or any changes in the 22 order of presentation, or additions, or 23 deletions that you would like to make? 24 Seeing requests for none, we will consider 25 that this agenda has been accepted by the body 7 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 for conducting our meeting today. You've had 3 an opportunity to look at the January 4 transcript of the meeting. Any corrections, 5 clarifications that need to be made on the 6 record today? Seeing none we'll consider that 7 that has been approved and adopted by the full 8 SEG. 9 Okay. Scientific briefing. We're 10 privileged today to have MACTEC with us. Larry 11 Neal and I go back a long way. I'm not -- I'm 12 not holding up quite as well as Larry is as the 13 years go by, and he pointed out -- I mentioned 14 to him, asking him about how my friend Leonard 15 Ledbetter was doing, and Leonard had -- I think 16 was aware that I was coming down here to try to 17 be the facilitator of this group, and Larry 18 asked me how things are going. 19 I said, well, I've lasted longer than my 20 predecessor, the distinguished Morgan Rees. 21 Morgan is more distinguished, but I've had the 22 pleasure of being here trying to help this 23 process along for several years. 24 But anyway, there's some inside jokes 25 there, but anyway, it is good to know that 8 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 things are coming together, and there's some 3 interesting science being done. 4 And Larry, why don't you and Margaret give 5 our briefing on the work. I mentioned to Larry 6 there had been an awful lot of interest in this 7 particular project, and that we're interested 8 in seeing how Dick Speece's bubbles are working 9 these days, Larry. 10 MR. NEAL: If I may, I'll stand right here 11 so I can make eye contact with everyone. I'm 12 Larry Neal. I'm the principle engineer in 13 charge of what we refer to as the Savannah 14 Harbor Reoxygenation Demonstration Project. 15 And I'll give you a little background how 16 this came about, and then Margaret Tanner, our 17 project manager, explain what we did and give 18 you a summary of the results of the 19 demonstration project. 20 Basically, I've worked with Savannah 21 Harbor dissolved oxygen issues for well over a 22 decade I'll say, and in trying to understand 23 how the oxygen levels in the harbor might be 24 affected by further deepening, and came to 25 recognize, as others did concurrently really, 9 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 that further deepening would create an 3 increment of reduced dissolved oxygen 4 particularly during the summer months, hotter 5 weather, lower flows, freshwater flows, and 6 that there would need to be a method of 7 mitigating for that reduced oxygen increment 8 from the proposed deepening. 9 And a long story shortened, we were 10 engaged with a very quick survey project, by 11 the Army Corps of Engineers, to examine how the 12 -- the question of how could oxygen levels be 13 improved in the harbor. 14 And it was a full range look ranging from 15 everything to eliminating all the point source 16 dischargers, to oxygenate the river directly, 17 and everything in between. And the option that 18 we came up with, that looked the most 19 promising, was to use technology that would 20 allow you to use pure oxygen, and inject that 21 as side stream into the harbor as means of 22 incrementally bumping up the dissolved oxygen 23 levels by an amount that would offset the 24 effects of deepening. 25 Studies otherwise funded by the Army and 10 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 EPA involved did show that that amount of 3 oxygen that would be needed for mitigation was 4 about 20,000 pounds a day of oxygen that needed 5 to be added to offset that critical reduction 6 of dissolved oxygen. 7 After some months of thinking through, we 8 approached the Port Authority with the idea let 9 us design a demonstration project that would be 10 temporary, that would allow you to go ahead 11 test a chosen technology to add oxygen. 12 The technology that we evolved to was one 13 that uses a device known as a Speece cone. 14 It's a method of pumping water from the harbor 15 into a cone where we introduce pure oxygen, and 16 we have what's called the down flow bubble 17 contact mechanism that puts oxygen in that side 18 stream of water, at a very high level, and 19 reintroduces into the flowing body of water of 20 the harbor. Then that is the dispersed by 21 tidal effects. 22 So we approached the Port Authority about 23 a design for such a project. The response we 24 get, well, we' like the idea, but we'd like you 25 to go ahead and design it, build it, install it 11 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 and operate it next summer. 3 We weren't prepared for that. That was in 4 the fall 2006 when we started talking about 5 that. Long story short, in early August of 6 2007, we turned on the demonstration system and 7 operated it for 40 days. 8 It was a very fast-track project from the 9 beginning. We had a lot of good fortune and a 10 lot of good hard work by people to make it all 11 come together in that short time frame. 12 The objective was to see if this 13 technology could be adapted to a large tidal 14 stream like the Savannah Harbor. We knew it 15 works in lakes. We knew it works in free 16 flowing rivers. We've done it in other 17 settings. 18 We've not done it in quite as challenging 19 a system as this large tidal river. So we had 20 a lot of design features we had to think 21 through, and make sure we were going to able to 22 adapt to that. Then the second objective was 23 during the course of this study monitoring 24 in-stream water quality oxygen levels, and see 25 how much affect adding oxygen could have. 12 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 Remember, it's a very big river, and our 3 design that we selected would nominally add 4 30,000 pounds a day -- recall the 20,000 pounds 5 a day figure being the mitigation amount at 6 that time. I think there may have been some 7 revisions in the modeling since then to show 8 that number to be a little different. 9 But we went to a 30,000 pound a day 10 system. I'll stop at this point and take any 11 questions on why did we do this project, 12 otherwise we'll go right into Margaret 13 presenting to you what we did and what the 14 results were. Any questions on the setup? 15 MR. KYLER: Well, this is more of 16 background. When you said you considered 17 non-point source pollution control as a way of 18 reducing the oxygen deprivation problem, to 19 what extent could that reduce the problem? 20 MR. NEAL: We actually looked at point 21 source. 22 MR. KYLER: I thought you said non-point 23 source. 24 MR. NEAL: No. The study that we did 25 looked at what are the options available or 13 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 alternatives that could improve oxygen levels. 3 We looked at such things as completely 4 eliminating point sources, storing point 5 sources during the summer protracted period and 6 releasing them later, piping them further 7 seaward to see what effects that could have on 8 DO improvement. 9 We found out from that study and other 10 modeling that's been done shows that you can't 11 get back into a DO standard area just by those 12 measures. And the reason behind that is that 13 deepening has the unintended side effect of 14 reducing the rate of atmospheric reaeration, 15 oxygen that can come in naturally from the 16 water surface. Just because it's deeper, you 17 can't get as much back in, so you wind up with 18 depressed oxygen levels as a result of that. 19 So what we were looking at is the way to 20 get back that increment of lost reaeration is 21 to just add the oxygen directly. If you will 22 think of it as a substitute for reaeration 23 capacity that's been lost, that's the measure, 24 the way the mitigation works. 25 MR. KYLER: Uh-huh. But from that kind of 14 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 analysis, do you know how much of the oxygen 3 problem is created by the harbor deepening 4 compared with other typical oxygen deprivation 5 trends which include non-point source 6 pollution. 7 MR. NEAL: That has been studied with the 8 model that the EPA and Corps of Engineers have 9 sponsored. I'm not the one to quote you what 10 those components of oxygen deficits are. That 11 has been done. 12 It wasn't necessary for the purposes of 13 our demonstration project to look at that. Our 14 purpose was to see can we get this much oxygen 15 in X, and what effects can be measured in such 16 a large steam with what is really a relatively 17 small amount of oxygen compared to the totality 18 of the oxygen load flowing in the stream, 19 because it is such a large -- large body of 20 water. 21 MR. KYLER: My concern and my 22 organization's concern would be we would be 23 solving a problem not entirely created by the 24 project, and therefore enabling continued 25 problems, sources of problem caused by other 15 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 activities. 3 MR. NEAL: The look we had was strictly at 4 the increment that the project, the deepening 5 project, would create. The 20,000 pound a day 6 number that's all we looked at. 7 We didn't look at how do you offset the 8 effect of non-point sources. We just looked 9 strictly at that number, can we get 20,000 10 pounds a day in here. 11 MR. KYLER: Let me be clear, the 12 mitigation effects of the capacity this is 13 designed for would compensate for the project, 14 but may still leave the river in an oxygen 15 depleted state because of other causes of that 16 oxygen depletion. 17 MR. NEAL: Yeah. I think that has got to 18 be looked at with the modeling investigations 19 that have been done. Again, our sole focus was 20 can this technology work to improve oxygen, and 21 can we get 20,000 pounds a day in reliably. We 22 felt the best way to go about that was a full 23 scale barge-mounted demonstration, which is 24 what we accomplished. 25 I'm not trying to not your answer. I 16 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 don't really know the answers to what those 3 increments of the total deficit would be. We 4 really focused in on like a rifle shot, if you 5 will, how much oxygen do you need to add to 6 offset the reduced oxygen effects of the 7 project. 8 MR. KYLER: Okay. 9 MR. DYSART: Hope and then Judy, please. 10 MS. MOORER: Yes. Just to make just a 11 distinction, this was just a test, essentially 12 a short-term test of the recommended 13 technology. That's what the purpose of this 14 demonstration project was. You know, does it 15 work, can it work, how should -- what are the 16 problems with operation to finalize design. 17 It was to learn more about this technology 18 and how it operates in this sort of system. So 19 whatever was designed for this demonstration 20 project is not what would be the final design 21 recommended by the Corps within the final EIS 22 or mitigation plan. That is just a little 23 distinction there. 24 MR. NEAL: Margaret Tanner, project 25 manager. 17 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MR. DYSART: Judy. 3 MS. JENNINGS: I'm just trying to 4 reconcile my notes. Larry, I heard you say how 5 much oxygen do you need to offset harbor 6 deepening, and then earlier I had written down 7 20,000 pounds of oxygen per day would offset 8 deepening. How -- how does -- I guess I'm 9 trying to figure out, I wrote down 20,000 10 pounds a day would offset deepening. 11 They tested with 30, but you're still 12 trying to figure out how much oxygen would it 13 take to offset the deepening. 14 MS. TANNER: There's some ongoing 15 modeling that will clarify. 16 MR. NEAL: At the time we designed the 17 demonstration project, the nominal number for 18 offsetting the effects was 20,000 pounds per 19 day. 20 MS. JENNINGS: That came with the model? 21 MR. NEAL: Yes. So we took that number 22 and said we need to demonstrate at a size at 23 least that large. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Right, I understand. 25 MR. NEAL: So we as engineers are always 18 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 looking at well, I can't design right for 20. 3 I'll go for 30, and then we'll see what we get 4 with the demonstration. It's certain 5 experimentation with something like this as a 6 demonstration project. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I can imagine. 8 MR. NEAL: We needed 20, we built for 30, 9 and we'll show you what we got. 10 MS. JENNINGS: I just didn't catch where 11 20 came in. 12 MR. NEAL: Okay. It was from prior model. 13 MR. DYSART: John Robinette, please. 14 MR. ROBINETTE: You said you looked at 15 eliminating point source pollution as a way to 16 offset impacts from the deepening, but that 17 that wouldn't work, is that -- 18 MS. TANNER: No. It was to eliminate 19 impacts against dissolved oxygen. 20 MR. ROBINETTE: Oh, to bring it back up to 21 standards -- to meet standards? 22 MS. TANNER: Well, as a screening level -- 23 it was a screening level evaluation to look at 24 ways to improve dissolved oxygen in the harbor 25 and one of them was looking at eliminating 19 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 point sources by rerouting them seaward, or 3 storing them for longer periods of time during 4 the critical season. 5 MR. ROBINETTE: Right. 6 MS. TANNER: And so -- but the point was 7 looking at ways to improve dissolved oxygen in 8 the harbor. 9 MR. ROBINETTE: And the results were? 10 MS. TANNER: It wasn't cost effective and 11 it didn't provide the level of improvement 12 needed to offset any future deepening project. 13 MR. DYSART: Go ahead Margaret, thank you. 14 MS. TANNER: All right. We'll just move 15 into the presentation. Of course, you know, we 16 owe a lot Doug Marchand and Hope Moorer of the 17 ports Authority for getting this project up and 18 going, and providing the support we needed 19 throughout the project to get things moving 20 forward. 21 Larry has kind of gone over the project 22 issues. Basically, we are looking at a 23 dissolved oxygen limited segment of the harbor 24 that's going to be further impacted by the 25 proposed deepening project. 20 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 And, you know, we know that the modeling 3 at that time, and of course there have been 4 changes since then, but at that time the 5 modeling indicated the oxygen -- the dissolved 6 oxygen deficit would increase by about 20,000 7 pounds per day from the proposed deepening 8 project. 9 And so as you know, that the listed 10 segment. A lot of this you guys may already 11 know, so I'm going to go through it kind of 12 quick. Certainly, if you have any questions, 13 stop me. 14 That's the listed segment there going 15 along the Front River, basically starting at 16 the Talmadge Bridge moving downstream. It's 17 about a four mile segment. As Larry said, the 18 project goal was to demonstrate there was a 19 technology capable of mitigating the 20,000 20 pounds needed to offset the deepening project, 21 and to monitor the impacts to water quality. 22 All right. I threw this slide in there 23 because a lot of people, it depends on the 24 audience, don't know really what reaeration is 25 so I'll go through it quickly. 21 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 Basically, reaeration is transfer of 3 oxygen from the atmosphere into the water 4 column. And if you have a shallow, fast-moving 5 system with a lot of turbulence, you get good 6 mixing. You get a lot of reaeration. As you 7 deepen the system, the turbulence goes down. 8 The velocity of the water slows down. 9 It deepens, so it further transfers the 10 oxygen down into the water column. That is 11 what happens when you lose reaeration capacity. 12 You are actually slowing the water down and you 13 can't transfer as much oxygen into it. 14 All right. The system that we put 15 together down was a barge-mounted -- it was 16 mounted on a spud barge. It consisted of two 17 12 foot diameter 22 feet tall Speece cones. 18 We had four 400 horsepower turbine pumps. 19 Now, this was a demonstration project. We 20 designed it to be temporary. We used almost 21 entirely all rental equipment, and so there's 22 some inefficiencies that occurred because of 23 that. That would be overcome in a permanent 24 installation. 25 Certainly, the pumps were one of them. We 22 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 used surface -- just large turbine pumps on the 3 surface. But if you went to a vertical pump in 4 to the water, you would have a more efficient 5 pumping system. 6 We also designed our intakes on the system 7 to protect, hopefully, the impingement of fish 8 against those screens. We totally encased the 9 intake lines in these screens, and we kept the 10 face velocity of those screens at less than 11 half a foot per second, which is kind of the 12 EPA 316B back to clean water intake structures, 13 kind of what the velocity that fish can escape. 14 So that's why we used that. Then the 15 system was designed to have an oxygen transfer 16 consistency greater than 95%, and as we said it 17 was designed to inject 30,000 pounds per day. 18 Yes. 19 MR. DYSART: Let me just make a comment. 20 I think I might speak for a lot of people here 21 saying we really appreciate -- there are 22 probably a lot of people that appreciate your 23 not assuming that people know what impingement 24 means, and that there are probably people who 25 do not understand the scale of turbulence, and 23 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 vertical transport, and so forth. 3 So I guess my gut feeling is you're doing 4 a very nice job of helping make sure the people 5 understand the work that you did, and I 6 appreciate that. Excuse me. 7 MS. TANNER: All right. Thank you. This 8 is basically the design of the system. It's a 9 pretty simple system. If you look, coming off 10 here to the -- your right -- are the intake 11 screens. They were approximately eight feet 12 below the surface. 13 You can kind of see them here, the bottom 14 of the barge, side elevation, of course the 15 front elevation. Right here are the pumps and 16 they were pretty large. Here are some variable 17 frequency drives. They were used to control 18 the speed of the pumps. 19 Because we couldn't turn them all on at 20 once, if we used the single speed pumps, and we 21 just turned them on, they would have knocked 22 out the power on the entire island. So Georgia 23 Power insisted we put these controllers which 24 we did. 25 The two cones are right here. You can see 24 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 the water comes in through the pumps along the 3 lines at the top of the cones and comes out the 4 bottom return lines. And if you look, we 5 designed the return lines, they were about 30 6 feet below the surface, and designed with a 7 slight downward angle. 8 That was try to encourage that water to go 9 in towards the channel of the harbor -- to the 10 navigation channel. So we wanted a little bit 11 downward angle on that to force that water down 12 to the deepening part of the channel. 13 All right. Here we go; this is what the 14 system looked like when it was installed. It 15 was directly across from they Hyatt Hotel 16 downtown on River Street. 17 Some other things, again here the intake 18 lines coming in, the pumps, the drive, the 19 power came -- upgraded the power on the Island 20 and came in through this switch down a 21 gangplank onto the control -- into the 22 controllers. 23 Oxygen here came as liquid oxygen. It was 24 delivered pretty much everyday. It was 25 evaporated back into a vapor, and then came 25 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 down this gangplank, and was injected to the 3 top of the cones. 4 All right. We started monitoring about a 5 month before, a month and a half before we 6 actually turned the project on. That was to 7 try to get a baseline of conditions in the 8 harbor. 9 We stopped monitoring a couple weeks after 10 we turned the system off. We actually turned 11 the system on -- the official start-up -- we 12 did a testing weekend about a week before that 13 with testing the system, getting the flow set 14 on the cones, but the official start-up was on 15 august 7th at 1:00 p.m. It was at 1:00 p.m. 16 because we were waiting to finish our 17 monitoring that day in the river. 18 We didn't want to kind of have one day of 19 monitoring and then one day with the cone on. 20 We shut the system down on September 16th. All 21 right. Because monitoring was such an 22 important part of this project, we did quite a 23 lot of monitoring in the river. We did three 24 nearshore monitoring stations; one at the Army 25 Corps' dock, one at barge location, and you can 26 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 see that picture right there is the monitoring 3 station that was the on barge, and then one at 4 the Georgia Ports Authority Ocean Terminal. 5 In addition to the stationary monitoring, 6 nearshore monitoring locations, we had a three 7 mile targeted segment that we looked at, which 8 we did longitudinal monitoring runs about every 9 2 or 300 feet. 10 Then we also did five transects within 11 that same three mile segment. And then in 12 addition near the end of the project, we added 13 a 15 mile run that went from upstream of Ft. 14 Pulaski, but basically all the way up to the 15 top of the Kings Island Turning Basin. That's 16 the monitoring we did right there -- showing 17 you the locations. 18 This is that three mile target segment. 19 The Corps' dock is right here, and then came 20 upstream and Berth 20 is about right there 21 where you see that cluster of transects, and 22 then all those points in between. 23 It took us two days to do this monitoring. 24 We did the longitudinal run one day, and then 25 the next day we would go back and do the 27 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 transects. We always picked the same tidal 3 cycle for those pairs. So if it was at high 4 tide, then both days were high tide. 5 It was basically every other we hit the 6 tides because of the way the tides work. So 7 one week we would do low tide, and the next 8 week we would do high tide, and then following 9 by another low tide. 10 All right. Then, like I said, near the 11 end we added this 15 mile run. You can see it 12 starts down here -- Ft. Pulaski is way down 13 here. We started about here and we went up 14 just past the Kings Island Turning Basin. 15 All right. So the results of the 16 monitoring, the first thing we had, you know, 17 this is what the data coming out of the 18 monitoring, the DO zones looks. 19 This is the mid depth location at the 20 Ports Authority. You can see, initially, when 21 we started the project the system was 22 stratified. We were starting to see a little 23 bit of DO improvement in the harbor, and then 24 of course we had some destratification, so it 25 harder to pick out. 28 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 So that -- it's really hard to use this 3 continuous nearshore data to really tell what's 4 going on in the project. First, it's not in 5 the channel, and remember we're directing the 6 oxygen-rich water into the channel, so we're 7 just getting mixing effects at the side. 8 So we really felt that gave us a lot of 9 really good data, but it didn't really tell the 10 whole story. So if we started looking at the 11 transects that we were doing, and again we used 12 DO deficit as opposed to DO concentration, and 13 the reason for that is DO concentration is 14 really dependent on salinity and temperature 15 and in the water as well, of course, the 16 oxygen. 17 It fluctuates because of those conditions. 18 So the deficit is you take the saturation value 19 which is dependent on the same conditions, and 20 you take the concentration value which is 21 dependent on those same conditions, and you 22 subtract the two and that gives you the 23 deficit. 24 The deficit kind of normalizes it out to 25 different types of conditions. So that's what 29 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 modelers tend to use the DO deficit as opposed 3 to DO concentration. So the DO deficit is the 4 difference between, this is kind of how much 5 more oxygen can this water hold is what it is 6 showing you. 7 Okay. So the average DO deficit at the 8 start of the project, this is the day before 9 we started the project, was 3.9 approximately. 10 And then we started -- what we did is we first 11 pulled out the low tides to look at those. 12 The reason looked at the low tides first 13 was because that's really the more critical 14 condition, because you don't have that big 15 influx of water. The volumes are less in the 16 harbor. You have more freshwater flow coming 17 down. 18 This really shows you the more critical 19 time period. The flows at this time, the Clyo 20 gauge were near low flow conditions, 7 Q 10s, 21 and so it was a very critical -- more critical 22 than the high tide events. So we wanted to 23 show those first. 24 At the start of the project we were at 25 3.9. As we moved into the project, a couple 30 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 days later we started to see some changes, so 3 we're at 3.7. And another 13 days, almost two 4 weeks later, we were at 3.3. 5 All right. We kind of had a weather event 6 and so on several weeks later we were kind of 7 picked up a little bit, about 3.6, but the next 8 week everything calmed back down. We were back 9 at 3.2, again 3.2, and then we turned the 10 project off. Just a few days after that, we 11 were at 3.6. Then 10 days later we were back 12 at 3.9. 13 So that really showed us the effect of 14 this system. In kind of a summary picture of 15 that, if you look at, we started the project at 16 8-7. We were at 3.9. 17 In the middle of the project, we got 3.2 18 on the deficit which shows a significant 19 improvement. 20 And then at the end of the project we went 21 back to 3.9. So in summary the average impact 22 over the course, once you take all those 23 intermediate DO measurement grids and average 24 those together, and then you take the first one 25 and the last one which are both 3.9, the 31 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 average was about .6 milligrams per liter. 3 That was in that three mile segment, 4 averaged over that three mile segment. 5 MR. PARSONS: You say the average impact, 6 is that -- that's different than the actual 7 improvement in oxygen? 8 MS. TANNER: No. That's the improvement 9 to the DO deficit. That's the improvement of 10 oxygen. 11 MR. PARSONS: So this system improved the 12 oxygen by .6 milligrams per liter. 13 MS. TANNER: Right. 14 MR. NEAL: Also these measurements are at 15 the center line of the navigation channel. 16 They're full depth profiles at the center line, 17 so you look at those longitudinal plots over 18 that three mile section. 19 You're looking really taking a section 20 right through and down the middle of the 21 channel. It took several days before you would 22 come to quasi equilibrium like that. 23 MR. DYSART: Judy and then Hope. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Just, I didn't get it. DO 25 deficit is the difference between saturation 32 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 and what? 3 MS. TANNER: And concentration. It's 4 basically the amount of oxygen that you need to 5 get this river up to saturation. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. So DO deficit is 7 the difference between saturation and -- 8 MS. TANNER: Concentration, actual 9 concentration. So the theoretical maximum and 10 the actual measured difference, you subtract 11 those two and that's the deficit. 12 MS. JENNINGS: You know, what is 13 saturation? 14 MS. TANNER: Saturation is the amount of 15 oxygen -- 16 MS. JENNINGS: Is there a measurement? 17 MS. TANNER: Yeah, there is, but it 18 varies with salinity and temperature and -- 19 MR. DYSART: Freshwater at 20 degrees 20 centigrade, it would be about 9.2 milligrams 21 per liter. 22 MS. TANNER: Yeah, but that's very 23 variable. At times in this system we would be 24 as low as 8.2, 8.14. 25 MR. NEAL: Or even lower. 33 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MS. TANNER: Or even lower. 3 MR. NEAL: As salinity increases and 4 temperature increases, saturation decreases it 5 can hold less water, more salt the higher the 6 temperature it holds less water. 7 If you cool water off, you reduce the 8 salinity, it would hold more water. So we're 9 looking at comparing the oxygen level measured 10 against its potential capacity to hold oxygen. 11 MS. MOORER: I just wanted to mention that 12 their report, and all the back-up data files, 13 this is just a real high-level, average-out 14 over what they saw. 15 If you want to see all the varying tides, 16 varying measures, transects as well as the 17 center line, I mean there was just thousands of 18 data points collected for this whole study. 19 This is much of a simplification of it. 20 If you are interested, all that has been posted 21 to the website. So it's out there. The 22 report, all the data, all that is out there if 23 you want to dive into it. 24 MR. NEAL: This is the appetizer portion. 25 MS. TANNER: I have a copy of the report 34 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 in my laptop if anyone would like to get a copy 3 today. 4 MR. DYSART: David. 5 MR. KYLER: Looking at the numbers of 6 the deficit reduction, it seems like financial 7 policies. .6, .7 out of 3.9 would be roughly, 8 I don't know, 18% or something. Assuming the 9 modeling led to an accurate estimation of the 10 deprivation caused by the project, that means 11 that the vast majority of the deprivation 12 existing in the river is something else, other 13 causes. 14 You're only correcting for 18%, and 15 assuming that's all attributed to the project 16 that means 82% is caused by something else. So 17 my concern would be looking at it globally or 18 holistically. 19 What else is causing it, and why not work 20 on those others things, rather than in an 21 energy intensive and engineered solution to 22 bringing back the oxygen? You understand what 23 I'm saying? 24 MR. NEAL: I think I understand what you 25 are saying. First, to let you know something 35 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 we didn't show you here is that this system, we 3 believe, dissolved in 27,000 pounds a day, not 4 the 20,000. It was a 30,000 pound design 5 looking at flow rates we were able to achieve 6 in the system and concentrations. It hit about 7 27,000. 8 Your question of that percentage as 9 compared to what other effects may be causing 10 oxygen deficit, that has been modeled 11 extensively. 12 I think you'll find that the two biggest 13 factors are the combination of marsh unload 14 into the system, in other words oxygen 15 demanding loads coming out of the marshes, and 16 sediment oxygen demand, the demand that is 17 created at the bottom out further. 18 There may be others here that are right 19 up to speed on the modeling that's been done 20 since I was last aware, but those are the major 21 components of the overall deficit. 22 MR. KYLER: Sediment demand caused by 23 what? 24 MR. NEAL: All water bodies have and 25 oxygen demand from the underlying sediment 36 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 bottom -- 3 MR. KYLER: Yeah, but from that assessment 4 that would mean that natural function are the 5 major source of oxygen depletion, and natural 6 conditions there is enough oxygen to support 7 aquatic functions. So it seems to me that that 8 would imply that there has to be an artificial 9 source that is causing this depletion, causing 10 the 82% not attributed to this project. 11 MR. NEAL: These sound like the TMDL 12 issues that -- 13 MR. KYLER: Well, let me ask maybe a 14 better way of clarifying would be this; rather 15 than the deficit is based upon the maximum 16 amount of oxygen that's dissolvable for water 17 of a certain type, what is the -- do you have 18 any sort of operating understanding of the 19 amount of deficit that is typical by that 20 definition in functioning natural coastal 21 ecosystems? 22 MR. MIKLOS: Background conditions from 23 the stream. 24 MR. KYLER: Not this stream because this 25 stream is altered from a natural stream. 37 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MR. MIKLOS: You model for natural 3 conditions when you take out point source 4 loads. 5 MR. KYLER: And non-point source loads? 6 MR. MIKLOS: Correct. Let me go back to 7 the 1854 bathymetry is low flow conditions. 8 Gene Greenfield's blast model for EPA resulted 9 in the 4.4 DO on the surface for the natural 10 background condition. That's not a deficit. 11 That's the actual DO concentration. That's 12 well below saturation. 13 MR. KYLER: I'm confused. What does that 14 number mean to relative to the 3.9? 15 MR. MIKLOS: Well, the 3.9 would be the 16 deficit from saturation, saturation like they 17 were saying could be 8.0, 8.2, but the actual 18 dissolved DO concentration of that 1854 19 bathymetry resulted in the low flow conditions 20 and no point sources was 4.4 at the surface. 21 It's a modeling result. 22 MR. NEAL: For comparative purposes, that 23 modeling result very easily would yield what 24 the deficit would be for that 4.4 25 concentration, because the model would have the 38 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 temperature and salinity to go along with that 3 value. 4 MR. MIKLOS: Correct. 5 MR. NEAL: And in fact, the equation of 6 the model work with the deficit anyway and then 7 convert them back to oxygen. 8 MR. MIKLOS: That 1854 bathymetry was 9 prior to any harbor deepening, so that's 10 another roughly 12 foot stream as opposed to 14 11 foot stream. 12 MR. KYLER: So can you convert that to 13 what amount of the total problem we're dealing 14 with by injecting 27,000 pounds? 15 MR. MIKLOS: I can't do the numbers off 16 the top of my head, but I would venture to 17 guess that 4.4, if you 8.0 or 8.2 is your 18 saturation concentration, you are looking at -- 19 still looking at a 3.8 deficit even at natural 20 background condition from saturation. 21 MR. KYLER: I don't mean to discourage 22 anybody, but it seems to me bordering on 23 preposterous that the Savannah -- Lower 24 Savannah River has about the same dissolved 25 oxygen as a natural system. 39 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MR. MIKLOS: Oh, that's not the 3 contention, I don't believe. 4 MR. KYLER: Anyway, what I'm trying to get 5 at is let's try to determine to what extent the 6 projected effects of the project are the total 7 problem, which I presume are less than half of 8 the problem of oxygen deprivation in the Lower 9 Savannah River, and then deal with the existing 10 causes as the first order of correction for the 11 oxygen deprivation, rather than introducing the 12 engineered solution that has high energy costs 13 and ongoing, continuous commitment of 14 resources. 15 MR. DYSART: Kelie -- Jane. 16 MS. GRIESS: I was just going to ask, this 17 is the average impact of the center line 18 profiles; do you have the range of -- what the 19 range was? 20 MS. TANNER: Yeah. It's .7 to 3.5, the 21 deficit range. 22 MR. NEAL: You need to go back to one of 23 those ISO-plats -- you mean the range along the 24 center line? 25 MS. GRIESS: Not the average of all of 40 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 them together, which I am assuming that's what 3 those number are, but -- 4 MR. NEAL: If you could blow one up you 5 can actually see the lines. 6 MS. GRIESS: I'm sure it's on the 7 Internet. 8 MR. NEAL: Those lines are the actual 9 deficit, so you can see in this one that the 10 range was -- looks like 3.5 to 3.8 at this 11 particular snapshot. 12 MS. GRIESS: On that center line. 13 MR. NEAL: On that center line that three 14 mile length that day and at low slack; whereas 15 here the range was looks like 3 to 3 2,3 4, 3 16 5, 3 to 3 5. So only half a part per million 17 here, you weren't terribly stratified at this 18 point. Our oxygen was being added from the 19 left edge water with our injection point 30 20 feet, roughly 10 meters in a 10 degree 21 downward -- we have a jet momentum essentially. 22 Think of it as an 18 inch diameter fire hose. 23 MS. GRIESS: Oh yeah, I saw it. 24 MR. NEAL: That creates quite a momentum 25 toward the center. If we were doing this in an 41 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 ideal rather than a short-term demonstration 3 how quickly can you do it, we would probably 4 have that piping arrangement differently 5 configured. 6 So we got it surgically right where we 7 wanted it. This was our attempt to get it to 8 where we wanted it, with the constraint we had 9 to be on the edge. We couldn't moor our barge 10 any further out than we did with Coast Guard 11 navigation constraints. 12 So we tried to simulate what a real 13 installation might look like. Ours is on a 14 barge so it was going up and down with the 15 tides, so the depth of injection stayed 16 constant in our setting, only moving with 17 respect to the bottom -- 18 MS. TANNER: And that's why we were 19 limited to 30 feet; at 32 we would be pumping 20 the bottom so we kept it up. 21 MR. DYSART: Steve, Judy, and Bill Farmer, 22 and then Priscilla. 23 MR. WILLIS: Margaret or Larry, either one 24 of you, I assume you had no expectations of 25 getting the dissolved oxygen up to absolute 42 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 saturation? 3 MS. TANNER: No. 4 MR. WILLIS: So what I'm asking is, what 5 exactly would you consider an acceptable level 6 of deficit? 7 MR. NEAL: In our case the target we're 8 looking at is how much will deepening increment 9 for the project, how much additional oxygen 10 deficit will that create, and we want to undo 11 or offset, mitigate that amount. 12 MR. WILLIS: And what was that? 13 MR. NEAL: I believe that number was 14 something in the two tenths, three tenths 15 range. 16 MS. TANNER: Uh-huh. 17 MR. NEAL: I don't have that number at 18 hand. 19 MS. TANNER: That's what I remember. It 20 was about between .2 and .3. 21 MS. MOORER: And that, Steve, I don't know 22 exactly where it is now, but in terms of then 23 once you add mitigation features in there, that 24 number is going to change. And that modeling 25 has still been going on. So the final 43 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 determination of what level and what design of 3 system is still going on. But since this was a 4 demonstration, those were early model results 5 they were using to try to test. 6 MR. NEAL: I think the summary statement 7 that would tell you with about 27,000 pounds a 8 day going in at this location, remember we're 9 only putting in at one location. The target 10 zone is this three mile length, we could change 11 the deficit, reduce the deficit, improve the 12 oxygen by about six tenths of a part per 13 million, under conditions that were very hot if 14 you remember this summer, and steady 15 substantially the drought flow condition at 16 Clyo, the freshwater inflow. 17 Given all those conditions, the tides that 18 existed over this 40 day injection period, 19 that's what this system is capable of doing. 20 So it give us you a kind of guideline or 21 rule of thumb, if you will, for how well this 22 will work. 23 MR. WILLIS: So hopefully it would 24 successfully mitigate if you ran it full-time? 25 MR. NEAL: It appears that it would. 44 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 Again, this will have to be looked at with what 3 is the model, say ultimately with all the other 4 mitigation measures incorporated, what will be 5 needed. That number will come out to be some 6 different number, not 20,000, but again, I 7 always point out this is a -- we can't really 8 design for exactly what you need. We have to 9 know what do you need, and then you build a 10 system that's robust enough, big enough, 11 durable enough to at least add that amount. 12 We were just seeing if we could get into 13 that range with a temporary demonstration 14 system. 15 MS. TANNER: In August this last year, we 16 were at as critical, you know, I think of any 17 other measurements that have been made in the 18 harbor. I mean, we had flows below 7 Q 10 in 19 the measured Clyo, the critical low flow 20 measurement, and it was really hot. 21 You can see when the project started up, 22 we had a two or three degree air temperature 23 rise that was sustained for pretty much most of 24 the demonstration period. 25 MR. DYSART: Judy. 45 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MS. JENNINGS: This is -- this is a 3 junior-size question. I think it's kind of 4 interesting that the average DO during the 5 demonstration is 3.3, but 10 days after it's 6 3.9. 7 I don't understand, I mean just not 8 knowing I would have guessed it would have gone 9 the other way. 10 MS. TANNER: Well, that's the deficit, 11 remember, the bigger the deficit the lower the 12 DO in the harbor because the deficit is the 13 difference. 14 MS. JENNINGS: The larger. 15 MS. TANNER: The larger the deficit the 16 less oxygen the water has in it. 17 MS. JENNINGS: Now that you said that, my 18 mind was going back and forth, in 10 days can 19 you draw any conclusions from the fact that it 20 -- so you're talking about the 10 days after 21 shutdown is what you said? 22 MS. TANNER: Uh-huh. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Can you draw any conclusion 24 from that, I mean, .6 milligrams per liter, you 25 lost in 10 days. 46 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MS. TANNER: Gained -- oh, you mean we 3 lost in 10 days, I'm sorry. Well, we didn't 4 because if you notice, it started ramping down 5 during that 10 day period. 6 MS. JENNINGS: What ramped down? 7 MS. TANNER: The DO, if you look back 8 here, we were at 3.2, 3.3, then, you know, we 9 had another measurement in between 3.6, and 10 then 3.9. It wasn't it just dropped out. 11 It gradually -- 12 MS. JENNINGS: Gradually dropped out. 13 MS. TANNER: Yeah. 14 MS. JENNINGS: My next question is, what's 15 the average -- one of the things I learned, I 16 used to think water came in swish swish and 17 water came out swish swish, but I've been 18 taught that it doesn't, that a little molecule 19 of water kind of floats around in there a long 20 time. 21 MS. TANNER: Like a 21 day residency time. 22 MS. JENNINGS: A 21 day residency time, so 23 in terms of the success of the project, do you 24 draw any conclusions from that? 25 MS. TANNER: Well, I think if you were 47 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 running the system and you had a power outage, 3 or the pump was down and you lost DO, you have 4 some time. 5 It's not like immediately everything is 6 going to go, you know, the oxygen is going to 7 drop out of the system. You have some residual 8 impact of that oxygen throughout the running 9 -- you know, you have a week or more where you 10 are not going to look at extremely depressed DO 11 levels, if the system were to shut down. You 12 have some time for repair. 13 MS. JENNINGS: And just -- I understand. 14 I guess the point is kind of like a Dodge, you 15 can't quit. 16 MS. TANNER: I'm sorry. 17 MS. JENNINGS: You just can't stop it once 18 you get to a certain point to maintain what you 19 were shooting for. 20 MS. TANNER: It would run through the 21 critical season, but it would shut off during 22 fall all the way up to the next spring. It 23 would be only during the summer; June, July, 24 August kind of time frame would the system run. 25 That's really when it would be needed to offset 48 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 the DO impact. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Do you have a model or 4 something like that so you can take the results 5 you've got and change the temperature, and 6 salinity, the factors that impact saturation, 7 and prove that you don't need it during those 8 other periods of time? 9 MS. TANNER: Well yeah, when they run the 10 model the DO increases a lot because the flows 11 are much larger. 12 MS. JENNINGS: You can show that. 13 MS. TANNER: Yeah, that's what's being 14 shown in the model. 15 MS. JENNINGS: And going back to David's 16 point about other things, when you talk about 17 saturation, the only factors -- the only 18 variables you consider are salinity and 19 temperature. You're going with what you have 20 got. 21 MS. TANNER: I mean, if you look at how DO 22 is calculated, yeah. There's elevations 23 involved in it. There's several factors that 24 go into what the saturation is at a given point 25 and a given time. 49 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MR. JENNINGS: Basically, you're just 3 accepting what's in the river. 4 MS. TANNER: The instruments we use 5 measure saturation, so we were using that data 6 to then -- and it measures concentration. It's 7 giving us both readings simultaneously. 8 It reports what the saturation would be 9 and reports the actual concentration so at 10 every point we would just do the calculation. 11 MS. JENNINGS: I didn't understand -- I 12 don't understand not terribly stratified, are 13 those weather events that change that? 14 MS. TANNER: Yeah. The DO -- the river, 15 the Savannah Harbor during different phases of 16 the moon stratifies and destratifies. 17 So it will go through like a roughly two 18 week period of stratification and then that 19 will break up and it gets highly stratified. 20 And I've got other data in my report, and 21 other slides for other presentations that 22 actually show more of that stratification. You 23 can definitely see the stratification, and then 24 you can see when it breaks up, and then it goes 25 several weeks with no stratification, well 50 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 mixed, and then it re-stratifies. 3 MS. JENNINGS: But there are huge 4 atmospheric conditions and other things causing 5 that. 6 MS. TANNER: That's right. You can either 7 have a stratification event, you might have a 8 weather event that breaks that stratification 9 up, even though -- you know, there are a lot of 10 things that confound that. 11 MR. NEAL: When you talk of 12 stratification, think of cold water is more 13 dense than warm water. Saltwater is more dense 14 than freshwater. 15 So if I have cool sea, high salinity, it's 16 going to tend to find that water -- that water 17 will tend to find the greater depths with the 18 warmer less saline water atop that. 19 But then when the energy of the system 20 changes from the tide moving, whether in or 21 out, it can enough energy or push to overcome 22 that density difference and actual cause a 23 turning over or a mixing. So there's a lot of 24 factors at play. Temperature and salinity 25 being the water parameters, but then the energy 51 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 the system is receiving from the tide incoming, 3 push if you will, and then on the outgoing a 4 pull headed back to the sea. 5 Well those have huge amounts of energy 6 that is dissipated, and a fair amount of it is 7 dissipated into the water column to create 8 mixing that's essentially interacting or 9 fighting with the density. It's very 10 complicated. 11 MS. JENNINGS: I know but that was very 12 good. 13 MR. NEAL: The processes that control it 14 are really those three, what's the tide doing 15 energy-wise, and what's the salinity and the 16 temperature of the water doing. 17 MS. JENNINGS: I'll have to write it down 18 in five minutes from now, but when you said it, 19 I got it. 20 MR. NEAL: Our reporter apparently did get 21 it. 22 MS. JENNINGS: I want to ask, this might 23 aim more back at the Corps, Larry, that I'm 24 just curious about. Since we've established in 25 10 days you're already -- I mean you can't turn 52 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 it off, do we know the total cost for 3 mitigating the harbor deepening, and Bill just 4 that's part of the economics analysis, right? 5 MR. BAILEY: That will be part of the 6 cost, yes. We don't have all those numbers 7 right now. We don't know what they are now, 8 but they will be included. When we get to the 9 end they will be included. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. We've got Bill, 11 Priscilla, Keith, John and Hope. 12 MS. MOORER: Ron. 13 MR. DYSART: And Ron, the lists grows. 14 Bill. 15 MR. FARMER: You had indicated the other 16 methods of mitigating between the offshore 17 deficit were analyzed, but this was the most 18 cost effective method, the pumping of oxygen 19 in. Did you actually compute the benefit cost 20 ratios for all these other possibilities? 21 MS. TANNER: Yes. That would be the 22 screening level report. 23 MR. FARMER: And what would be the 24 comparison, would this be twice as good, four 25 times as good, 10 times as good? 53 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MS. TANNER: I'm sorry, I don't remember. 3 MS. MOORER: That report, that's why this 4 is up here. That report is on the screening 5 level report that MACTEC did for the Corps in 6 trying to narrow the options for oxygen 7 mitigation, DO mitigation. That's on the 8 website too. It's a big thick report, but it's 9 also on the website. 10 So those -- that analysis is out there of 11 how we got -- how we got to this point, to the 12 oxygen injection selection, and MACTEC did that 13 report and it's on the website. 14 MR. FARMER: Just another one of Judy's 15 basic science questions, the 20,000 pounds 16 deficit, what's the natural inflow of oxygen 17 into that three mile section of the river, is 18 it 100,000 and this is 20,000 that's short? 19 MR. NEAL: Remember, it's a huge number 20 because the flow at this section, because you 21 are under tidal influence, is obviously back 22 and forth with a net freshwater flow coming 23 downstream, in this case of about 5,000 cubic 24 feet per second. 25 Incoming tides, we have 80, 90,000 cubic 54 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 feet a second hit it upstream. Outgoing tide, 3 similar magnitude numbers every tide cycle. I 4 can take the amount of oxygen in that flow and 5 compute for you, there's this much oxygen 6 headed upstream at a given instant and headed 7 downstream in a given instant. 8 Those numbers are huge compared to the 9 20,000 pound number per day. And therein lies 10 part of the challenge of figuring out the 11 demonstration of how much could you move that 12 deficit. 13 This monitoring is very, very precise in 14 an attempt to measure a very small impact in 15 a very large system. So if this were a small 16 system, a small stream, you know we can make 17 that impact much greater. 18 And here we're trying to move a deficit 19 just a small amount because that's what the 20 modeling predicts will be the amount to deal 21 with. This is a really large system when you 22 look at the oxygen dynamics. 23 MR. DYSART: David Kyler says he has a 24 clarification here. 25 MR. KYLER: Clarifying question -- I 55 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 apologize for interjecting here, but relating 3 to the question Bill asked about analysis 4 alternatives, did that include control of 5 non-point source pollution or just point 6 source? 7 MS. MOORER: I don't -- I have no idea. 8 MR. KYLER: I would suspect that it's not 9 control of non-point source pollution and 10 that would -- widely alleged by EPD and other 11 sources, credible sources, to be the biggest 12 single source of oxygen deprivation. So until 13 that is examined, I don't think we've really 14 done our job. 15 MR. NEAL: Not to answer but just to point 16 out something that these oxygen demand 17 requirements, and oxygen addition requirements 18 to mitigate, all of this is predicated on a 19 worst case drought summer period, very low 20 flow, hot weather, not much rain. 21 The principle non-point source contributed 22 during a period like that is the marsh flowing 23 which is a natural phenomenon, not from a 24 manmade phenomenon. 25 So the non-point source contribution 56 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 during this critical period starts getting 3 lower and lower and lower, simply because you 4 don't have rainfall. So there's 5 counterbalancing factors in play. 6 We're narrowing down on a period of time 7 where historically we know we've gotten our 8 lowest oxygen levels, and zero in on a period 9 of time when we've gotten our least rain and 10 low stream flows. 11 MR. KYLER: So that would seem to weigh 12 against non-point source pollution then? 13 MR. NEAL: No, the non-point source 14 contribution from the marshes goes on because 15 every tidal cycle a load and discharge, a load 16 and discharge. 17 MR. KYLER: I'm talking about artificial 18 non-point source pollution from stormwater, 19 from upland developed areas, which is the thing 20 that can be controlled as opposed to the marsh 21 which is natural and to be accommodated. 22 MR. NEAL: I understand what you're -- 23 MS. TANNER: The stormwater loads, the 24 seas and stuff are part of the load allocation 25 which is the manmade portion of the -- what's 57 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 part of the TMDL. That's already been taken 3 into the manmade side of the equation. It's 4 the waste load allocation, the non-point 5 sources from the natural conditions, the 6 marshes and stuff, that Larry was talking 7 about. 8 MR. KYLER: I understand how that TMDL 9 factor relates to this analysis and alternative 10 ways of controlling the problem. Are you 11 saying because it's non-point source pollution 12 from human sources -- 13 MS. TANNER: It's permitted -- 14 MR. KYLER: -- it's compensated for in the 15 TMDL as part of the alternatives for 16 controlling it. 17 MS. TANNER: Right. That's part of the 18 load allocation in the TMDL they are revising. 19 There is a finalized TMDL out there, but it 20 wasn't quite there when they published so they 21 are working on a revision of that. 22 MR. KYLER: I'd just like to flag that 23 clarification and further discussion of the 24 problem. 25 MR. DYSART: Priscilla. 58 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MS. WENDT: Priscilla Wendt, South 3 Carolina DNR. The 20,000 pounds per day, is 4 that based on a 48 foot deepening scenario 5 that's required to -- can anybody answer that? 6 MS. TANNER: It's based on the proposed 7 deepening. 8 MS. WENDT: 48 foot deepening? 9 MR. SCHALLER: I think so -- Larry? 10 MR. NEAL: That was my understanding. Not 11 having done that model, I can't tell you -- 12 MS. TANNER: From the existing conditions 13 to the 48. 14 MS. WENDT: My other question was, I guess 15 maybe nobody here can answer it, whether it 16 also accounts for over and advanced maintenance 17 dredging, that 20,000 pounds required to 18 mitigate for that? 19 MR. NEAL: You mean during the actual act 20 of dredging? 21 MS. WENDT: Yeah. 22 MR. NEAL: Of course, I might point out 23 that during the period of time we were running 24 the demonstration project, there was 25 maintenance dredging ongoing upstream. 59 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MS. WENDT: Well, I'm talking about the 3 incremental greater depth above and beyond 48 4 feet that would be allowed for advanced 5 maintenance. 6 MR. BAILEY: The model would include a 7 continuation of what we have now. 8 MS. WENDT: So the 20,000 pounds per day 9 dissolved oxygen is the worst case scenario for 10 the deepest depth that is being considered? 11 MR. BAILEY: That was an early number. 12 Those numbers are being reworked. 13 MS. WENDT: Right. Okay. I guess my 14 other question is would the effectiveness of 15 this system, in terms of reduction in DO 16 deficit, do you think it would be different if 17 in fact the river were currently deeper, would 18 it be less effective? 19 MS. TANNER: It would be a little 20 different, yes, because you have the much 21 greater volume you're dissolving into, but look 22 at the way the system works. 23 There was a residual. It held that oxygen 24 as it went upstream. As the tide came in, it 25 would flush that higher DO water up into the 60 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 turning basin. 3 Once it hits the turning basin, it really 4 didn't have anywhere else to go, because you've 5 got freshwater flows coming out the top. So it 6 kind of pooled in the turning basin. 7 When the tides switched and it started 8 going out, that higher water went down. 9 There's a lot of residual effect from that 10 storage in the turning basin, and as it comes 11 back down. 12 So I think that even -- even though you 13 would have a few more feet deeper, five feet 14 more deeper that there is more volume. You 15 could still get that residual effect. I don't 16 think it would be a little different, but I 17 don't know how -- 18 MR. NEAL: To -- I think I understand your 19 question exactly. Let's say for example we 20 said well, we were able to move the deficit six 21 tenths of a part per million with 27,000 pounds 22 under current conditions; what would that have 23 done if it already been deepened? 24 MS. WENDT: Right, that's my question. 25 MR. NEAL: I understand. We can't answer 61 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 that other than through modeling. The 3 modeling -- that is the purpose of the 4 modeling is to test conditions that don't 5 exist yet. 6 We, basically, conducted a very large 7 experiment on the existing system to see what 8 you could do with this technology in that 9 location. Now, the location was really quite 10 good. 11 And I'll have to say, it was just our good 12 fortune to find someone willing to lease space 13 where that that barge could be moored, and it 14 could be as far as in toward the channel as we 15 were able to get. 16 I had visions early on that we weren't 17 going to able to get anywhere near that close, 18 to be able to inject right into the deep 19 channel, but we were. 20 We can't say that we would get more 21 deficit reduction when you deepen it, because 22 that's the thing we're going after. We're 23 going after what is projected to be maybe a two 24 tenths or three tenths addition. So we got 25 about six tenths under existing conditions. 62 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 I don't want to say well that means we'll 3 be okay. We certainly believe it went the 4 right way. We were able to move the needle a 5 good bit. 6 We actually, even though it's a small 7 increment, it was where our expectations were 8 for the best result, and we're pleased with 9 that. 10 MS. WENDT: Right, but you might have to 11 notify your system with greater depth -- 12 MR. NEAL: Sure. You do that with the 13 model. I think in the implementation of a 14 permanent system, the design layout might be 15 such that you do it in this is what I think 16 will do the job. Plan B is I have one more 17 unit up here or over there, and demonstrate 18 your way into here's what I really need. 19 Some of the things we of course learned is 20 that optimizing where you put these injection 21 points is one factor. Another factor is how do 22 you get good land access from it so it is less 23 costly to maintain, because you've got good 24 roads, you've got power, so forth. 25 In our installation we had to have power 63 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 improved because they didn't have the amount of 3 power that we needed for this short-term 4 demonstration. So again, rented a transformer, 5 got power brought in. 6 MS. WENDT: Thank you. 7 MR. DYSART: Keith. 8 MR. PARSONS: Just to follow-up on that, 9 you actually haven't run that model at 48 feet 10 yet, based on your current knowledge of the 11 data? 12 MR. NEAL: No. The model has been run at 13 numerous depths -- not by us though. This is 14 the Corps' contractor and EPA. 15 MR. PARSONS: Are there numbers for that, 16 Bill? 17 MR. BAILEY: We had one set of numbers. 18 That's where they got the 20,000 pounds. We 19 are revising those numbers now and that work 20 isn't finished yet. 21 MR. PARSONS: Okay. 22 MR. DYSART: Does that take care of you, 23 Keith? 24 MR. PARSONS: 25 MR. DYSART: John Robinette. 64 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MR. ROBINETTE: Thank you. You said you 3 took these measurements down the center line of 4 the channel? 5 MS. TANNER: Yes. 6 MR. ROBINETTE: That's where you got -- 7 where you came up with the .6. Are these 8 measurements from different depths? 9 MS. TANNER: Yeah. 10 MR. ROBINETTE: For the whole water column 11 -- I must have missed that, sorry. 12 MS. TANNER: Yes. I didn't go that into 13 detail here, but each point measurement we did 14 four depths. We did one foot from the bottom, 15 one foot from the surface, and two interspaced 16 in between for each of those measurements for 17 each profile coming upstream. 18 And keep in mind, we had to do this at 19 slack tide because the currents in the harbor 20 are such that we couldn't hold the boat, so we 21 had to center it up on slack tide. We were 22 limited in time. 23 We did some two foot profiles, one foot, 24 two foot profiles in the river. Each one took 25 over an hour, so we didn't do that again 65 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 because we just couldn't get it in and stay in 3 that slack tide condition. 4 MR. NEAL: Beyond just the access of 5 working condition with the tide current though, 6 our objective was to normalize for as many 7 variables as we could, much like we use deficit 8 which normalizes for temperature and salinity. 9 We targeted slack tide conditions because 10 that's the instant, if you will, that the river 11 is holding still for just that brief moment 12 that we can take essentially a snapshot. 13 We did it both center line longitudinally 14 and then we did it in cross-sections. I will 15 say that if we take the data from both, center 16 line and the cross-sections, we get 17 substantially the same answer. 18 Those measurements were made 19 independently, so we're gratified by being able 20 to, essentially, have another way to look at 21 the data and get the same bulk answer. 22 MR. ROBINETTE: So you got .6 whether it 23 was at the center line or it was within the 24 cross-section. 25 MR. NEAL: It had to be averaged in the 66 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 cross-section. 3 MS. TANNER: Yes. They were all averaged 4 over the grid. 5 MR. ROBINETTE: Was there a difference in 6 the depths? I mean, did you get a .3 7 correction at the bottom and a .9 at the top? 8 MS. TANNER: Yeah. That's what you're 9 seeing here. That's the three mile segment 48 10 feet deep, or you can see the depth in meters, 11 17 feet deep. In that run, we would have 14 12 measurement points, and then at each one we 13 would have four depths. 14 MR. ROBINETTE: I should have sat closer 15 to the screen where I could actually see it. 16 It would have probably helped. 17 MS. MOORER: All of that is on the website 18 too, all the different data points -- it's a 19 lot of data. 20 MR. NEAL: In the cross-sections, you do 21 get more variability across the section, but 22 when you average it all out in the 23 cross-sections, and look at the change imparted 24 during the course of the event, you get as I 25 say substantially the same number, six tenths 67 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 number. 3 MS. TANNER: When we're done, if you would 4 like to look at some of that, I can pull it up 5 on the laptop, because I'm only showing the 6 longitudinal profile, but I have all the 7 transects. 8 Like if you are interested in 9 stratification, we have salinity, ISO-plats, 10 and temperature ISO-plats, so you can see that 11 stratification in the system at different 12 times. 13 MR. ROBINETTE: You've got the DO deficit 14 there, what was the actual DO? 15 MR. NEAL: You would have to look at one 16 of the -- we've got those plots also, but not 17 in this presentation. It's quite a bit 18 different because that depth, this is the cold, 19 cooler, and higher salinity. 20 So there we have a good bit lower DO than 21 you do at the top. But when you convert to 22 deficit, you are normalizing the effects of 23 salinity and temperature. 24 MR. ROBINETTE: Right. 25 MR. NEAL: And what we really have done 68 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 here is conducted an experiment for which we 3 don't have a control to work against, so we're 4 having to normalize out for as many variables 5 as we can, slack tide condition using the 6 deficit, and we were blessed with pretty hot, 7 steady weather. 8 We had some rain events and we'd see the 9 effects of those local events with the cooling, 10 but all in all we were fortunate with a fairly 11 stable and extreme climatic condition during 12 our period of study. 13 MR. ROBINETTE: Was your ability to impact 14 the deficit better during times of 15 stratification than it was during times of 16 higher tides when you got mixing? 17 MS. TANNER: It was about the same 18 throughout. We only really had stratification 19 right at the beginning. Then about halfway 20 through we stayed pretty stratified, and then 21 it switched over, but we still maintained about 22 the same amount of deficit during that time. 23 MR. ROBINETTE: And what's the project 24 impacts to the deficit? I know you said it was 25 20,000 pounds a day that the project is 69 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 proposed to -- that's supposed to be the 3 impacts of a six foot harbor, I guess. 4 MS. MOORER: I think so. I think that's 5 what they used. 6 MR. ROBINETTE: What does that equate to 7 in DO deficit, is that .1 milligrams per liter? 8 MS. TANNER: I remember reading in an 9 earlier report, and it could very well have 10 changed, but it was about -- it was .2, .3 11 which was expected from the deepening. 12 MR. ROBINETTE: And you were saying that 13 the existing -- within the existing harbor that 14 there was about a four mile stretch that was -- 15 in particular that was impaired, or that was 16 having problems with DO in the summertime. 17 MS. TANNER: That's what EPD has listed as 18 the impaired segment and that's what driving 19 the TMDL. 20 MR. ROBINETTE: What would be the impacts 21 of deepening on that four mile stretch; will it 22 increase, would it become 4.1 or 4.5, or do we 23 have answers to that? 24 MS. TANNER: That's part of the entire 25 20,000 pounds that's expected to cause 70 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 throughout the harbor. 3 MR. ROBINETTE: So that area -- 4 MS. TANNER: Yeah, that includes that 5 segment. 6 MR. ROBINETTE: But right now you're 7 saying the critical four mile stretch of the 8 river. 9 MS. TANNER: Right. 10 MR. ROBINETTE: So with the deepening, if 11 you didn't have the DO injection, that would 12 grow or increase? 13 MS. MOORER: Bill, do you know? 14 MR. BAILEY: That would be the .2 or .3 15 she was talking about before. 16 MS. TANNER: Yeah, because that's the 17 segment -- when they do the modeling they run 18 through the whole river, but then they're 19 focused in on that four mile segment. 20 MR. DYSART: Ron Michaels, Lucille, Judy, 21 Hope, Will, Keith and Steve. We do not have a 22 deficit of discussion, thank goodness. 23 MR. MICHAELS: I'll make this very short, 24 assuming a rough estimate of .2 to .3 25 milligrams per liter increased DO deficit 71 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 caused by the deepening project, and seeing an 3 average decrease in the oxygen deficit of .6 4 milligrams per liter provided by the DO 5 injection system, it appears at least in a 6 preliminary way that this system is capable of 7 some mitigation. 8 So I guess my question is that being the 9 case, does the deepening project plan on moving 10 forward with this technology? 11 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 12 MR. DYSART: Question asked, question 13 answered. Lucille. 14 MS. COLLINS-RAHN: Okay. When the project 15 is set up, if at some point the DO is less than 16 what your charts say it would be less, would 17 you be able to start up the reoxygenation? 18 MR. NEAL: We call it re ox. 19 MS. COLLINS-RAHN: Would it be able to -- 20 would you be able to rerun the process, or 21 start it up again if you found that the DO was 22 low? 23 MS. TANNER: Yeah, yeah. If you were 24 heading into a period where you knew the DO was 25 low based on weather predictions, whatever, you 72 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 would just plan to start that project up at 3 that time. That would basically be during that 4 hot summertime period that you would expect 5 that. 6 MS. COLLINS-RAHN: But the way the 7 environment is changing all the time, you never 8 know what works, when something might come up. 9 MS. TANNER: Yeah. I suppose if we were 10 having an unusually warm weather, they could 11 start up early. When you have it turned off, 12 you would have to take things out of the river 13 to keep them from fouling during the winter, 14 stuff like that, the return lines and stuff 15 like that. 16 You would -- those are designed to put 17 back in fairly quick. Those are designed to 18 put back in fairly quickly. 19 MR. DYSART: Judy. 20 MS. JENNINGS: I think somewhere between 21 answering Priscilla's questions and John's 22 questions you got at it. I guess my point was 23 that the modeling told you you needed 20,000 24 pounds, and -- but your numbers came from an 25 existing current channel. 73 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 And you're saying that you think or you're 3 saying that if you had taken these measurements 4 at a 48 foot channel, you would have seen a .2 5 or .3 increase in the deficit, is that a 6 conclusion I can write down? 7 MS. TANNER: No. I think right now the 8 latest -- I mean I have read a model report a 9 year or so ago on the .2 .3. If they deepen 10 the water further, they're expecting an 11 increase in deficit of .2 .3. 12 Our system was capable of doing .6 in 13 existing condition, so when that's deepened we 14 don't know if that's going to be .6. It's 15 going to be something that is probably similar 16 -- I mean I would think it's within the same 17 range of what we saw, because there's a kind of 18 a storage effect of the system. 19 MR. NEAL: I think our basic finding is 20 that this technology applied as it was, even in 21 the demonstration, could achieve the kinds of 22 deficit reduction that the deepening project 23 might create. I mean, it appears that we got 24 -- we have a technology and a method of 25 installation that will offset the calculated 74 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 oxygen reduction, as a result of the proposed 3 deepening. 4 MR. DYSART: Keith or Hope. 5 MS. MOORER: This is -- this was a test of 6 two units trying to do 20,000 pounds. The 7 final modeling will be a completely different 8 amount, because they have also got to factor in 9 what mitigation does to the channel, to the DO 10 levels. They're not planning on just two 11 units. 12 There might be more units to make up for 13 the deficit. They're not at that location. 14 This was just a test, what do these units do, 15 what are they capable of, you know, at this 16 condition, not in deepening. 17 At this condition what can these units do 18 in this system, and so the modeling is going 19 to tell us how many we need, and hopefully 20 where they will work the best within the system 21 with the flows and with the deeper channel. 22 This was just to look at right now how do 23 they run, how do they operate, to give us more 24 knowledge, hopefully, to use when designing the 25 system. So what it is doing currently in the 75 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 channel will be different in a mitigated 3 deepened scenario, if it goes forward. 4 So this was just kind of a learning 5 process, how does it work, does -- how long 6 does it hold after you turn it off, does it 7 hold for a while after you turn it off, what 8 does weather do to the levels while it is 9 pumping oxygen in. 10 That's what it has done. I don't want to 11 say it's not really relevant to how it's being 12 designed, but it kind of was just a learning 13 process, something done outside the project to 14 look at these systems and say will they even 15 make any difference whatsoever in that big, 16 huge system? Can you even measure the 17 difference? 18 That's really what the purpose was. Just 19 keep that in mind as you're looking at all the 20 data. I think that is important to 21 distinguish. 22 MR. DYSART: Will. 23 MR. BERSON: I'm not even going to pretend 24 I understand a lot of this because seriously I 25 don't. I think credit where credit is due, I 76 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 think this was a really good demonstration 3 project. 4 I am just going to sort of in a general 5 sense say I'm encouraged that we know more than 6 we knew before we did this project. I'm also a 7 little concerned in that showing that it is 8 possible doesn't make a wise thing to do, as 9 far as the system as a whole is concerned. 10 And that's not to denigrate your work or 11 the idea or anything else. Unfortunately, when 12 we tend to try and mimic natural systems, there 13 tend to be other impacts that are difficult for 14 us to foresee. That's my only sort of caveat. 15 And my real question is, based on your 16 work with the demonstration project, can you 17 give an estimate of what the cost per increment 18 improvement is? 19 MS. TANNER: No. We didn't do that 20 calculation. 21 MS. MOORER: I think it would be difficult 22 with -- a lot of it was leased, wasn't 23 purchased. You know, the cost of this system 24 is going to be different than the cost of the 25 other system. 77 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 Bill will have to put a cost for all the 3 systems within the report, so that will be 4 looked at. We can probably figure it out like 5 he did a cost of mitigation per acre, you know, 6 the results of whatever too. You can probably 7 figure that out. I think it would be difficult 8 with this project to do that. 9 MS. TANNER: It's going to depend on the 10 final design and the mitigation system, whether 11 they need six cones or three cones, you know, 12 where they are going to placed, how access -- 13 what kind of road improvements you have to put 14 in to get the trucks in there. 15 MS. MOORER: Cost of real estate involved. 16 MR. NEAL: You can look at the report done 17 for the Army where all the different ways of 18 trying to improve oxygen, they were costed out, 19 and what you would call fairly basic levels. 20 And you can see where this fits in that 21 scheme. This was, in that analysis, the least 22 costly technology. And I'll point out that 23 this technology doesn't have an inherent limit 24 in terms of what improvement you can make. 25 That becomes a function of how many units do 78 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 you put in and where do you put them, if you 3 get my point, whereas something like knocking 4 out a point source load has only so much 5 benefit. Knock it out 100%, that's the only 6 benefit you will get. You can't do more than 7 that. 8 So when you start looking at benefit, it 9 changes from this system to other approaches 10 because the other approaches were let's see if 11 we can do this, and they only have so much 12 benefit available as far as oxygen. 13 MR. DYSART: Keith. 14 MR. PARSONS: It's my understanding you 15 had several weather events during this process 16 during this demonstration and -- 17 MS. TANNER: Storm events. 18 MR. PARSONS: -- that y'all actually have 19 the DO data available. 20 MS. TANNER: It's part of the data set. 21 We actually have rainfall. You can see where 22 the rainfall -- on any one page where you are 23 looking continuous monitoring data, we have 24 rainfall. Then we have the salinity, the 25 temperature, the DO, the DO deficit. 79 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MR. PARSONS: I guess this probably gets 3 to Dave Kyler's question as far as non-point 4 source impact. I think you could probably look 5 at that data and surmise any potential or 6 probably non-point source impacts from DO, from 7 stormwater discharge into the river during 8 those events. Could you possibly make some 9 kind of assumption based on that? 10 MR. NEAL: We have the data monitored 11 continuously for the DO related parameters at 12 three nearshore stations, and we have the 13 rainfall locally measured. So you can look at 14 those data and see the response. We really 15 didn't exam response to those local storms. 16 MR. KYLER: Just to interject a response 17 to that, I have no idea to what extent this is 18 a factor in proportionality of non-point source 19 pollution, but that type of pollution carries 20 organics into the river which then have delayed 21 effect in terms of their oxygen consumption 22 effects. So not everything happens just at the 23 event itself. 24 MR. DYSART: Steve, please. 25 MR. WILLIS: I don't know who to address 80 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 this to, but my understanding and if I'm wrong 3 I'd like to know it, my understanding right now 4 is a large part of this area you've tested 5 falls below the minimum dissolved oxygen 6 standard levels. 7 MS. TANNER: The current approved 8 standard, yes. 9 MR. WILLIS: What you are saying, 10 essentially, you've studied this and you found 11 that you can mitigate the effects of the harbor 12 deepening through this method by getting the 13 oxygen levels back up to the currently 14 unacceptable levels? 15 MS. TANNER: No, no. 16 MR. WILLIS: So what I'm asking is what 17 exactly are the acceptable levels, and what 18 would it take to get to those levels? 19 MS. TANNER: Right now EPD and EPA are 20 working on an acceptable DO standard for the 21 harbor criteria. They don't have it. The one 22 on the books was disapproved by EPA. 23 They have been working for the last 10, 11 24 years trying to develop a new DO standard, DO 25 criteria for the harbor. We don't know what 81 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 the acceptable level is. That's going to be 3 based on the modeling that EPA is doing right 4 now. 5 MR. WILLIS: What was the old one? 6 MS. TANNER: The old one was three 7 milligrams per liter anytime anywhere. You can 8 see that's even at depth. So if you are on the 9 bottom of the river, you're going to be below 10 three, and at the top you might be above the 11 three, but because it's not averaged over that 12 water column, it's just three anywhere, so at 13 the very bottom you're not meeting standards. 14 That's where the listed standard comes from -- 15 is not meeting that standard. 16 MR. DYSART: Let me interject something 17 here. This is interesting here. We've heard 18 some nice compliments. It's interesting to 19 have engineers who can actually explain things 20 to lay people as well as other disciplines. 21 I'm just going to make a comment here and 22 then we're going to continue here. Obviously, 23 the questions that are coming here, some of 24 these get into things that are well beyond the 25 scope of this project and the scope of this 82 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 particular demonstration project. 3 I think everybody understands that. It is 4 unlikely that this body is going to figure out 5 how to maintain highly desirable conditions in 6 the Savannah River just by us all sitting here. 7 So it's -- I think it's very beneficial to 8 put the larger problem, help put it into 9 context what is dealt with here, but be aware 10 that we are not only -- y'all are not only 11 stepping over the line, you're way beyond the 12 line. 13 I mean it's just so -- it's unlikely 14 anybody is going to have a call and say, I'll 15 accept responsibility for fixing all this, as 16 far as this project. 17 I just wanted to make that in case that 18 was not obvious, I wanted to say it my way. 19 Will claims he has some clarification. 20 MR. BERSON: Yes, I do. I just wanted to 21 mention, Margaret mentioned a disapproved 22 standard. Georgia and South Carolina have been 23 negotiating on a new standard for the river for 24 DO, and EPD is going to be sponsoring some 25 meetings at the end of the month to discuss 83 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 their modeling work on that standard, and what 3 the proposed standard will be. 4 And I'm not -- I'm not conversant enough 5 to tell you much about that process, but it is 6 -- I mean it is important to realize that this 7 process has to fit within the TMDL process, and 8 the two both have to be agreed by both sides of 9 the river, both South Carolina and Georgia. 10 That's as far as I was going to go. I 11 just thought I would mention to you, you 12 mentioned this disapproved standard. 13 There is a proposed mutually agreed upon 14 standard between South Carolina and Georgia, 15 and if I was bright enough to explain it to you 16 I would, but I'm not going to go there. 17 MR. DYSART: Larry. 18 MR. KEEGAN: I just wanted to point out, 19 correct me if I'm wrong, please, but this is an 20 opportunity to demonstrate a technology and get 21 some information about whether or not its 22 application could affect conditions in the 23 river regarding dissolved oxygen concentration. 24 It was never intended to be the solution 25 to the dissolved oxygen problem, or to be a 84 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 demonstration of how this technology might be 3 applied by the Harbor Deepening Project. It 4 was strictly a technology demonstration to 5 learn what we could about the application of 6 this equipment and what we could do with it. 7 And what I take away from the report is 8 that it's a viable technology that should be 9 considered for application to what the Harbor 10 Deepening Project needs to deal with. 11 It is not a final application in any sense 12 of the imagination. That is still in the 13 modeling and design process and the cost 14 estimating, and we'll see how this is applied 15 within the context of the Harbor Deepening 16 Project when we see the mitigation plan and the 17 EIS. We don't know that now. 18 MR. DYSART: Bill. 19 MR. BAILEY: There were concerns earlier 20 about impacts on this technology on the 21 fisheries. Didn't you do something on that, do 22 you have some observations? 23 MS. TANNER: Yes. We do have some 24 observations. There were concerns. The water 25 coming out of the cones is about 150 milligrams 85 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 per liter, supersaturated with dissolved 3 oxygen. 4 There was concern that that high level of 5 oxygen would cause problems to the fish in the 6 river. We did a lot of very nearshore, 7 near-barge right out in front to measure what 8 that water was actually in the river. 9 What we found, when it hits the river it 10 has a little bit of jet momentum 8 to 10 feet 11 out sustained, and then it rapidly mixes with 12 the water column. So we went and measured 13 directly in front, about five feet away from 14 the barge or five feet away from the end of 15 that discharge line. 16 The highest concentrations we were able to 17 measure were seven to eight milligrams per 18 liter. So we see rapid mixing of the water in 19 with the harbor water, and especially if we did 20 it at slack tides, we did it when the tides 21 were really moving through there to see what 22 the different effects were, and we did that. 23 The other thing anecdotally, we saw all 24 these minnows -- I assume they were minnows -- 25 I'm not that familiar with marine fish, just 86 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 thousands of them and they converged around the 3 barge. 4 We felt that that was because the DO 5 levels were improved around the barge, and 6 these small fish were attracted because of the 7 food source increased because the DO levels 8 were better. And then -- they were there 9 pretty much the length of the project the whole 10 time, and there were just millions of these 11 fish just swimming around. 12 So we saw there wasn't really a lot of 13 impacts in the harbor. We saw a lot of 14 dolphins playing -- porpoises, whatever they 15 are here -- playing out in the river in front 16 of the barge pretty much most mornings which we 17 thought they would have attracted something 18 like that. 19 MR. DYSART: David Kyler. 20 MR. KYLER: Let me yield to Priscilla, she 21 might say what I'm going to say. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. 23 MS. WENDT: This might go beyond the line 24 with what we're concerned with here, but I mean 25 this technology looks like it has a lot of 87 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 promise for improving DO. 3 My concern would be would we be opening a 4 can of worms if we allowed the harbor deepening 5 to use this as mitigation, would every point 6 source discharger to the Savannah River want to 7 install a barge with Speece cones on it to 8 mitigate for increased loading, as a result of 9 their discharges, and effectively turn the 10 Savannah River into a waste treatment system? 11 MR. DYSART: Hope. 12 MS. MOORER: This is used as mitigation 13 for some discharges prior to discharge, in 14 Brunswick I think, the same type of technology 15 is utilized. I think other dischargers have 16 looked at it as an application to add oxygen 17 back prior to discharge as treatment 18 essentially. So it has been used for that 19 application, but not sitting in river. 20 MS. WENDT: Not sitting in the river 21 itself but treating the discharge before -- 22 MS. MOORER: Right, but that is a question 23 that has been, from a philosophical standpoint 24 essentially, asked by EPD and EPA in terms of 25 the river not meeting conditions now, so that 88 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 is something that has been asked. 3 MS. TANNER: EPA policy is you can't use 4 in-stream treatment as opposed to treatment 5 within the plant. You can't mitigate in the 6 stream for something you can add in the plant. 7 MR. DYSART: We have a waving card. We're 8 waiting for our first true clarification. We 9 might get it from Keith. 10 MR. PARSONS: I don't believe that EPD is 11 going to change discharge requirements on the 12 point source dischargers in the river. It 13 would -- EPA is not going to buy off on EPD 14 allowing the Savannah River to be used as a 15 treatment system, if somebody wants to come 16 along and add these cones. They're still going 17 to have meet their permit requirements at their 18 discharge points. 19 MR. DYSART: Larry. 20 MR. NEAL: Maybe this would be some 21 clarification. If you think about the 22 rationale for the using a technology like this, 23 where you are having difficulty meeting a 24 desired DO standard, it comes to my mind you 25 have situations where you have altered the 89 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 stream for other beneficial reasons. 3 In this case you've altered this water 4 body by deepening, widening, to make it 5 suitable for deep draft navigation. Let's call 6 that a benefit. 7 The unintended consequence of that is that 8 I've lose reaeration over what I would have had 9 if I hadn't done that. In an instance such as 10 that where I've altered the stream itself, it 11 would seem to me that's different than an 12 unaltered, free-flowing stream where I say I 13 just don't want to treat that much. I just 14 want to add oxygen. 15 It's a different look or a different take, 16 I think. Similar situations where a stream may 17 have been altered could be through creating a 18 backwater by building a dam, a reservoir, and 19 you create or convert what was perhaps a 20 free-flowing stream into a backwater situation 21 where it no longer has the assimilative or 22 aeration capacity it would have had as a 23 natural free-flowing stream. Perhaps that can 24 be accounted. 25 A third class is, I think, Georgia/South 90 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 Carolina share this problem along the coast, we 3 have numerous streams that substantially go 4 dry, but they are small communities on many of 5 those small basins. 6 They're already there. It's not like 7 we're trying to site a new industry or 8 something. The small communities are there. 9 They're dependent on assimilative capacity. 10 Some of them can go to a land application, 11 some can't, either lack of suitable land or the 12 cost of land has just become so dear. I think 13 that might be a candidate where you start 14 looking at I'm going to treat up to the higher 15 level. That's still not enough. I may 16 consider a technology like this, not as a 17 substitute for but in complement with high 18 levels of treatment. 19 So there are places -- I don't think it's 20 necessarily you say we don't do this. We're 21 using it there for in-stream treatment. Over 22 here we're using it for something else. I 23 think there is a rationale behind where it is 24 considered. 25 I've seen over the years EPA has refined 91 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 in their thinking. There are systems on these 3 altered stream situations that don't add to the 4 effluent discharge and that actually add to the 5 river. 6 It was that rationale that was used to 7 allow it. So I hope that was -- shed some 8 light. I don't have the answer to the original 9 question either. 10 MR. DYSART: David Kyler claims that he 11 didn't cede quite all of his time to Priscilla. 12 MR. KYLER: Well, I assumed. She made a 13 very good point, but that was not what I was 14 going to say. I'm responding a little bit to 15 what our facilitator said about going well over 16 the line. 17 I think it's healthy that we're going over 18 the line, and it's a result of trying to seek 19 mitigation methods that are non-engineered and 20 sustainable, and we're trying to do damage 21 prevention rather than damage control in a way 22 that it is more responsible. 23 And picking up on the backwater term used 24 -- that Larry just used metaphorically, you 25 don't want to be guilty of creating an 92 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 intellect backwater here. We're not mixing 3 ideas that could create more productive -- 4 MR. NEAL: Be careful. Us engineers get 5 into trouble when we get too metaphorical. 6 MR. KYLER: I wasn't aware an engineer 7 could be metaphorical, having an engineering 8 degree and background myself. 9 Anyway, I think we need to be very careful 10 in evaluating the costs of this or any other 11 engineering solution that we really trace the 12 systemic and long-term effects, because we all 13 know this is an energy-intensive solution to 14 the problem, and energy has all kinds of 15 environmental cascade of consequences. 16 And don't forget it's not just the energy 17 of pumping and injecting oxygen, it's also the 18 energy used in liquefying oxygen and getting it 19 to the site where it will be injected. That's 20 a long-term, ongoing commitment of energy which 21 I think we need to be very wary of. 22 MR. DYSART: Elizabeth, then John. 23 MS. COLVIN: I don't know if I missed this 24 or not, but when you were talking about after 25 the oxygen had been -- during the remixing, is 93 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 that when you guys measured five feet out from 3 the discharge pipe, and you said there was only 4 seven to eight milligrams per liter, I was 5 wondering under what conditions and how often 6 were those measurements taken? 7 MS. TANNER: We measured them at -- when 8 we first started the system we measured them 9 pretty much every time we were out in the boats 10 for the first two -- couple of weeks. Then we 11 didn't measure it until near the end of the 12 system run just to see if things stayed the 13 same, because we did see some head loss during 14 the run of the project, and I'll get into that 15 in a few minutes, I guess, because of fouling 16 in the intake screens, and wear of the pumps. 17 Those pumps were run six weeks at their 18 maximum running ability, you know, just flat 19 out the whole time. There was some impeller 20 wear and that causes a little bit of head loss 21 as well, and because of that there was some 22 other confounding, and I'll talk about that in 23 a minute. 24 Basically, we measured it just to try to 25 see and we measured it at slack tide. We went 94 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 out there after we finished our runs, so the 3 tides were moving. They weren't at full like 4 mid tide, but they were two, three knots by 5 then. 6 We were able to get out there and measure 7 along where we thought the discharges -- and we 8 would do arcs out in front of the barge to try 9 to measure how far the measuring affects and 10 stuff like that. 11 MS. COLVIN: And you said this was in the 12 beginning and termination of the project? 13 MS. TANNER: Yeah, yeah. 14 MS. COLVIN: So no readings in the middle? 15 MS. TANNER: Yeah, and I can show you the 16 grid. I didn't really point it out before when 17 I showed you where we were sampling, if you 18 want to see it. 19 MS. COLVIN: Okay. 20 MR. DYSART: John Robinette. 21 MR. ROBINETTE: You were talking about the 22 fisheries response to the test. Weren't there 23 some sturgeon that were radio tagged that were 24 going to be followed during this test? 25 MS. MOORER: They were. I don't think 95 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 that she saw any response to it at all. We got 3 in touch with Amanda and paid for some 4 additional monitoring by Nature Conservancy, 5 and I think she reported back to you that they 6 didn't get any response from the sturgeon. 7 They were too far up already. 8 MR. ROBINETTE: Upstream from where the 9 project was. 10 MS. TANNER: Elizabeth, those near-barge 11 locations, the barge is right here. You can 12 see we ran all the around trying to measure the 13 DO impact, what the DO levels were, so we could 14 see if there were any really high pockets of 15 oxygen. 16 MS. COLVIN: Out of all -- sorry for 17 talking out of turn -- out of all your 18 measurements, it averaged about -- both the 19 measurements from the beginning and the end, 20 both about seven to eight milligrams per -- 21 MS. TANNER: No. That was just the 22 highest. We didn't -- generally, it was in the 23 three, you know, whatever the ambient because 24 it would mix pretty quickly. 25 Whatever we were getting in the bulk 96 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 water, we were getting pretty much everywhere, 3 so -- 4 MR. NEAL: The real take home message for 5 that is that this location the tidal mixing is 6 very, very strong. This jet of highly 7 oxygenated water, once it gets into that tidal 8 flow, it disperses very rapidly. 9 MS. MOORER: I think he said something 10 important too; at this location, I think at any 11 location you put it in, you're going to have to 12 monitor initially and really see what that 13 mixing is there, how much oxygen you're putting 14 in, because that is a very high flow area. 15 So that's all a learning process I think. 16 MR. ROBINETTE: The water you were 17 injecting was the same temperature as the water 18 in the river when you mixed it and you injected 19 it -- 20 MS. TANNER: Yeah. I mean, it was river 21 water. Remember, we were pumping from 22 nearshore, shallower areas, and pumping into 23 deeper areas. So really the water near the 24 surface would be a little bit warmer than where 25 we were actually injecting it, but it was just 97 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 river water. It was in the barge maybe 15 3 seconds, 20 seconds, from the intake to 4 discharge. 5 MR. DYSART: Did you notice any high DO 6 plume as you moved downstream in your 7 cross-sections? 8 MS. TANNER: Not really. You can see on 9 the transects, and I don't have any of those in 10 this presentation, if you are interested we can 11 pull them up from the report, but the transect 12 right in front of the barge, of course, is a 13 little higher than the others, but not -- and 14 you can see it is definitely where the DO -- 15 the oxygen is coming in, because that's higher 16 than the other side of the river. 17 But you can -- you take those, you average 18 them, and we got roughly the same effect as we 19 did with the longitudinal. 20 MR. DYSART: Okay. Will. 21 MR. BERSON: I completely recognize that 22 y'all were doing sampling with what you could 23 -- with what was possible. 24 I guess my question is if this were to be 25 applied to the project and in a much larger 98 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 fashion, is there anything you learned that 3 would say that monitoring would be -- I guess 4 what I'm asking is, how likely is it that you 5 would have really reliable monitoring, how 6 simple would it be, did you see anything that 7 would make it problematic or give you any sense 8 of how better to do it, in a more -- in a large 9 application of -- than what you were doing? 10 MR. NEAL: I think one of the findings 11 that we have is that any continuous monitors 12 that you can put in the harbor itself have to 13 be situated so far away from the main harbor 14 that it's like the guy looking for his lost 15 keys under the street lamp. 16 You say well, where did you lose them? 17 Well, I lost them over there in the dark but I 18 can't see over there. 19 We can't get continuous monitors out into 20 the main channel and operate them continuously. 21 So these nearshore monitors don't really paint 22 the picture for you that you would like. 23 What really works is the center line slack 24 tide, old fashion vertical profiles, and then 25 stretch that out and see what that ISO-plat 99 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 looks like, the result, and that's very 3 effective, but it's also labor-intensive and 4 puts somebody in boats in the middle of the 5 navigation channel to catch it. 6 MS. MOORER: I think that also during the 7 time period of really critical DO levels, it's 8 normally also a time period where they're doing 9 maintenance dredging in the harbor. And the 10 Corps monitors during that time, because if the 11 DO levels fall below a certain point, they stop 12 dredging. 13 So they were monitoring at different 14 locations, and they saw a slight impact to 15 further upriver. So I think it's something 16 that depending on where you put them and what 17 you're trying to achieve, you're going to have 18 determine that through the monitoring plan 19 essentially. 20 MR. DYSART: Ron. 21 MR. MICHAELS: Hope, whatever happened to 22 the aqua shade that was supposed to be poured 23 into the river? 24 MS. MOORER: Oh, Margaret. 25 MS. TANNER: We'll talk about that. 100 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MR. DYSART: We are now to the point we 3 have no people requesting to speak, and so we 4 will have a break, 10 minute break. Thank you. 5 (Short Break) 6 MR. DYSART: Okay, let's reconvene. My 7 understanding is that the MACTEC folks have 8 four or five more slides to complete this 9 presentation and then we do the switch over. 10 MS. MOORER: Yes. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. So we will now 12 continue. 13 MS. MOORER: Actually, Bill might could 14 talk about his stuff while I'm switching over 15 the slide projector. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. Will that work for 17 you, Bill? 18 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 19 MR. DYSART: Go ahead, please, Margaret. 20 MS. TANNER: In addition to the low tide, 21 of course, we were out there at high tide, 22 slack tide, high tide as well, and what was 23 interesting was for the first couple of weeks, 24 or the first half of the project, we had really 25 hot ocean conditions. 101 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 The ocean boundary was hot, you know, and 3 so you could see immediately, even at high 4 tide, the first one of course was prior to the 5 start of the project, and the next couple are 6 maybe the next three -- those colors are not 7 showing up at all -- I apologize for that -- 8 show that we were starting to improve the 9 deficit at high tide as well, but then what 10 happened is the ocean currents changed a little 11 bit. 12 The ocean boundary cooled off. Then at 13 high tide we were overwhelmed by that ocean 14 boundary, which of course is cooler, high DOs, 15 and so we really couldn't see any effects later 16 on in the project during high tide. 17 So that's really the run, and again, the 18 blues aren't really showing up on there. But 19 if you look here at the ocean, you can see the 20 high tide run, when we did the 15 mile runs in 21 the river. You can see how high the ocean 22 boundary was compared to the upstream boundary 23 up at the turning basin. 24 So that's why at high tide it was really 25 hard to see effects later on in the project, 102 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 Of course, initially, we did see some effects, 3 but then later on they were still overwhelmed 4 by the ocean boundary. 5 MS. MOORER: Was that because the higher 6 tides, the cooler temperatures, you had more 7 oxygen in there anyway? 8 MS. TANNER: Yes. If you look at the 9 ocean boundary, the deficits are less than a 10 part per million, so we're very near saturation 11 out of the ocean, all that turbulence, the wave 12 action, then that just pushes up. It's cooler. 13 It's holding more oxygen, and that pushes up 14 the harbor. 15 Okay. The question was asked about the 16 dye test. We did do a dye test. This was a 17 qualitative dye test. It was not intended to 18 be quantitative in any way. 19 What we were looking for -- you know, our 20 assumption was that when we injected water into 21 the deeper part of the harbor, it stayed in the 22 deeper part of the harbor, and it mixed there, 23 and then it flowed upstream and downstream, 24 kind of in the middle deeper layer. 25 And that's what we really wanted. You 103 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 don't want it bubbling up to the surface 3 because then you are losing oxygen. So we did 4 this test to look at the effects of if we saw 5 any -- one thing that we did do also, I did 6 mention this earlier, we did have some head 7 loss in one of the cones -- significant head 8 loss in one of the cones -- during the course 9 of this project. 10 Head loss is loss of efficiency of the 11 pumping system. So basically we went from a 12 set system, a condition at the start of the 13 project where we had about 78 psi in the 14 center of the cone, and we were running about 15 8,300 gallons per minute through the cones. 16 And what happened is there was wear of 17 impellers, significant wear of one of the 18 impellers on the pump, and one of the valves 19 started leaking. They couldn't take them off 20 line because that would take two weeks to 21 replace them and we only had two weeks left of 22 the project -- yes. 23 MS. MOORER: Margaret, didn't you tell me 24 that this was actually not the size pumps that 25 you would really need for this -- 104 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MS. TANNER: Right. 3 MS. MOORER: -- but these you could lease 4 and not purchase, so that's why you went with 5 those? 6 MS. TANNER: Right. They are also not the 7 best pumps. They are not the most efficient 8 pumps for this kind of application either. It 9 would be much more efficient to use vertical 10 pumps, that actually sit in the water and pull 11 water up through the pumps, than the kind that 12 we had on-deck pumps. 13 And again, to get any pumps that were any 14 bigger, the power requirements just weren't 15 there. And also, the size, they just didn't 16 want to lease them when they get that much 17 bigger. They wanted us to buy them and the 18 project couldn't afford that. 19 We wanted to lease them. We had to keep 20 it a temporary demonstration project, so we 21 wanted to keep the equipment leased as much as 22 possible. 23 So we were running those pumps at full 24 capacity the entire project. Because of that, 25 near the end of the project, we started to see 105 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 that wear significant -- there was wear on all 3 the pumps, but significant wear in one of the 4 pumps. 5 Why that one, I don't know. I think maybe 6 because the valve was leaking so badly, but 7 anyway, in that one cone, it was the cone 8 closest to the upstream edge of the barge, and 9 so we also had a lot of run of pipe, so more 10 head loss in that pipe as well. 11 And so because of that, the last week, 12 week and a half of the project we started to 13 notice there was some loss of oxygen in the 14 cone itself where you could actually see a 15 bubble forming at the top, an oxygen bubble, 16 and then periodically that bubble would burp 17 out and you would make kind of a big bubble. 18 We did go out, near the end of the 19 project, and measure in right in that bubble 20 just to see what kind of DO concentration we 21 were getting. And again, we still in that 22 range of 8, 10 milligrams per liter for that 23 event. 24 So that's what you're seeing right here. 25 We did the dye test at slack tide because we 106 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 wanted to see, you know, this is the least 3 amount of mixing would be at slack tide. We 4 wanted to see those effects. So right here you 5 see one of those bubbles burp -- bubbles 6 coming up right here. And that's what that is. 7 You can see the dye coming up, but you 8 don't see dye anywhere else which is actually 9 a really good thing, because we wanted to see 10 that that dye stayed entrained in deeper 11 depths. 12 Now, we did go down with water quality 13 samplers and pull water samples at various 14 depths, starting at 5 feet, 10 feet, 20 feet, 15 30 feet, 40 feet. And at 30 feet we pulled up 16 a lot of dye. And then we saw a little dye at 17 different locations. 18 We did that at four locations in front of 19 the barge about mid channel to see if we were 20 getting dye out. So we were definitely getting 21 dye out in the middle part of the channel at 22 about 30 to 40 feet is where we saw the highest 23 concentrations. But we didn't see any short 24 circuiting at this surface. So that was good. 25 To compare this, we put 55 gallons in at 107 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 30 feet, and then this next picture at the 3 bottom, we just dumped 5 gallons on the 4 surface. 5 So, you can see the difference in color 6 between what you would get if, you know, 55 7 gallons, if we had poured it all on the 8 surface would have cover the whole top of the 9 river blue. It would have made the whole river 10 blue at that point, but because we were 11 injecting it at depth, it stayed deep. That 12 was really good. 13 Then a couple of hours later upstream near 14 the -- because we did it at a slack tide just 15 before the tide was starting to come in again 16 -- up at the Ports Authority, we did see blue 17 across the width of this river. 18 That showed we were well-mixed at that 19 time throughout the water column, and that we 20 were affecting the whole length of the river. 21 Yes. 22 MR. DYSART: Keith. 23 MR. PARSONS: You said you injected the 24 dye. Did you do it through the cones? 25 MS. TANNER: Right. You can't see it in 108 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 this picture, but over at the -- actually when 3 we designed the intake system, we put two inch 4 valves on those systems to suck dye into the 5 system, because we had always kind of 6 anticipated doing this in the test. So they 7 came in at the pump site on the intake side of 8 the pumps and went up through. 9 Okay. All right. So through this we have 10 had some additional activities, and we have 11 conclusions of course. One is there is some 12 verification that is done in the modeling as 13 going forward in the future. 14 There's plans to compare some of the field 15 data we got back to the actual modeling data 16 to make sure that it validates pretty well. 17 But the conclusion that we came to is that 18 these Speece cones are capable of providing the 19 DO needed to mitigate for harbor deepening. We 20 also saw that there was storage capacity of the 21 Kings Island Turning Basin that would store 22 higher DO water and let it flow downstream 23 during low tide. 24 That would allow some down time for 25 maintenance needed, or anything like that, 109 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 during the daily cycle. We did see that this 3 project was able to improve the water quality 4 by improving the deficit by .6 milligrams per 5 liter. 6 All right. On a full scale project -- of 7 course, the intake -- I didn't put any pictures 8 in here, but when we pulled the intakes out, 9 they were really fouled with hydrilla -- I 10 guess it's a -- we call it algae, but I know 11 it's not. I know it's some kind of animal, and 12 it just completely covered them. 13 We sent divers down to clean the intakes, 14 to try to keep that to help prevent head loss. 15 We did see that on the suction side, the 16 suction gauges on the pumps, it wasn't really 17 making a big difference on the suction. 18 So it wasn't causing as much head loss as 19 we thought. We really think it is more due to 20 the wear of the pumps. And then of course when 21 we design a full scale system, we need to 22 really pay attention to how we design those 23 intake screens, so they can be cleaned, 24 maintained, but also we would have better pumps 25 in there so we should not see that kind of 110 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 effect. 3 Again the modeling showing that these may 4 be distributed around the Front River and the 5 Back River, if needed, to support DO. It might 6 be in some visually sensitive areas, they could 7 install these below ground. That would also -- 8 that would cut the visual impact of them. 9 And again, you could discharge them at a 10 fixed depth instead of what we had which was a 11 variable depth. That would also help the 12 efficiency of the system. 13 Again, you can demobilize the system in 14 the fall, put everything in storage, get them 15 out of the river so you don't foul or ruin 16 things during the winter, and then get ready to 17 remobilize during the late spring. That's it. 18 MR. DYSART: Will. 19 MR. BERSON: Is there any way to know, 20 based on whether or not there's a linear 21 progression; I mean, if you -- do you get 2 X 22 results for two more Speece cones? 23 MS. TANNER: I would imagine because 24 you're really adding a defined quantity of 25 oxygen, and I mean if you certainly added it 111 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 all to roughly the same place, I would expect 3 it. 4 Now, when you add it in different places, 5 Back River, that's going to depend on the 6 model. You may not get a full 2 X, but you are 7 still at a two times the amount of oxygen. 8 MR. NEAL: Spread it over a larger area 9 and the limit becomes as long as you don't get 10 the surface of the water super-saturated. 11 The surface of the stream, all that oxygen 12 will remain available for use in the steam. If 13 you should raise the dissolved oxygen level of 14 the surface, the oxygen transfer process 15 reverses and you lose oxygen to the atmosphere 16 instead of gaining it. 17 So at that point it's diminishing return. 18 It's still beneficial, but you are starting to 19 lose some of the oxygen that you added because 20 you super-saturated the surface. We don't see 21 that you would ever approach that problem in 22 the Savannah Harbor with what we've seen of the 23 data in the harbor proper. 24 MR. DYSART: How was the efficiency of 25 transfer of this compared with say underwater? 112 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 Diffuser system of some kind. 3 MR. NEAL: The efficiency of this is 4 gained by the cone shape. We're able to keep 5 the oxygen bubbles that are added, the pure 6 oxygen bubbles are suspended inside that cone, 7 down flowing water, bubbles trying to up flow, 8 and that's balanced. 9 And you can keep those bubbles in there 10 for in excess of 100 seconds, and empirically 11 Dick Speece and other researches have found 12 you've got to have that kind of detention time 13 to get a high proportion solublized. 14 If you put what some people would call a 15 soaker hose on the bottom of the harbor and 16 pump pure oxygen into it, you get a rise, but 17 it's under whatever the pressure is and isn't 18 long enough to keep it -- get it all into the 19 solution. 20 So your efficiency starts dropping off. 21 The attractive feature of this kind down flow 22 bubble contactor is that you can get, with 23 proper engineering of the pumps and so on, you 24 can get very high efficiencies, 95% efficiency 25 on the transfer side is not unheard of. 113 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 It's been achieved on some of these 3 installations. We didn't get that. We had 4 losses, and we expect we got somewhere in the 5 85% transfer efficiency and overall. 6 So other methods of adding this oxygen, 7 you pull the water out, put it under pressure, 8 and put it into any kind of vessel with pure 9 oxygen bubbles or long pipeline closed under 10 pressure. As long as you have the detention 11 time, you can get it to be dissolved on the 12 other end. 13 The problem with doing it in a pipe or 14 other vessel is the detention time is shorter. 15 This cone, as the water comes down from the top 16 it gets slower and slower and slower as it gets 17 toward the bottom of that large diameter cone 18 base, which in this case is 12 feet in 19 diameter. 20 MS. TANNER: And that's a schematic of how 21 we operate. 22 MR. DYSART: That's very helpful. 23 MR. NEAL: That bubble -- we refer to that 24 as a bubble swarm. It's essentially maintained 25 inside of the cone. That's one of the bubbles. 114 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 There's a view port on the side of the cone and 3 you can actually see it. 4 The idea is when it starts coming out of 5 the bottom, there is very little to no oxygen 6 bubbles in the water coming out to the bottom. 7 The inside of the cone is loaded with this 8 swarm of bubbles. What Margaret referred to is 9 if you decrease the flow of water coming into 10 the cone, it slows the velocity enough of the 11 water, and if you don't change the flow of the 12 oxygen into the system, it will build up a 13 bubble up in the top. 14 Then it has no choice but to burp that 15 bubble out through the system. That's what we 16 were seeing. When you start losing flow 17 performance, you have two choices; either 18 downgrade your oxygen addition amount, the pure 19 oxygen, or fix the flow problem. So 20 experiencing some of those problems was 21 probably beneficial to THE long-term design. 22 MR. DYSART: Keith and Elizabeth. 23 MR. PARSONS: When you say transfer 24 efficiency, you mean if you inject one pound of 25 oxygen, you would get 85% of that actually 115 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 dissolving? 3 MR. NEAL: That's what the objective -- 4 MS. TANNER: This was in our demonstration 5 part and that was because of the loss of the 6 efficiency -- 7 MR. PARSONS: Okay. You're not talking 8 about 85% saturation -- 9 MS. TANNER: No, 85% of that -- 10 MR. NEAL: Mass -- mass -- 11 MS. TANNER: -- but at the beginning of 12 the project, we were close to 90 -- we were at 13 95%. By the end of the project, because of 14 that head loss through the pumps, we lost 15 efficiency. So the average of the project was 16 about 85%. 17 MR. DYSART: Elizabeth. 18 MS. COLVIN: I don't know who I should 19 address this question to, you guys said that 20 your -- if I understood this right -- that 21 you're currently modeling some of the numbers 22 using this technology to dredge 48 feet? 23 MS. TANNER: We're not modeling yet, but 24 that modeling, EPA will likely -- 25 MS. COLVIN: So you're going to do -- 116 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MS. TANNER: -- I think EPA is planning to 3 do that. 4 MS. COLVIN: So any idea on the time 5 frame? 6 MS. TANNER: I don't have a time frame. 7 MR. DYSART: Judy. 8 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah, I was surprised to 9 hear you say demobilize. I understood the 10 deactivate, but I mean, what sort of process 11 would that involve to demobilize; I'm talking 12 about -- 13 MS. TANNER: I think that would include 14 pulling the intake pipes out of the water and 15 the return lines out so they wouldn't foul over 16 the winter. This presentation has a picture of 17 those intakes after we pulled them out. 18 MS. JENNINGS: You leave the cone. 19 MS. TANNER: The cone, yeah, they're fine 20 to sit out in the weather. 21 MS. MOORER: Judy, that's dependent on how 22 it's finally designed as to whether that would 23 happen or not. In that situation, yes, or if 24 it's designed where the pipe is not fixed, yes, 25 but if there's -- if it is designed in another 117 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 way, the Corps determines another way -- maybe 3 deactivated and maybe not demobilize. 4 MS. JENNINGS: It's the demobilize word I 5 never heard before. 6 MR. DYSART: Further questions? We thank 7 you. Very nice presentation. Appreciate it. 8 Bill, would you like to proceed while we're 9 doing a switch over in computers. 10 MR. BAILEY: Status report on some of the 11 things the Corps is doing. We're continuing to 12 work on our air quality analysis. 13 There's been some input from Tom Wright, 14 and the Savannah Maritime Association is going 15 to allow us to include the shuttle boats the 16 county runs, and also the little paddle wheel 17 tour boats, we'll include those in the 18 analysis. 19 And then what we do, what the Corps does 20 with channel dredging, now we're kind of 21 trying to pull it altogether into a report. 22 On the DO system design, we are -- we've 23 gotten some information from our contractor, 24 enough for us to start our other water quality 25 modeling, but we don't have the report from 118 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 our contractor yet. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, your first item, was 4 that air quality? 5 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. Channel dredging and 7 of course, the container ships. 8 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 9 MS. JENNINGS: I guess when I brought up 10 air quality, I guess didn't know what I was 11 saying. 12 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Really. 14 MR. BAILEY: Blossomed -- the EPA wanted 15 an analysis of the whole harbor, not just so we 16 could put the impacts in the proper perspective 17 from this project. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. I guess that's where 19 I was headed. So do you also look at -- now I 20 know GPA is using electricity now away from, 21 you know, all gas on terminal operations. Are 22 you looking at the whole terminal operation air 23 impact -- air quality impact? 24 MR. BAILEY: We're looking at lands, 25 equipment, looking at the trains. We're 119 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 looking at the private -- the trucks on the 3 landside. We're looking at non-GPA terminals 4 and they're associated landside equipment. 5 MS. JENNINGS: So you really are doing a 6 giant air quality study? 7 MR. BAILEY: Yes. So the mitigation 8 modeling, we've resumed work on that. We're 9 incorporating the revised designs for the DO 10 system and running those through to see what 11 the impacts are on fisheries -- primarily on 12 fisheries. 13 For the -- let's see, I told you before we 14 were using -- we were intending to use the 15 regulatory SOP to quantify impacts or quantify 16 the amounts of land to acquire. 17 We were conducting an independent 18 technical review of that, and that's still 19 underway, about to be finished but still 20 underway. 21 Economics appendix is -- the appendix is 22 written. It is going out to start the 23 independent technical review next week. We've 24 got -- the schedule is a 30 day review and then 25 30 days to respond to the comments. So I'm 120 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 looking at two months to have that back. 3 That's all I have. 4 MR. DYSART: Questions, clarifications? 5 MR. DYSART: Judy. 6 MS. JENNINGS: I didn't understand the 7 phrase, I just couldn't keep up, the lands to 8 acquire? 9 MR. BAILEY: For impacts to wetlands, 10 after all those flow altering plans, we talked 11 about before. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Mitigation? 13 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. Like the 15 banking-type stuff. 16 MR. BAILEY: Yes, that's kind of, but all 17 the flow altering plans -- they will reduce 18 the impacts to wetlands, but they don't take 19 all the impacts away. 20 We talked before about looking for 21 restoration, enhancement places, not being able 22 to identify those. So kind of the next 23 remaining step after that is preservation. 24 We're looking into that trying to figure out 25 how much, where. 121 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 MS. JENNINGS: Absolutely none of those 3 models totally mitigated -- what about 4 mitigation on external banking? 5 MR. BAILEY: I think for a two foot 6 deepening -- I think the impacts to wetlands 7 would have been zero. As you got -- as you 8 deepen more, those flow altering plans could 9 not take away all the effects. 10 MS. JENNINGS: No way you can slice, 11 loosen, cut it or repump it to the refuge? 12 MR. BAILEY: We couldn't think of anything 13 else we could do. 14 MS. JENNINGS: That's the answer. Thank 15 you. 16 . MR. DYSART: Okay 17 MS. DAVY: Yeah. Bill, what's the status 18 of using the New Savannah Bluff lock and damn 19 as potential mitigation? 20 MR. BAILEY: It's still our intent to do 21 that. I was going to wait until we got a 22 revised set of impact numbers on fisheries. 23 Then what I have to do is I have -- I will 24 probably be contacting your agency to obtain 25 support for that proposal. 122 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 Then I have to go to my headquarters with 3 a position paper and explain to them why we 4 think removal -- why the bypass around the dam 5 at New Savannah Bluff, why we think that's a 6 good idea. They have some policy questions and 7 we have to resolve those. If you still think 8 it's a good idea, we'll be the asking you for 9 some help. 10 MR. DYSART: Further questions? What's 11 next, Hope? 12 MS. MOORER: Think of some more questions 13 -- I think I got it right here. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Actually, Bill and Kay 15 might have been the only ones that understood 16 the last interchange. I'm not sure that I did. 17 MS. MOORER: I was going to say, Bill, you 18 might want to explain that further what she was 19 asking about. 20 MR. BAILEY: We have -- we expect impacts 21 to shortnose sturgeon on from channel 22 deepening, and we have not been able to 23 identify a way to mitigate for those effects in 24 the harbor itself. 25 We've gone to different resource agencies 123 1 MACTEC PRESENTATION 2 and asked them for what can we do to help this 3 fish in Savannah. They have not been able to 4 identify anything that we could physically do, 5 so the -- 6 MS. JENNINGS: Sturgeon specifically? 7 MR. BAILEY: Sturgeon specifically. So 8 the idea that we had, the one thing we had was 9 putting in a bypass around the first dam up the 10 Savannah River right at Augusta. 11 What we know is that the sturgeon go up 12 there and they can only go as far as that dam. 13 They go up to spawn. So the agencies have 14 wanted a -- to get some either -- get that dam 15 removed or get a bypass around the structure 16 for a number of years. 17 So that was something that would help the 18 species in this river basin. So we were 19 proposing that -- we were intending to propose 20 that as mitigation. There are some policy 21 issues on the Corps side that we have to work 22 through first, before our headquarters would 23 say it's okay. 24 MR. DYSART: Will. 25 MR. BERSON: What -- what's the impact 124 1 MILESTONES UPDATE 2 from the project that you are looking to 3 mitigate? 4 MR. BAILEY: More toward the younger fish, 5 it's not spawning. It's pretty much the 6 younger fish. 7 MS. MOORER: And salinity. 8 MR. BAILEY: There's mostly salinity 9 impacts. 10 MS. JENNINGS: So it wouldn't really help 11 them in the lower dam except that they would be 12 able to migrate further upriver for spawning, 13 and maybe that would increase numbers in the 14 lower river; is that how it would help? 15 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 16 MR. DYSART: Are you ready? 17 MS. MOORER: I'm ready now. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. So you are going to be 19 talking about, presumably, the remaining 20 process scheduled presentation, right? 21 MS. MOORER: We were talking at the 22 interim SEG meeting and thought it would be we 23 helpful -- we talk about milestones a lot and 24 dates, kind of where we are and what's left to 25 do. 125 1 MILESTONES UPDATE 2 This is really a Corps process, but this 3 has kind of been a group effort and still will 4 be a group effort. Larry did the slides. I'm 5 going to talk about it. It's really Bill's 6 bailiwick. We're all going to be a talking 7 about it kind of group. 8 We're still in plan formation. The plan 9 has not been selected. That's where we are 10 right now. We'll move through it, kind of the 11 steps. 12 The draft document has to be prepared and 13 go out for review, commented upon, goes back 14 to the Corps, and the final document goes back 15 out -- is consolidated with the comments by the 16 Corps, and then goes back out for comment. 17 That's basically what's left. Now, 18 there's a lot more to it than that. In plan 19 formulation, there are lots of steps getting to 20 it. The model development has already been 21 completed. Impact evaluation is basically 22 complete except for -- I think it is basically 23 complete except for air quality analysis is 24 finishing up, little things like that are 25 finishing up. 126 1 MILESTONES UPDATE 2 But the things going into the overall 3 mitigation plan, most of that has been 4 completed. The mitigation plan development, 5 however, that's still underway. 6 Some modeling is left to be done. Design 7 of the DO system is left to be done. Once the 8 air quality analysis is complete, are there air 9 quality impacts that we have to address with 10 the project, that is still underway. Essential 11 fish habitat analysis is still underway with 12 the Corps and agencies. 13 Economic analysis, I think, you heard Bill 14 say that about another 60 days out. On the 15 schedule -- the DMMP update, that's the dredge 16 material management plan, that's still -- that 17 analysis is still underway. 18 The Corps does an evaluation once you -- 19 it has to be updated as part of this project 20 because they're in rotation. The various 21 disposal areas are in rotation. Once you fill 22 some of those, does that impact your overall 23 plan of how you're going to dispose long-term. 24 The cost estimating cannot completed until 25 your mitigation plan is complete. So that's 127 1 MILESTONES UPDATE 2 still underway. Pieces and parts have been 3 done along and along, but it won't be complete 4 until your impact -- I mean your mitigation 5 plan is developed. 6 Then real estate analysis can't be 7 completed until your mitigation plan is 8 completed. Well, it can't be finalized because 9 you don't know what real estate you need or how 10 much or what have you. That cost for that real 11 estate goes into your cost estimate. 12 Then your engineering analysis is -- some 13 of that is still underway. A lot of that, 14 except for final channel design, is done. Some 15 of is still in the works. 16 All of that goes into picking a plan, and 17 the NED plan selection. That can't be done 18 until your cost estimate is done, which can't 19 be completed until your mitigation plan is 20 complete. 21 So, once all that's done, you have a cost 22 estimate. You have the economic analysis 23 complete. You can look at the various plans 24 for the different depths, the cost of the 25 different depths, and your benefits at the 128 1 MILESTONES UPDATE 2 different depths and choose an NED plan. 3 That plan formulation, the NED plan 4 selection is around June is what's on the 5 schedule currently -- is around June. Okay. 6 And then all of that goes into your draft GRR 7 and your draft EIS. 8 MR. PARSONS: The plan formulation is 9 going to be around June you're going to 10 anticipate? 11 MS. MOORER: That's what it looks like 12 right now this week. 13 MR. KEEGAN: Today. 14 MS. MOORER: Last Wednesday that's what it 15 looked like -- looks like around the June time 16 frame. 17 MR. ROBINETTE: And the EIS completion? 18 MS. MOORER: The draft EIS, that would be 19 right now, it would be complete -- let me get 20 -- let me go through one more slide. There, 21 let me go to this slide and I'll try to go 22 back. 23 Right here the draft GRR and EIS are 24 prepared. They are done around June time frame 25 too, because a lot of it, appendices are 129 1 MILESTONES UPDATE 2 written a head of time. There are reports that 3 lead up to the final document. Okay. So once 4 plans are selected, that's put into the final 5 document, the draft document. 6 It then has to go through the Corps' 7 internal check, the ITR. During that you have 8 an independent technical review within the 9 Corps, the ITR. Bill, stop me and tell me if 10 I'm wrong during any of this. That's to be 11 complete around August. 12 Okay. So it takes a couple months to get 13 this independent technical review done of the 14 document. The pieces that have gone into this 15 document have already gone through Corps' ITR. 16 In fact, none of them can be released to 17 the public, none of the results of any of these 18 studies, the modeling, whatever, released to 19 the public until they've gone through the 20 independent technical review. 21 This is the document itself; do you have 22 everything included that we need in this 23 document, and did you prepare it in a way 24 that's the acceptable to the Corps, did you put 25 it together and do we agree with all your 130 1 MILESTONES UPDATE 2 conclusions of how you put it together. 3 And then, it has to go through something 4 called the alternative formulation briefing, 5 which we talked about in the interim SEG 6 meeting. That's the Corps' checkpoint of yes, 7 this is ready to be released to the public. 8 You have the AFB. That's the August/September 9 time frame, after the independent technical 10 review. 11 So all of that has to happen before it's 12 released to the public. Then it goes through 13 the public review. Public review right now is 14 set to start around October of '08. And then 15 the public meeting is scheduled about a month 16 into that, or a little ways into that, a couple 17 of weeks into that, so that you've had a chance 18 to look at the document a little bit. 19 Then you have a public meeting. It's set 20 right now to end in December of '08. 21 Concurrently with that is external peer review, 22 and that's what we've talked about previously 23 where folks who are not in the Corps, not 24 interested in the project, the team are put 25 together to review the document. 131 1 MILESTONES UPDATE 2 That happens concurrently during this 3 process. Okay. Now, let's see if I can go 4 back. This public meeting that's right here on 5 the slide, this public meeting is for the draft 6 document. Previously the Corps had committed 7 to, once the mitigation plan is complete, 8 having a public workshop to go through the 9 different mitigation plans being proposed for 10 the different depths. 11 That's still on, but this is a different 12 public meeting. This is a public hearing 13 meeting associated with the EIS and GRR. And 14 that's -- then they receive the comments and 15 the comment period closes. They receive the 16 comments and go back to work on the final GRR 17 and EIS. 18 They have to go through something now 19 called the Civil Works Review Board. You see 20 that last slot. All projects, major projects, 21 are having to go through this Civil Works 22 Review Board now. It's whether the Corps is 23 agreeing with the district proposal for the 24 project, prior to release of the final 25 document. 132 1 MILESTONES UPDATE 2 So it's another checkpoint that the Corps 3 has before it is released back out to the 4 public. That's in Washington, headquarters 5 level. It's a pretty big deal. 6 It's also another step that's been 7 included in recent legislation, part of the 8 Corps' reform, as well as the external peer 9 review, but we already built that into the 10 project. 11 Final public and agency review right now, 12 the Civil Works Review Board looks like it's 13 about March 2009, and the final agency and 14 public review is between March and April of 15 2009. And then all of that is sent up to 16 headquarters, and the Assistant Secretary of 17 the Army for the Civil Works Office, for 18 evaluation, and then a record of decision is 19 issued by the chief of engineers, is that 20 right -- 21 MR. BAILEY: (Nods head up and down.) 22 MS. MOORER: -- on the project, and right 23 now that's looking like July 2009. So while 24 there are pretty major areas that we have work 25 to do in -- left to do in -- there are lots of 133 1 MILESTONES UPDATE 2 steps to take us there. 3 And that's kind of where we are right. 4 Now, we'll update the milestones online. We'll 5 try to keep those updated. All of these steps 6 are on that milestone list that are online on 7 the website. As that changes, we try to keep 8 that up-to-date. Usually about once a month, 9 we update it, because it changes -- it varies. 10 It changes, the dates do. So after our team 11 meeting tomorrow, we have updates on the 12 schedule and we'll post another update of the 13 schedule. 14 Is any there questions for Bill about 15 process? Technically, he's the one who should 16 be giving this, but we wanted him to keep 17 working on the project. So -- 18 MR. DYSART: Dave -- Steve. 19 MR. WILLIS: How's the external peer 20 review board selected? 21 MR. BAILEY: How is -- 22 MR. WILLIS: How's the external peer 23 review board selected? 24 MR. BAILEY: I'm not positive. I know 25 there is a contractor who was going to be 134 1 MILESTONES UPDATE 2 responsible for putting the team together. 3 I think the Corps will be saying -- 4 recommending certain areas of expertise that 5 they have an individual in coastal engineering 6 or whatever. 7 But I think they will be identifying the 8 types of expertise that they want. Beyond 9 that, I don't know. 10 MS. MOORER: And actually to find out more 11 about that process, this is relatively new 12 within the Corps as well. They have used a 13 contractor on other projects to put that team 14 together. 15 As we find out more about the process of 16 how it will be, we'll let you know. It's led 17 through the Mobile District. 18 MR. DYSART: Further comments or 19 questions? Will. 20 MR. BERSON: You mentioned that there 21 would be a public meeting to discuss the 22 mitigation plan. When is the current schedule 23 for that? 24 MS. MOORER: Right now the mitigation plan 25 wouldn't be finished until about June, and so 135 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 you're looking at about the June time frame, 3 prior to the draft GRR being completed. So in 4 June, June -- July, in that time frame. So 5 that's summer. I try not to give a date 6 anymore. 7 MR. BERSON: That's good enough. 8 MR. DYSART: More questions? Done. Thank 9 you. Okay. Will there be any economic 10 analysis today, Bill? 11 MR. BAILEY: (Shakes head from side to 12 side.) 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. Reschedule that. It 14 looks like we're ready for committee reports. 15 Does anybody have a committee report? 16 Judy always has something. 17 MS. JENNINGS: What Bill just said and 18 Hope, in about 60 days maybe we can get back 19 around to having a big explanation of the 20 economics. 21 MS. MOORER: Uh-huh. 22 MS. JENNINGS: After about 60 days. 23 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Can we still count on 25 maybe a special session of the SEG, an 136 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 afternoon or something, just so that people 3 that are really interested in that. I'll 4 communicate with the Corps and get what 5 homework can be done, if any, prior to the 6 date. 7 I'll communicate with Bill, and to the 8 maximum extent he can communicate back to me 9 before we have the meeting 10 MS. MOORER: I think Bill even mentioned 11 maybe the day before, an SEG meeting, so that 12 anybody that wants to hear it in depth could 13 listen the day before, and then it could 14 highlight the results the next day maybe at the 15 SEG. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, the agency people, 17 like South Carolina DNR, DHEC, EPD, will they 18 have been able to -- is this run through 19 anybody before that 60 days is over? 20 MR. BAILEY: No. 21 MS. JENNINGS: So what y'all can do for us 22 would really be important for anybody following 23 economics. 24 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 25 MR. DYSART: Any of the Will committees 137 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 have anything to report other than the item 3 that you have -- 4 MS. JENNINGS: Before we leave this 5 entirely, Bill, going back to air quality and 6 mitigation and the economics analysis, I think 7 this goes to all three of them; Savannah is one 8 of Georgia's one of -- at least my 9 understanding is that we're generally not 10 non-attainment. 11 And do you add -- if you add all this up, 12 and if you concluded that harbor deepening 13 would have an impact on air quality; would 14 there be any requirement for mitigation short 15 of EPA non-attainment levels? 16 MR. BAILEY: I think as a requirement the 17 answer is no. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Even though there might be 19 air quality impacts, if it doesn't push us into 20 the EPA standards for non-attainment, then the 21 project wouldn't be required to do anything to 22 mitigate for the reduction in air quality? 23 MR. BAILEY: (Nods head up and down.) 24 MR. DYSART: David Kyler. 25 MR. KYLER: Seems to me a logical 138 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 extension, corollary to what Judy just asked, 3 would be if the air quality impacts take 4 Savannah closer to or up to the limits of air 5 quality attainment, the requirements; does the 6 project analysis then include the implications 7 of that for the economic development options of 8 the impact area that are restrained by that 9 effect? You understand the question. 10 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure, but it would 11 look at the -- it should look at the effects of 12 those impacts. 13 MR. KYLER: You're talking about the 14 physical effects? 15 MR. BAILEY: Any effects that can be 16 quantified. 17 MR. KYLER: So in other words, the 18 economic impacts of restricting the additional 19 air attainment capacity, because of the air 20 quality effects because of the port activity 21 would be evaluated? 22 MR. BAILEY: Effects that can be reliably 23 quantified would be disclosed in the report -- 24 be identified and disclosed. 25 MR. KYLER: Which would include economic 139 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 impacts on the communities' -- 3 MR. BAILEY: To the extent -- 4 MR. KYLER: -- opportunity -- to the 5 extent they can be identified. 6 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 7 MR. KYLER: Okay. 8 MR. DYSART: Will. 9 MR. BERSON: I don't want to put words in 10 your mouth; are you asking if the Corps is 11 going to be looking at opportunity costs and 12 what could have been done with that increment 13 of additional impact? I mean, it sort of 14 seemed like that's what you were asking. 15 MR. KYLER: Yeah, I think that's one of 16 the implications, how are the options of the 17 economic development constrained by reducing 18 the additional air quality containment 19 capacity -- 20 MR. BERSON: So would you look for them to 21 translate that into an additional number of 22 cars or travel miles, I mean -- 23 MR. KYLER: I was thinking in terms of 24 implications of economic development, options 25 that remain, given the limitations on air 140 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 quality attainment capacity brought by the 3 project, which may mean a different type of 4 industry. 5 It could be a different type of land use 6 development pattern, a different kind of limits 7 on mobility or types of transportation, that 8 kind of stuff. 9 MR. DYSART: Judy. 10 MS. JENNINGS: I still don't have my arms 11 around this air quality thing, because if an 12 industry wants to engage in a new activity, 13 that would impair water quality, they would 14 have to have a permit for that, wouldn't they, 15 from somebody? 16 MR. PARSONS: Water quality or air 17 quality? 18 MS. JENNINGS: Air -- air, I mean any 19 agency person, is the answer no? 20 MS. MOORER: Not until you get past 21 non-attainment I don't think. 22 MS. JENNINGS: But that's my question, 23 is -- 24 MR. PARSONS: No, there are air permits 25 EPD has to issue to industries that are going 141 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 to discharge into the atmosphere and the limits 3 are put on those. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 5 MS. MOORER: If you have a discharge, but 6 I think it's a -- the measurement requirement 7 of if you are just talking in general of a 8 business opening somewhere, how do you mean -- 9 what are you -- what type of business are you 10 talking about? 11 MS. JENNINGS: I'm talking about any -- 12 any industrial operation that impacts air 13 quality. I mean, for instance, a new 14 coal-fired power plant, their operation may not 15 push the region into the EPA non-attainment, 16 but they're sure going to have to have an air 17 quality permit. 18 So I'm just wondering, when the Corps 19 quantifies the air quality impacts, they will 20 have some quantification for the impact, and 21 that's going to range -- you know, I suppose 22 they could always say gee, it made the air 23 better, or I'm pretty sure it's going to be 24 somewhere on the downside of that. 25 So but still, there's no requirement. 142 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 There's no -- there's nothing in -- there's 3 nothing in between where we are now and EPA 4 non-attainment I guess is what I'm saying -- 5 asking, question mark. 6 MR. DYSART: David Kyler has another 7 clarification. 8 MR. KYLER: Or declarification -- 9 MR. DYSART: Possibly we'll vote before we 10 close today who would have had the best 11 clarification. 12 MR. KYLER: I'm not an expert on air 13 quality. You're talking about a land use that 14 generates traffic which has an air quality 15 effect. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Well, there's absolutely no 17 -- like I said, I mean -- 18 MR. KYLER: There's no permitting 19 requirement for land use that creates air 20 quality problems because of traffic. 21 I mean, subdivisions create traffic, 22 commercial shopping centers create traffic, 23 certain manufacturing facilities create 24 traffic, and they may have air permits for 25 their operations, but not related to the 143 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 traffic of their operation. I think that's the 3 case here, unless there's a permit that I'm not 4 aware of. 5 MS. JENNINGS: And that's what I'm asking. 6 MR. KYLER: I don't think there is. 7 MS. MOORER: But -- 8 MR. DYSART: Hope. 9 MS. MOORER: But I -- I don't know about 10 that mitigation requirement, even if we're in 11 attainment. I have that same question. If 12 there is an impact, wouldn't you have to 13 mitigate for it; that's my question too. 14 MR. BAILEY: I think the Corps is only 15 required to mitigate for impacts to wetlands. 16 MS. JENNINGS: But I think there is a 17 tremendous amount of precedent with port 18 operations on the West Coast. I don't know if 19 all of the actions of the West Coast ports are 20 required because of they are way over the 21 non-attainment. 22 MS. MOORER: Yes. 23 MR. DYSART: Will. 24 MR. BERSON: I don't -- I'm not going to 25 speak for anybody. I'm just sort of -- I'm not 144 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 sure that the Corps is in any way a discharger 3 in the traditional sense. The ships coming in 4 are -- would have to be responsible. 5 I'm sort of thinking this out with 6 everybody. So I don't know. There may be -- 7 you might make the case, because the Corps is 8 doing a project that will have air quality 9 impacts, that there ought to be some sort of 10 mitigation. 11 But it's not the Corps that's doing the 12 discharging. It's the ships coming in. It's 13 the trucks moving off terminal. I'm not quite 14 sure who gets the permit. 15 MR. DYSART: David Kyler. 16 MR. KYLER: I just happen to know an 17 example which I think speaks to the same 18 situation. 19 There have been asphalt plants proposed in 20 Brunswick which have been potentially herded 21 away because of traffic impacts and the air 22 quality effects of that traffic. 23 It is not a -- they don't require air 24 quality permits because of that traffic, but 25 there are -- EPD has required those proposers 145 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 to take mitigating effects to reduce traffic 3 such as requiring no idling requirements, 4 things like that. 5 So there's some gray area there where EPD 6 or EPA could be involved. There is no 7 permitting obligation that would be associated 8 with that negotiation. 9 MR. DYSART: Hope. 10 MS. MOORER: That's my -- while there's 11 not a requirement to put out the EIS, or 12 mitigation plan, if there are impacts, I think 13 that there may be -- the agencies may say or 14 require that as part of the mitigation plan. 15 MS. JENNINGS: So -- and I think maybe 16 that's what happened sometimes on the West 17 Coast -- 18 MS. MOORER: No -- 19 MS. JENNINGS: -- is the agencies have a 20 strict amount -- 21 MS. MOORER: -- they are not in attainment 22 and they have to before any -- they have not 23 received any permit, for any construction at 24 the Port of LA in five years, because of 25 mitigating those permits -- being able to 146 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 mitigate those permits. 3 And in Houston, you have to show that if 4 you are doing any construction, you've got to 5 mitigate for any of the impacts to air quality 6 prior to the construction, because of they're 7 not in attainment as well. 8 MS. JENNINGS: So I guess that was the 9 point I was trying to get at here. Once the 10 impacts are quantified and laid out all like 11 that; is there any obligation on anybody's part 12 to reduce those impacts? If Savannah or how 13 far a region they measure -- is it still within 14 EPA attainment standards on air quality? 15 As you said, any agency responsible for 16 air quality could make requests. It seems like 17 a lot of work to not know where we're going 18 with it. 19 MS. MOORER: It's a lot of work. 20 MR. DYSART: Okay. Will, do you have any 21 committee reports and then I'll check with 22 Elizabeth. 23 MR. BERSON: I don't. I want to say the 24 same thing I say at every single meeting. When 25 we get to the end and we schedule the next, if 147 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 there is going to be an interim SEG, everyone 3 is welcome to come. We're a very nice group of 4 people. 5 We're getting to know each other really, 6 really well because it's the same people that 7 come to the meeting. So I always want everyone 8 to be aware that everyone is welcome. 9 If you are feeling as if you don't have a 10 handle on the time lines or this process, we 11 generally go over it at that time. I think as 12 many times as I go, I still find something else 13 going on, or the time line for something that I 14 wasn't clear about before. 15 I encourage everyone to come, assuming 16 that we are going to schedule one at the end of 17 this meeting. 18 MS. JENNINGS: I would just reiterate 19 that. Hope did a great job of running through 20 the schedule. A lot of the Corps things she 21 said are a lot more involved, and anybody that 22 questions at the interim meetings get them 23 explained a lot. 24 MR. DYSART: Just -- just -- 25 MS. JENNINGS: We want to sit there and 148 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 talk about it. 3 MR. DYSART: Just for information, anybody 4 who hasn't been around a whole lot, in order to 5 be an interested person and have a seat at the 6 table, you simply walk in and declare yourself 7 to be. 8 It's my understanding that the working 9 committees, some assume a certain amount of 10 expertise or interest, and so there's no 11 exclusive membership on the committees. 12 As Will indicated, I think a lot of other 13 committee chairs would indicate, anybody who is 14 interested, has anything to say, do feel free 15 to attend proposed meetings and so forth. 16 Elizabeth. 17 MS. COLVIN: No report. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Let's see, 19 new business. Recommendation to present to the 20 Corps. Will and Dave, do you have anything for 21 us? 22 MR. BERSON: Well, there are a number of 23 people here who have missed these discussions 24 over the past I don't know how many meetings. 25 You'll live much longer for it. I'll give 149 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 you a two minute -- the question has been 3 raised about what role the SEG plays in 4 evaluating work products that it has requested 5 over the years. 6 And in response to that, Dave Kyler has 7 come up with some language that we feel 8 addresses uncertainty. The reason this is kind 9 of problematic is that in many instances, this 10 is a project that's been going on for a decade. 11 Some reports were prepared as long ago as 12 a decade, and the SEG, while it may have asked 13 for these products, it did not necessarily 14 review them in a formal way. 15 The question is how is it that we address 16 these -- these reports consistently. And Dave 17 has come up with some language that we had sort 18 of taken up at the SEG Operating Guidelines 19 Committee to try and address that. 20 And we felt as if the SEG, as a whole, 21 ought to approve this language and remember the 22 SEG is -- is an adjunct to the Georgia Ports 23 Authority which is the local sponsor to a 24 Corps' project. 25 So there is a slight -- we're recommending 150 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 that GPA recommend that the Corps use this 3 language. I did want to be clear about who's 4 recommending what to whom. 5 And this has been on the website for some 6 time, and I'll let Dave, if he doesn't mind, 7 give you a summary of the language. 8 MR. KYLER: We spoke about this at the 9 last meeting, if you recall. 10 MR. DYSART: Just for information, it's 11 12:31 now, and we've got 29 minutes, or we can 12 go over or whatever. 13 MR. KYLER: Anticipating that I would go 14 that long? 15 MR. DYSART: I'm just saying that for the 16 body assembled here. 17 MR. KYLER: Kind of like a pre-emptive 18 strike. I was going to try to keep it brief, 19 but I can actually limit it to one page in 20 writing, so I was hoping the oral equivalent 21 would be at least somewhat condensed. 22 Anyway, as Will said, this is an attempt 23 to provide a concession to Bill Farmer who was 24 concerned about the SEG not carrying more 25 explicitly its charge as originally set up and 151 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 making specific recommendations as to the 3 outcome in committee reports, which the vast 4 majority of the people around the table was 5 uncomfortable in doing per se. 6 That is; urging the explicit transfer 7 of the reports that have been made over the 8 last what, two or three years, so this is a way 9 of saying to the extent that these reports have 10 useful information and are complete, 11 recognizing they may not be accurate or 12 complete based on current information, we 13 recommend to the Corps that they take and take 14 this information under consideration. 15 And then we go on to outline three 16 different dimensions of the use of information, 17 both in these reports and other additional 18 information that we would hope that the Corps 19 would be using in evaluating the project. 20 And those three dimensions have to do with 21 the risk and uncertainty of the information and 22 of the consequences of the impacts that that 23 information attempts to evaluate, and with an 24 emphasis on the protection of public resources. 25 I read from the -- some of the last 152 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 sentence of the first paragraph, first item. 3 This should include specification of all 4 assured sources of funding, that would be 5 available to cover the cost of any previously 6 unforeseen corrective actions for compensation 7 for cost overruns, that may need to be pursued 8 to protect public resources. 9 The problem in the past, as you may 10 recall, there is a provision in Section 26 -- 11 Morgan -- 12 MR. REES: 216. 13 MR. KYLER: -- 216 through which funds can 14 be obtained, but that may take some time, and 15 during that time the impact, the adverse impact 16 in trying to control with these funds would 17 continue. 18 We're saying here that in order to 19 minimize the adverse effects of anything 20 unpredicted, provisions should be made for 21 those funds to be on-hand, a reserve fund, or a 22 performance bond, or something equivalent on 23 the local project that makes funds available to 24 pursue those mitigating steps if necessary in a 25 timely way. 153 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 The second item as to the systemic 3 implications, again reading from the closing 4 sentence of that item, as in the case of 5 uncertainty, potentials for intervening to 6 prevent significant but unforeseen systemic 7 impacts must be well-planned and thoroughly 8 prescribed as part of the Corps' analysis and 9 mitigation plan. 10 Systemic impacts could be either 11 geophysical impacts on natural systems or could 12 be effects of one mitigation strategy on 13 another, or unforeseen interactive and 14 cumulative effects of mitigation steps, so one 15 type of mitigation may constrain or unwisely or 16 undesirably magnify the effects of another 17 type of mitigation. 18 And this type of systemic effect would try 19 to highlight those and provide a means for 20 taking corrective action, if those come to 21 bear. 22 And then finally is the matrix and methods 23 for evaluating -- type in that last heading -- 24 it reads evaluation impacts, it should be 25 evaluating impacts. 154 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 Project analysis and recommendations must 3 specify the threshold of conditions that must 4 be insured to enable the project to remain 5 feasible in the public interest. If these 6 conditions cannot be maintained, procedures 7 must be clearly outlined for intervening to 8 prevent the project or its mitigation from 9 causing further damage to public resources. 10 The point is, there has to be ways to 11 measure and evaluate impacts in the way that 12 protects the public interest. So that's the 13 gist of the approach recommended. 14 MR. DYSART: Are there any thoughts or 15 reactions to this around the table? 16 MS. MOORER: To give some background, we 17 talked about -- it had been talked about maybe 18 incorporating that into the Operating 19 Guidelines, is Operating Guidelines part of the 20 SEG operation, or should the SEG adopt this or 21 endorse this. 22 I guess is how it would be, endorse it, 23 that we, the Georgia Ports Authority, send that 24 to the Corps of Engineers as endorsed by the 25 SEG for their consideration in preparing the 155 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 report. 3 We kind of have to determine as an SEG 4 one, do we endorse this, what Dave has put 5 forth, these idea, is this a good paper and 6 what we want to do with it. Those are kind of 7 the things we need to talk about next, I guess, 8 in my opinion. 9 MR. KYLER: Either Will or Hope would you 10 summarize what was the recommendation of the 11 Operating Guidelines Committee in bringing this 12 to the table, do you remember? 13 MR. BERSON: We said we thought -- Hope 14 please step in -- we thought that this was 15 appropriate to recommend to GPA to recommend 16 to the Corps. It's two-step process. 17 There is -- whether the Corps takes it 18 under advisement is not really something that 19 GPA or the SEG can coerce or require, but it 20 does reflect, I think, the general concern that 21 over the life of the evaluation of this project 22 which as I said depending on what study you're 23 looking at, it could be anywhere from two weeks 24 to 10 years old, there are -- there is an 25 element of uncertainty that could have happened 156 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 in the interim, and it's a way for us to 3 memorize that fact and ask that the Corps to 4 take it into consideration. 5 And my suggestion is that we do, I suppose 6 I ought to make a motion to that effect that we 7 approve, recommend -- let me be clear. We 8 recommend to GPA that GPA recommend to the 9 corps that they use -- that they recommend 10 -- that they recognize this language, I guess 11 is the proper way to phrase it. 12 MR. DYSART: Let me test myself and see 13 if I understand what you said. 14 MR. BERSON: Go ahead. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. We understand this is 16 a Corps project, as you said. GPA is the local 17 sponsor. Your body sitting around here does 18 not have any kind of authority over either the 19 GPA or the Corps. 20 What you are saying, I believe, is this is 21 the views, the thoughts, the wisdom of this 22 body, and this body, if they like this, they 23 could memorialize it, and they could pass it on 24 by action of this body to GPA with the request 25 that they support it, or at least forward it to 157 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 the Corps. 3 In other words, whether the GPA likes this 4 or the Corps of Engineers likes this is sort of 5 independent. This is the view of this body 6 which includes representation from the Corps 7 and other agencies, I assume. 8 You're saying this is sort of good 9 practice, good science, good public policy, 10 and does, in the collective wisdom of the group 11 that helped put this together represent 12 something that would tend to improve the wise 13 management of public resources. Does that kind 14 of -- 15 MR. BERSON: What he said -- no, no, I'm 16 sorry. 17 MR. DYSART: No inconsistencies -- okay, 18 my wife says repeat what you just heard said. 19 MS. MOORER: I would just like to request 20 just a consensus to close this out and 21 hopefully move forward on this topic. 22 MR. DYSART: Would there be anyone -- this 23 has been broadly discussed, and this appears to 24 be some diplomacy here about recognizing things 25 that are obvious concerns. I'm talking about 158 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 the deliberations that have gone on, and the 3 fact there are issues brought up that are fair 4 to bring up, and this body feels some 5 responsibility to look out for good science, so 6 forth. 7 There are some things that it does not 8 feel comfortable in doing at this late date, so 9 forth. Is there any discomfort around the 10 table in memorializing this, accepting this, 11 realizing it is advisory, it is the views of 12 this body, and passing it forward? 13 MR. WILLIS: Just a question. Would there 14 be any anticipation in there that responded to 15 people would say yeah, okay, or no, can't do 16 that? 17 MS. MOORER: I don't know. 18 MR. DYSART: Who knows? I think this is a 19 mechanism to have this body go on record with 20 its thoughts, its views. And if anybody wants 21 to do anything with it, that's their business. 22 David Kyler. 23 MR. KYLER: This is FYI. I would urge if 24 it is recommended by the group that the members 25 at the table when they comment on the 159 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 forthcoming draft EIS, and GRR, and so forth, 3 refer to this kind of thinking in making their 4 comments, whether they refer to this by quoting 5 it is irrelevant. 6 I would urge people to incorporate this 7 kind of thinking in framing their comments in 8 responding to the formal documentation on the 9 project. 10 MR. DYSART: I have a sense this issue is 11 at least ripe for action. Is there objection 12 to moving this forward with the blessings of 13 the SEG, all of y'all who have voices speaking 14 as individuals -- 15 MR. PERRY: As a matter of policy, I'm not 16 certain South Carolina Department of Natural 17 Resource, at this point since this is the first 18 opportunity we've had to see or participate in 19 this discussion -- we would certainly like to 20 have more opportunity to discuss and perhaps 21 could take a different position at the next 22 meeting. 23 MR. DYSART: Hope. 24 MS. MOORER: Anything we do, if there's a 25 general consensus, can we pass it on and allow 160 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 for a minority opinion later? Morgan, I'm 3 wondering about the Operating Guidelines. 4 MR. REES: The Operating Guidelines, which 5 this body agreed to use in all of your 6 deliberations, includes a recognition that any 7 action of the group takes into account the fact 8 none of the representatives of individual 9 agencies are subscribing to that outside of 10 what the agencies' responsibility are. 11 If your concern is maybe your agency may 12 not be fully in line with the specific 13 language, the Operating Guidelines already say 14 you're not responsible for that, if that's 15 helpful. 16 MR. PERRY: That is helpful. We, as a 17 general rule, like to participate in 18 opportunities like this under CEQ and NEPA 19 Guidelines, so I'm a late comer. I'm not 20 exactly sure how you formulate or what 21 formulations you used in these earlier 22 deliberations. 23 You did state exactly what our concerns 24 would be -- as long as we can reserve the right 25 as a matter of policy. 161 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MR. REES: We considered that a long time 3 ago. None of the individual representatives of 4 the agencies are, in this forum, to commit on 5 behalf of their agency. So that's a caveat on 6 anything we do. 7 MR. PERRY: We probably would not have 8 an objection to this, but we would like to 9 examine this language, at least for one month. 10 MR. DYSART: I interpret that as a request 11 by a member to take a look at and consider it 12 at our next meeting. I would -- it is my view 13 the general view around the table is 14 calmness and see if there is remonstrations 15 brought -- remonstrations or whatever is 16 brought up again, we would hope we can take 17 action next time. 18 I think that probably there are a lot of 19 people in here who appreciate and understand a 20 lot of work has gone on in getting something to 21 the point that it seems to hang together, and 22 looks out for the public interest, and deals 23 with the legitimate issues, I think, that 24 precipitated this some months ago. 25 Probably a lot of people appreciate the 162 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 efforts of not only David and Will and Morgan 3 and a lot of other people working it down to 4 something you can put on one page. 5 Sounds pretty good. We will put that on 6 the agenda next time. Any other items before 7 we move onto the next date. Bill. 8 MR. BAILEY: One other piece of 9 information, I expect the Corps will be putting 10 out a public notice this week or next week 11 about the scheduled nourishment for Tybee. 12 That's going to go on the street soon. It's 13 basically a draft available for comment. 14 MS. MOORER: I have one other thing too. 15 We had some difficulty with the website and we 16 apologize for that. We didn't know it had gone 17 down. They have posted an earlier version of 18 the website back, and it wasn't the most 19 current. 20 We think we have it worked out now. If 21 there's something missing, let us know and 22 we'll try to get it corrected. We try not to 23 fill up your inboxes with too much information. 24 We did send out the stuff you needed for this 25 meeting. We will continue to do so with 163 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 documents like that, and if the website goes 3 down -- 4 MR. DYSART: My impression is that the SEG 5 or GPA has been very helpful in trying to keep 6 a flow of appropriate information going and we 7 appreciate your efforts, Cathy's and so forth. 8 Anything else? Next date -- this is March. 9 MS. MOORER: I would recommend right now, 10 not knowing a whole lot about the schedule and 11 exactly about the final economics report date, 12 things like that, we go ahead and schedule the 13 next SEG for May, and then an interim in April, 14 and if we find out differently in April that we 15 need to shift it for some reason, we will let 16 everybody know. 17 I don't think we'll have any reports or 18 any feedback in April. Looking at the 19 schedule, it would be more appropriate maybe in 20 May. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. Then we'll have a 22 tentative schedule for the next full SEG 23 meeting on the 6th of May. 24 MS. MOORER: Yes. 25 MR. DYSART: A month from now, there will 164 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 be an interim meeting, and we will look for -- 3 MS. MOORER: May I request that the 4 interim meeting, if at all possible, be on the 5 8th. That gives still one, two, three, four 6 weeks before the 6th, but I know I have to be 7 out of town on the first of April. If there's 8 anyway we could have it then, and also they're 9 moving the 29th of March to their facility. 10 We better give them time to get a table in 11 that boardroom. Maybe April 8th would be 12 better, April 8th, the interim, and the SEG 13 meeting May 6th, if that works for people. 14 MR. REES: That's not related to April 15 Fools being an official holiday. 16 MR. DYSART: That was engineered human. 17 MR. REES: Yes, such as it was. 18 MS. MOORER: Judy. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Just thinking if we don't 20 meet again until May, the Corps' first public 21 meeting, the Corps' meeting on the mitigation, 22 the public meeting on the mitigation was going 23 to be June. 24 MS. MOORER: Maybe. I'm not sure where 25 that falls in June, late June, early July, kind 165 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 of depends on how the schedule falls out which 3 will -- I think we'll have a better idea in 4 April, hopefully, of whether those dates are 5 holding. 6 MS. JENNINGS: I guess sort of what I'm 7 getting at, I think this is just my feeling, 8 I'd love other input too. If we could have the 9 economics session before, I'd really love to 10 have that before a draft public meeting. 11 MS. MOORER: Oh yes. 12 MS. JENNINGS: If we have a full one in 13 June and we didn't have another full one in 14 July, we might have already had both of those 15 full public meetings. 16 MS. MOORER: No, I don't think you would 17 have. I think the intention for the economics 18 is to definitely meet about that prior to the 19 draft going out. 20 MS. JENNINGS: That was my hope. 21 MS. MOORER: It may be if there's enough 22 information to have it at SEG in May, in June, 23 if economics needs to be in June, then it gets 24 done that way, okay? 25 MS. JENNINGS: I guess that was the -- my 166 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 interest. If we could get the economics day 3 done before either of those two public 4 meetings, because I think people that are 5 interested will be able to get more out of the 6 public meetings, especially the mitigation one, 7 if they understood the economics analysis prior 8 to that. 9 MS. MOORER: I don't know. It might be -- 10 I think those are two different -- very 11 different studies. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Right, right. Well, except 13 you can't have an economics analysis until 14 you've done -- 15 MS. MOORER: Yes, you can. 16 MS. JENNINGS: -- you can't have the 17 entire economics analysis. 18 MS. MOORER: You will likely -- you won't 19 get that until after the NED plan has been 20 selected on -- for the draft EIS meeting. This 21 is an interim discussion, the benefits and the 22 modeling. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Benefits? 24 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 25 MS. MOORER: Not the NED selection stuff. 167 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MS. JENNINGS: Okay, I understand. 3 MR. DYSART: Seeing no objection, we'll 4 declare the meeting closed. I thank you for 5 being here, and I particularly thank the nice 6 people from MACTEC who brought us a stimulating 7 presentation that stimulated discussion, and 8 kept everybody awake. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 168 1 2 3 4 C E R T I F I C A T E 5 G E O R G I A : 6 CHATHAM COUNTY : 7 8 I hereby certify that the foregoing 9 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 10 caption, and the questions and answers thereto were 11 reduced to typewriting under my direction; that the 12 foregoing pages 1 through 167 represent a true and 13 correct transcript of the evidence given upon said 14 hearing, and I further certify that I am not of kin 15 or counsel to the parties in the case; am not in 16 the regular employ of counsel for any of said 17 parties; nor am I in anywise interested in the 18 result of said case. 19 This the 18th day April, 2008. 20 21 _______________________________ 22 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 23 Reporter, B-2041 24 25