1 2 3 4 5 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6 7 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 8 9 APRIL 4, 2000 10 9:00 A.M. 11 MIGHTY 8TH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 12 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 5 I N D E X 6 7 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3 8 FACILITATOR'S COMMENTS ------------------------ 6 9 EXHIBITS 1 & 2 -------------------------------- 8 10 BEACH EROSION --------------------------------- 123 11 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES --------------- 127 12 MTRG ------------------------------------------ 128 13 STRIPED BASS ---------------------------------- 129 14 ECONOMICS ------------------------------------- 130 15 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 161 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 MR. DYSART: Good morning. It is now 9:07 and 3 we'll call the meeting of the Stakeholders 4 Evaluation Group to order. My name is Ben Dysart, 5 your facilitator. We should have passed all the 6 around the agenda, the green printed on the front 7 and back document. 8 The first item of business today is 9 introduction of SEG members. We'll start on my 10 left. Press, would you indicate who you are, and 11 everybody indicate who you are representing? 12 MR. BROWNELL: I'm Press Brownell with 13 National Marine Fisheries Service from the 14 Charleston office. 15 MR. PLACHY: Doug Plachy, Corps of Engineers, 16 Savannah District. 17 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers, 18 Savannah District. 19 MR. DRAKE: Sam Drake, Fish and Wildlife 20 Service, Savannah Coastal Refuge. 21 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, Fish and 22 Wildlife Service, Savannah Coastal Refuge. 23 MR. GINETT: Doug Ginett, kayaker. 24 MR. STAFFORD: John Stafford, Ogeechee 25 Audubon Society. 4 1 2 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo. 3 MR. BREWTON: Ben Brewton, Coastal 4 Environmental Organization. 5 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens, Georgia DNR, 6 Coastal Management. 7 MR. MacBETH: Ben MacBeth, Citgo Asphalt 8 and Refining Company. 9 MR. BROWNE: Tommy Browne, Savannah Pilots 10 MR. WESLEY: Rick Wesley, Savannah Pilots. 11 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, City of Tybee 12 Island. 13 MR. ZADACH: Steve Zadach, Georgia Stevedore 14 Association. 15 MR. SUTLIVE: Charlie Sutlive, Savannah 16 Maritime. 17 MR. PHILLIPS: John Phillips, Georgia 18 Department of Transportation. 19 MR. CALHOUN: Andy Calhoun, Colonial Group. 20 MR. PARROTT: Dan Parrott, Army Corps of 21 Engineers. 22 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, Georgia Ports. 23 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia Ports. 24 MR. ELLIS: Bo Ellis, Applied Technology. 25 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, Georgia Ports. 5 1 2 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports. 3 MS. LEFFEK: Teri Leffek, Fife Plantation. 4 MR. PARSONS: Keith Parsons, Georgia DNR. 5 MR. DESA: Chris Desa, Jonaro Technomar. 6 MS. REESE: Patricia Reese, Georgia Ports. 7 MR. MATYOK: Tom Matyok, Coastal Georgia 8 Center for Sustainable Development 9 MR. HEITZKE: Ken Heitzke, Town Council, 10 Hilton Head Island 11 MR. SCHUBERTH: Chris Schuberth, Chatham 12 Environmental Forum. 13 MR. WATSON: Chuck Watson, Watson Technical 14 Consulting. 15 MS. WENDT: Priscilla Wendt, South Carolina 16 DNR. 17 MR. MOORE: Charlie Moore, South Carolina 18 DNR. 19 MR. MAIER: Phil Maier, South Carolina DNR. 20 MS. KRUEGER: Gail Krueger, Savannah Morning 21 News. 22 MR. HANZALIK: James Hanzalik, U.S. Coast 23 Guard. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you very much. 25 Looks like we have a few more people coming in. 6 1 2 Why don't the people coming in say who you are as 3 you find a seat. 4 MS. McINTOSH: Patty McIntosh, Georgia 5 Conservancy. 6 MR. BURSON: Will Burson, Georgia Conservancy. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Sierra Club. 8 MS. PERLING: Florence Perling, League of 9 Women Voters. 10 MR. DYSART: Thank you, Florence. Okay. The 11 second item of business, just for your information, 12 the draft agenda, the latest changes has been 13 circulated so you can be looking at that. We'll 14 get to that in just a moment. The facilitator's 15 comments, kind of my very brief wild card each 16 month is going not going to take my five minutes. 17 As usual, all I have to say is focusing on the 18 mission of the group. Those of you, most of you 19 around the table have been here for month after 20 month after month. 21 This is the 16th month of the Stakeholders 22 Evaluation Group, and for most of those months I 23 have had the privilege and pleasure of being with 24 you as the facilitator. The only message that I 25 bring is that the group needs to understand, be 7 1 2 aware, know that it has a mission, and be focused 3 on accomplishing its mission. 4 That is my main job, and I believe it is your 5 main job as members of this group. It is said by 6 one authoritative source that a group without a 7 purpose is purposeless group, and the purpose or 8 mission is the same thing. 9 So hopeful this handout will go around. What 10 I have handed out today is virtually the same thing 11 that has been handed out month after month after 12 month, dealing with what the official mission of 13 the group is. 14 At various meetings, we have discussions about 15 whether there is a mission, what it is, what it is 16 we're supposed to be doing and so forth. My main 17 job is to make sure that people are aware of what 18 the mission is. 19 This particular handout, which has been passed 20 out, there is the official congressional mandate 21 language. There is the committee language that 22 refers to this. 23 There's a couple of items of analysis that I 24 have pointing out what this means. If somebody 25 wants to see it in one page, as opposed to read a 8 1 2 three page document. We have the current version 3 of the operating guidelines where it refers to this 4 three page document, and the mission and so forth. 5 It also includes a couple of items from the 6 August -- from the April, '99 and October, '99 7 meetings where it appears that this group, when it 8 is expressing its opinion, is focusing, is going to 9 focus on the same thing as the official mandate. 10 Also, one thing in there is, what I have 11 referred to as suggested meeting norms, and this is 12 actually something that was developed for another 13 group that I'm involved with now. I did a minor 14 modification, and much of the meeting norms in any 15 kind of facilitated group has to do with people 16 encouraging people to focus on the mission, and not 17 do anything that would cause trust, mutual respect, 18 and understanding to be damaged so that things 19 cannot progress. 20 (Whereupon, the Draft Agenda 21 of the 4-4-2000 SEG Meeting 22 was marked Exhibit 1 for 23 identification.) 24 (Whereupon, the SEG Mission 25 from Congressional Mandate 9 1 2 was marked Exhibit 2 for 3 identification.) 4 BY MR. DYSART: So this I would like marked as 5 Exhibit 1, A or whatever. And I will encourage 6 people at future meetings to be aware of, to know 7 what the mission is, to understand it, and to make 8 sure they're focusing on it. If anybody ever says 9 they aren't sure what the mission is, I will hand 10 this out again. 11 So anyway, you have the green draft agenda 12 before you, and I ask you to indicate what 13 is your pleasure on this; do you wish to make 14 changes in this; is it acceptable to you; would you 15 like to modify it? 16 Not hearing any suggestions, or objections, or 17 what not, would it be reasonable to say that you 18 find the draft agenda acceptable? I will make a 19 declarative statement for the record that the group 20 has developed a consensus. Bill Farmer is nodding 21 and smiling. He concurs there's a consensus. 22 Okay. 23 The next item on the agenda is to approve the 24 March meeting summary. Actually, I suppose it is a 25 transcript prepared by a court reporter, as opposed 10 1 2 to being a summary. Is there anything anybody 3 wants changed in the official record of the March 4 meeting? 5 MR. BREWTON: Is there a copy of that here? 6 MR. DYSART: I don't have one. It's been 7 posted for a good while on the web site. 8 MR. BREWTON: Someone mentioned to me that 9 something seemed to be omitted. We were just 10 talking about it. I wanted to try to get a copy. 11 MR. DYSART: Could you tell us what the nature 12 of the problem was and who was it that had the 13 question? 14 MS. McINTOSH: I had brought something up 15 dealing with the salt water intrusion into the 16 aquifer. In my remarks, I recall relating it to 17 a very recent meeting, and recent discussion by 18 USGS. I did not see that in the transcript. I 19 only saw the reference to the question and not the 20 context within which I brought it up. I think 21 that's important because the response I got to that 22 whole issue was that it had been studied a year 23 ago, two years ago whatever, and I was bringing up 24 something that had come up more recent than that. 25 MR. DYSART: Perhaps we could request that the 11 1 2 tapes be consulting to see and to make sure what 3 was the reported is complete. I am not aware of 4 any editing or changing that takes place. I would 5 ask you to at the look section. Patty, if you 6 will, make sure that the court reporter knows 7 specifically what section you're talking about. 8 If you'll bring that up next time, next 9 meeting. Okay. Are there other questions, 10 comments about the transcript from the last 11 meeting? Any other questions that have been 12 raised, forwarded, or otherwise? 13 Do I -- I would presume then that with that 14 item being reviewed and reported back next time, 15 that the transcript of the March, 19 -- March, 2000 16 meeting is then accepted. Okay. We also have the 17 backlog of the May, June, July and August, 1999 18 summaries. 19 MR. BREWTON: We did not meet this month, so 20 there's been no further action on that. Past that 21 to next month. 22 MR. DYSART: Next we're ready for old 23 business. Morgan, do you have a report on ballast 24 water? 25 MR. REES: Surprise, surprise. I do indeed. 12 1 2 MR. DYSART: This was an item, I believe, 3 was brought by Priscilla several months ago. You, 4 on behalf of GPA, indicated that you would prepare 5 some responses on this for a future meeting, and 6 we'd be happy to hear from you now. 7 MR. REES: You may recall, there were six 8 questions raised at the end of the presentation 9 that was made by South Carolina DNR. We agreed to 10 provide responses to those questions. 11 And I was pretty close to ready to do that at 12 the last meeting when I learned of some other 13 things going on, a panel session on this subject at 14 the American Association of Port Authorities 15 convention in Washington, and a meeting of what 16 turned out to be a committee of the Aquatic 17 Nuisance Species Task Force. I think I got that 18 name right. And that I deferred reporting last 19 month until I looked into those two activities. 20 Well, looking into those two activities has 21 led to some other questions and some other lines of 22 inquiry. 23 So I don't have my report completely written, 24 but we're pretty close, but there are a couple of 25 what I think are significant loose ends in bringing 13 1 2 all the details together. I thought you folks 3 had waited long enough. 4 I'll report everything I have, point out what 5 the gaps are, and then hopefully in the next week 6 or two, close those gaps and put a written report 7 on web site, and have hard copies available at the 8 next meeting. 9 Let me start with some of the things that I 10 found out that are related to the questions, but I 11 think go well beyond the questions directly that we 12 were responding to. 13 There turns out to be a lot of activity going 14 on in this arena at international, national and at 15 various state levels. The International Maritime 16 Organization, the IMO, has been working for 10 17 years on an international plan to deal with the 18 ballast water issue. 19 They expect to convene a diplomatic conference 20 in the year 2002 with the intention of developing 21 an international treaty on the issue. 22 If any of you have ever been involved in any 23 of those kinds of international activities, they 24 don't happen overnight, but at least there's 25 progress and they're getting close to having an 14 1 2 international proposal. 3 In the meanwhile, looking at what's happening 4 in the United States, the first thing that occurred 5 to me is that discharge of ballast water maybe a 6 discharge under the Clean Water Act, but it turns 7 out that the EPA regulations specifically exclude 8 or prohibit states from regulating ballast water 9 discharges. 10 I have heard informally, I have not been able 11 to confirm, that EPA intends to issue proposed 12 revisions to its regulations. 13 Somebody had told me in May, but again, I 14 wasn't able to confirm that, but at least sometime 15 soon EPA would reopen the question regulation under 16 the Clean Water Act for ballast water. 17 The federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task 18 Force was established by 1990 by executive order, 19 and it's comprised of 7 federal agencies and 10 20 ex officio members. It meets twice annually. The 21 next meeting is in May. There are a couple of web 22 sites that have a lot of information on them. 23 I'll get to those in a minute, but everything 24 that's going on in this arena can be monitored 25 through these two web sites. One is the Coast 15 1 2 Guard web site and one is the Smithsonian web site. 3 This Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force has a 4 ballast water and shipping committee. That 5 committee met, and that was the meeting that I was 6 referring to, in addition to ports authority 7 convention. 8 They met recently in Washington. The minutes 9 are not available yet. They tell me it usually 10 takes six to eight weeks to get the minutes 11 published. It was reported that the task force 12 will recommend -- the committee will recommend to 13 the task force, and you folks are going to love 14 this, they're going to recommend a stakeholders 15 group be established to deal with the ballast water 16 issue at the national level. 17 Whether that actually happens remains to be 18 seen, but that's what was reported to me. Again, 19 the minutes aren't out yet. They're not official. 20 This isn't gospel. I'm letting you know what I 21 have found out to date. 22 There are four states that are dealing ballast 23 water legislatively. Two states, California and 24 Washington have adopted state laws requiring 25 mandatory, mid ocean exchange of ballast water for 16 1 2 any vessels calling at their state ports. Michigan 3 and Maryland are considering proposed legislation. 4 The Maryland legislation is essentially 5 similar to the Coast Guard national regulation 6 which is mandatory reporting of voluntary mid ocean 7 exchange of ballast water. 8 The Michigan legislative proposal is probably 9 the strictest of all, which would require 10 sterilization of any ballast water that's 11 discharged. 12 Now, needless to say, that created a quite a 13 furor in the shipping community, and it's reported 14 in some of the news reports of this. Again, not 15 confirmed, but news reports indicate that the 16 sponsor of the bill and the shipping interests have 17 already agreed that they can probably reach a 18 compromise on this piece of legislation. 19 What that might be, I don't know, but the 20 implication is that it wouldn't be anything as 21 strict as sterilization. 22 Federal law has required ballast water 23 exchange at sea for any traffic, ship traffic in 24 the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway since 25 1993. 17 1 2 So the concept is not new. It's been around 3 seven years now, at least for the Great Lakes and 4 St. Lawrence Seaway. So that's some of the 5 background information that I found out, and I'm 6 still trying to confirm some of the material that 7 I've told you, and some of the need to confirm the 8 information relates to some of the answers to the 9 questions. 10 I'll go through the questions that were raised 11 by South Carolina DNR in the order they raised 12 them, and tell you what I know about the responses 13 at this point. 14 The first question was what is the current 15 volume and origin of ballast water; it turns out 16 there's no information available on the origin. 17 The information that is collected by the Coast 18 Guard, under their mandatory reporting voluntary 19 exchange program does not include that kind of 20 information. 21 We know where the ships are coming from 22 because there's all kinds of information about 23 that, but we don't know what they did at the 24 previous port with their ballast water, whether 25 they took some on, discharged some, or had ballast 18 1 2 water left over from a previous port of call. That 3 information is simply not available. 4 As to the volume, all I can say is that 5 discharges in Georgia waters are prohibited by 6 state law. So that if there were any discharges, 7 they were illegal, but I must say at the same time, 8 and this is one of the big holes in the report as I 9 see it, I've been unable to find who, in the state 10 of Georgia, is responsible for enforcement of that 11 statute. 12 If anybody knows, I'd be glad to hear. I did 13 check with EPD, and DNR, and a couple of lawyers, 14 and I got the name of -- I don't know -- I don't 15 have it handy, but there's a pilotage commission 16 that's cited in the statute, but nobody even knows 17 what that is, at least nobody I've been able to 18 find out from yet. 19 So that's one of the big gaps in the 20 information I have. I'll continue to try to find 21 out who is responsible for enforcement. I don't 22 know what the enforcement policies are at the state 23 level. 24 The second part of that question was what 25 changes are expected, as a result of the channel 19 1 2 deepening. It happens that the feasibility report 3 on the Oakland Harbor deepening project, Oakland, 4 California, a fairly recent report, tackled this 5 issue, at least according to people who follow 6 these things, as thoroughly as anybody has seen in 7 these kinds of reports. 8 What that Oakland report said was that they 9 would expect less discharge of ballast water and 10 fewer problems as a result because of the channel 11 deepening. There are two reasons for that. 12 Number one, the channel deepening would 13 accommodate larger vessels, and therefore there 14 would be fewer vessel trips to carry an equivalent 15 amount of cargo; and therefore, less need to 16 discharge ballast water. 17 Reason number two is that the newer, larger 18 ships are of a different design from most of the 19 existing fleet, in that they are broader of beam 20 and therefore more stable, and therefore have less 21 need for ballast water per unit cargo carried. 22 And another reason is that the newer ships are 23 better designed to exchange ballast water 24 internally within separate tanks, so that as the 25 need for shifting the ballast arises, that there is 20 1 2 an opportunity in the newer, larger ships to 3 exchange ballast water internally without having to 4 discharge it. 5 So the expectation from that Oakland report is 6 that a deeper port would result in fewer ballast 7 water discharge problems. 8 That report is very analogous to the Savannah 9 Harbor deepening report. Second question was what 10 is the current fleet profile, and a related 11 question, the third question, what is the -- what 12 are the expected fleet profile changes, as a result 13 of the project. 14 Appendix C to the feasibility report goes into 15 a great deal of detail, and I can tell you that 16 I'll include copies of these in the written report, 17 but in the interim -- well, I thought I listed what 18 particular exhibits there are, but there are number 19 of charts in the Appendix C of the feasibility 20 report that show the current fleet, how many ships 21 at which draft, so forth, and then on a 10 year 22 incremental basis what the fleet is expected to 23 look like. So all that information is currently 24 available in Appendix C of the feasibility report. 25 The fourth question was, what's the experience 21 1 2 with compliance, and as I said a minute ago, I've 3 been unable to find any compliance requirements 4 under the state program. 5 That's not to say they're not there, but I 6 just haven't found the right piece of the 7 bureaucracy yet that might have that 8 responsibility. 9 As to the federal rules, Coast Guard 10 requirements for mandatory reporting of voluntary 11 discharges or exchanges at sea, the Coast Guard 12 reports that something like 45% of the vessels 13 report, and you can draw your own conclusions 14 whether that's good or bad or indifferent, but 15 that's what the Coast Guard reports. 16 The Coast Guard has a web site. If you want 17 the web site address, it's a little bit 18 complicated. I can give it to you at the break. 19 Maybe what I'll do is write it down on a sheet of 20 paper and make it available, so you can copy it at 21 the break or whatever. The Coast Guard has a web 22 site, and it reports all the data that it collects. 23 So that anybody interested in the enforcement 24 program can go to that web site. 25 The Coast Guard is working in conjunction with 22 1 2 the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center on 3 this issue, and the Smithsonian also has a web 4 site, and also deals with this issue. In fact, the 5 Coast Guard web site says that after some short 6 period of time, you have to go to the Smithsonian 7 web site to find this information; but 8 nevertheless, it's available. And so that's where 9 we are with compliance. 10 Next question was -- the fifth question was 11 what are the current ballast water management 12 practices, and there really aren't any required 13 except in California and Washington, and those are 14 exchanges at sea outside the state waters. 15 There are a number of management practices 16 being considered, and some of these relate to some 17 of the background information I've already 18 mentioned. 19 Number one, there's a state prohibition, so 20 one would expect that ballast water is not 21 discharged in Georgia state waters. And it 22 occurred to me, frankly, in recognition of our 23 friends from South Carolina, I should have run 24 through the South Carolina system as well. Maybe 25 you folks know what the rules are in South 23 1 2 Carolina, because one would expect ballast water 3 might be discharged in South Carolina waters with 4 ships coming up the channel infringing on South 5 Carolina territory. 6 So I will add that to the report, whatever. 7 If you have any information on it, I would 8 appreciate it. 9 MS. WENDT: My understanding is the South 10 Carolina ports authority has a tariff which 11 prohibits the discharge of ballast water. I don't 12 think we have any detailed information on 13 enforcement. 14 MR. REES: Georgia Ports does also. Part of 15 the state law in Georgia is that individual 16 jurisdictions can prohibit discharge of ballast 17 water within their jurisdiction, and Georgia Ports 18 Authority does that, has that prohibition, but that 19 doesn't extend out to the three mile limit or 20 beyond the three mile limit. 21 MS. WENDT: Right. 22 MR. REES: My guess is it's similar in South 23 Carolina. 24 MS. WENDT: I think that's correct. 25 MR. REES: We can fill in that information and 24 1 2 add it to the analysis. Some of the management 3 practices being considered are retaining ballast 4 water onboard. 5 You recall I mentioned earlier that the newer 6 vessels are designed to transfer ballast water 7 between tanks on the vessels. So that's a 8 possibility. Filtration, ultraviolet treatment, 9 and as I recall, sterilization are others being 10 considered in various places and in various forms. 11 The sixth question was what are the mitigation 12 options. The Oakland report listed four specific 13 mitigation actions that the Port of Oakland had 14 committed to. One was to support the International 15 Maritime Organization efforts to develop an 16 international treaty on the subject, support 17 mandatory exchange in mid ocean, support an 18 education outreach program, and explore treatment 19 alternatives. 20 That's fundamentally where I am with my 21 investigation at this time. I would mention one 22 other thing, that even though there are several 23 individual states, who have adopted state laws 24 regarding open ocean exchange, virtually everybody 25 I've talked with thinks that the best idea is to 25 1 2 have a uniform system for the country. 3 That's the direction the effort is heading. 4 How soon that's going to happen, I can't predict. 5 That's my report. Questions. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Ben Brewton. 7 MR. BREWTON: I think Patty was first over 8 there. 9 MS. McINTOSH: I forgot -- Morgan, could you 10 clarify -- 11 MR. DYSART: Then Ben Brewton and then Judy. 12 MS. McINTOSH: -- you said earlier, you said 13 at the beginning you said something about, what I 14 wrote down was that EPA prohibits states from 15 regulating discharge of ballast water. Is that 16 what you said? 17 MR. REES: Yes. 18 MS. McINTOSH: Then you talked about state 19 regulations. 20 MR. REES: The EPA question had to do with 21 the point source discharge requirements of the 22 Clean Water Act. That doesn't prohibit the states 23 from doing whatever they want to do. 24 In other words, it would be a state law that 25 would regulate the activity, not a federal law. As 26 1 2 I also said, the EPA is reconsidering that 3 position. 4 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 5 MR. BREWTON: Thanks. Two questions, Morgan. 6 First, the Georgia Statute, do you have that code 7 cite; can you tell me the section? 8 MR. REES: Yes. 52-8-1, Georgia Code 52-8-1 9 that's also on the Internet. 10 MR. BREWTON: Okay. It doesn't -- other than 11 this commission you mentioned, it doesn't ascribe 12 those duties to any particular agency or 13 department? 14 MR. REES: I personally did not read it, but I 15 was on the phone with a lawyer for EPD. He was 16 reading it to me -- 17 MR. BREWTON: I see. 18 MR. REES: -- and indicated all he found was 19 that pilotage commission. 20 MR. BREWTON: Second question was you've 21 indicated that you really don't know the origin of 22 the current ballast water coming into the port, and 23 then one of the later questions was about how that 24 mix was changed. You made a few comments on that. 25 But I guess the real conclusion of that is 27 1 2 since we don't know where it is coming from now it 3 would be hard to predict what the changes would be, 4 even if we had a prediction where it was going to 5 come from in the future. 6 MR. REES: The discussion about the change 7 in the future had to do with the volume and number 8 of incidents that would be required. 9 MR. BREWTON: Not the origin. 10 MR. REES: Not the origin. 11 MR. BREWTON: So we really don't know much 12 about the origin of ballast water in the future, or 13 how that might change in the future. 14 As I recall, one of the questions was related 15 more to the qualitative rather than quantitative 16 aspects of it; that is, would be exotic species 17 from new locations -- 18 MR. REES: Right. We don't have any of that 19 now. 20 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. 21 MS. JENNINGS: Before, Morgan, at some point, 22 you referred to -- right before at some point in 23 time during the report, you referred to, I think, 24 the feasibility report and the world fleet mix. 25 Could you refresh my memory why you referenced 28 1 2 that, because my point is that what was reported in 3 the feasibility study, I think, we could argue very 4 well is not what we see today? 5 MR. REES: The question, the two questions 6 that were kind of tied together were what is the 7 existing fleet, and the other question was what do 8 you expect the future fleet to be. 9 The existing fleet and the future fleet are 10 both in Appendix C. There are tables that show it, 11 you know. The existing fleet, we know what it is 12 and that's not going to change. There may be some 13 -- there's a possibility that the projected future 14 fleet might change when we update the economic 15 appendix, but currently, what we know is in 16 Appendix C of the feasibility report. 17 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. I guess my point is we 18 know more than that now. That material is somewhat 19 dated. 20 MR. REES: It is, and you know, we are 21 updating that under the guidance of your working 22 group, that may change. But the best information 23 we have now -- I'm not in a position to say that 24 the information in there should change in a certain 25 respect. We haven't done that investigation yet. 29 1 2 MS. JENNINGS: Actually, that isn't very 3 satisfying, Morgan. I don't know, however how 4 quite to satisfy me on that point. I think the 5 honest answer to my question would require a 6 detailed analysis, so I don't expect you to be able 7 to flip that out. 8 I would like to make a point that the world 9 fleet mix, as we know it now, is somewhat different 10 than is reflected in Appendix C of the feasibility 11 report. Frankly, that EPA remark, there are more 12 and bigger ships than that. 13 MR. REES: The point is well taken. You're 14 exactly right that in the update of the economic 15 analysis, we may have a different fleet mix than 16 what currently appears in Appendix C. 17 MS. JENNINGS: I'm just taking a little 18 exception with quoting that when, in fact, we 19 informally know that that has changed. 20 MR. REES: With emphasis on informally, 21 because we're very reluctant to make conclusive 22 statements until we do the analysis. 23 MS. JENNINGS: I appreciate being reluctant. 24 I point out the current literature that is 25 obsolete. 30 1 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. Question. 3 MR. MAIER: Not so much a question as a 4 statement. Morgan, you mentioned the SERC Report. 5 I'd like to point out to the group, as a whole, 6 there's some very good information on ballast water 7 there, and some information that's rather 8 troubling. 9 Clearly, many of the aspects of ballast 10 water is going to be dealt with on a national 11 level, but there are existing state -- both South 12 Carolina and Georgia regulations -- that prohibit 13 discharges. The most recent report from SERC, 14 which I encourage everyone to visit and the see 15 the report. 16 It very clearly shows there are discharges 17 from vessels which do not perform mid ocean 18 exchange. Moreover, the report shows that most of 19 the vessels are not reported. And I encourage the 20 group, Morgan, to continue to pursue some of the 21 enforcement aspects, relating to ballast water, 22 that he's mentioned here prohibiting those types of 23 exchanges, as we will continue to do so. 24 MR. DYSART: Priscilla. 25 MS. WENDT: I agree with Judy that was a good 31 1 2 overview, Morgan, and I appreciate the update on 3 some of the information that David Naida (phonetic) 4 presented when he gave his report. 5 What I'm hoping you'll include in your written 6 report is some quantitative analysis, in much the 7 same way as David did not performed the 8 quantitative analysis, based on quite honestly a 9 lot of assumptions about the vessel fleet mix, the 10 volume of discharge, and that sort of thing. 11 I'd encourage you to go back to that ballast 12 water report we circulated, and try to do a similar 13 analysis for the Port of Savannah, so we have some 14 idea of what we're dealing with in terms of 15 incremental increase or decrease and volume of 16 discharge. 17 And the other thing I'm curious about and 18 maybe the Coast Guard could answer this, is why -- 19 why information on the origin of ballast water 20 isn't required as part of the reporting 21 requirements? It would seem to be a fairly obvious 22 question. 23 MR. HANZALIK: James Hanzalik from the Coast 24 Guard. Actually you're right. There is no 25 requirement to say where the origin of that ballast 32 1 2 water comes from, because there are a lot of ships 3 that may come into the United States, and they go 4 from one port to the other on the way down the East 5 Coast. 6 They may never go outside the 200 mile limit, 7 so in some respects, yes, it makes a lot of sense. 8 I think here locally we'll be doing that, as far as 9 keeping up with the last port of call of a vessel. 10 I think that's really what you're looking for. We 11 did also mention that to the people at SERC. 12 MR. DYSART: Other questions. 13 MR. BURSON: Will Burson. I guess two 14 questions, I'm sorry if I'm showing my ignorance. 15 Ballast water is distinct from bilge water, right? 16 MR. HANZALIK: Yes. 17 MR. BURSON: That's number one. Number two, 18 the biggest question I can think of, how big a deal 19 is this? What's the time? How long -- if you were 20 to require mid ocean flushing, for lack of a better 21 term, are we talking hours, are we talking a day? 22 I have absolutely no sense of the operational 23 impact of what California or Michigan is talking 24 about. 25 MR. HANZALIK: It depends. James Hanzalik 33 1 2 with the Coast Guard. It depends on the size of 3 the ship, how much -- what the size of ballast 4 pumps are, what the size of the ballast tanks are, 5 and it varies from ship to ship. 6 MR. BREWTON: Could you tell us approximate 7 the range from minimum to maximum? 8 MR. HANZALIK: I would say anywhere from -- 9 this is a pure stab, anywhere from 8 to 16 hours, 10 depending on how much ballast they have. 11 Most of the information we have, most of the 12 ships that come into Savannah are discharging 13 cargo, so usually they're taking on ballast. When 14 they come in, they have to come in -- they're 15 coming in in a loaded condition. They're taking 16 cargo off, so they have to take ballast in to keep 17 the same draft. 18 So that kind of gives you an idea. Most of -- 19 at least from the information we have, is that most 20 of those are -- are tank vessels that come in that 21 are actually discharging, so -- and also the 22 vessels, and some of the bulkers, container ships, 23 don't normally take on discharge ballast. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. Question. 25 MR. BROWNE: I'm curious. I'm hearing there 34 1 2 are laws against discharging ballast, and now I'm 3 hearing where do they come from? I don't quite 4 understand that, the policy of discharging ballast 5 water. Obviously, they're not going to report 6 their last port or where they come from, I'm a 7 little confused about are there laws that say 8 they shouldn't discharge ballast water? 9 MR. DYSART: To whom is that question directed 10 -- the Coast Guard? 11 MR. BROWNE: Anybody. I just heard two 12 different things. I don't understand. If there 13 are laws against them discharging ballast water -- 14 MR. HANZALIK: James Hanzalik, Coast Guard. 15 They're required to tell us their last port of call 16 in their arrival procedure. They have to tell us 17 that information. That's not for ballast water, 18 but just for arrival into the port. 19 State law, when we did some research on the 20 state law, I'm pretty sure that law is pretty old. 21 They were also talking about stones and pebbles, so 22 it's a very old law. 23 MR. BROWNE: If there's a law already there, 24 what is the discussion about? 25 MR. BREWTON: I understand -- 35 1 2 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 3 MS. WENDT: Well, I think from our 4 perspective, I believe at least in South Carolina 5 the tariff just applies to the South Carolina Ports 6 Authority property, the terminals. I don't think 7 it applies throughout the state waters. 8 So there's a concern about it's applicability 9 to other state waters, and also there's a concern 10 about enforcement. We don't know who, if anybody, 11 enforces it. 12 I think we recognize the fact exceptions can 13 be made for purposes of safety, and that sort of 14 thing, but just the fact that there's a tariff on 15 the books, I don't think addresses the question 16 throughout the state waters. 17 MR. BROWNE: Apparently, you can't get a 18 handle on it, unless you have a ballast policeman. 19 I mean, how are you going to regulate or find out 20 where they took on the ballast to begin with? 21 That doesn't mean their last port of call. 22 That could have been anyplace. It could have been 23 the ocean, could have been anywhere that they 24 ballast the ships. So -- 25 MR. HANZALIK: Yeah. 36 1 2 MR. BROWNE: It's a question that's just very 3 hard to answer. If they're not telling you they're 4 doing it to begin with, you would never get them to 5 pin down where they took the ballast from. I don't 6 understand the question here, if it's against the 7 law to do it. 8 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton, comment. 9 MR. BREWTON: About three comments, and maybe 10 hoping we could wrap this section up for today and 11 move onto the next item, but I understand exactly 12 what Tommy is saying. 13 If there's a Georgia law against it and other 14 laws against it, then it's illegal to do it, then 15 it really doesn't matter where it comes from. They 16 shouldn't be dumping it to begin with; however, in 17 the face of perhaps non-existent or limited 18 enforcement, it does become an issue. 19 And Morgan, what sort of timetable -- one of 20 my questions is, are you talking about having this 21 written report for distribution to us? 22 MR. REES: I was hoping to do it, you know, 23 before the next meeting, have the report available 24 at the next meeting. 25 MR. BREWTON: I would like to suggest maybe 37 1 2 you could further embellish your report with some 3 more information about some of the questions and 4 comments that have come up here today. 5 MR. REES: How about if I have it in June? 6 MR. BREWTON: Well, what I was going to 7 suggest, at the point after you can give us that 8 report and maybe address some of the other issues 9 that have come up. I think what we do need to put 10 down is an agenda item for the SEG, either in May 11 or June, is for us to decide what relevance this 12 has to the deepening, and what questions and 13 studies we need to see, if any, and go ahead and 14 define those. 15 I think one thing that might help too, based 16 on what the Coast Guard gentleman was saying, is if 17 we could be given some idea of what ratio or the 18 volume of imports and exports tonnage is now and 19 what it might be expected to be under the 20 deepening. 21 Because as he said, the -- whether you're 22 discharging or, you know, loading or offloading 23 cargo determines whether you're taking on or 24 whether you're flushing ballast water. And so if 25 that import export ratio is going to change, that 38 1 2 could have an impact too. 3 So, I guess, to wrap up what my suggestion is 4 is that we ask Morgan to include some of these 5 things in the report, set a time certain for that 6 report to come back, and as part of that agenda 7 item for the SEG, to actually try to define what 8 traditional information or studies we think need to 9 be done, if any, at that time. 10 MR. DYSART: David. 11 MR. SCHALLER: I would simply point out, as 12 information to the group, I think it was mentioned 13 in last night's forum by Commander McDonald, the 14 ports authority can answer Ben's question with 15 relative ease. 16 We're only doing like 55% of the total 17 commerce conducted in the Savannah River over the 18 public docks. Somebody else has got to help us 19 find the other products, whether they're being 20 imported or exported, that kind of stuff. I don't 21 know if Jim maintains that, or if it's 22 Department of Commerce activity. 23 MR. HANZALIK: Actually, a lot of that, it's 24 not -- actually, the Army Corps of Engineers puts 25 out a publication, the Journal of Commerce that has 39 1 2 a lot of that information already in it. 3 MR. BREWTON: Is there someone here who could 4 take the responsibility with the Corps or the Coast 5 Guard to get that information and get it back to 6 us, or get it to Morgan for inclusion in his 7 report? 8 MR. REES: Not seeing any cards -- oh yeah, 9 Stuart. 10 MR. DYSART: Stuart Steven. 11 MR. REES: I would just respond quickly. The 12 Corps of Engineers information is all historic. 13 They don't make any projections, so it doesn't give 14 us any insight into what's going to happen in the 15 future. 16 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 17 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens, DNR. I also 18 wanted to suggest, Jim might could help with this. 19 I believe the first time this came up, it was a 20 real good presentation from South Carolina. There 21 was discussion about some new techniques that were 22 under consideration for analyzing the ballast 23 water, fingerprinting, whatever, so we could see 24 what the dangers might be. I'd be curious where 25 we stand on that, when we do have this more 40 1 2 in-depth report. 3 MR. DYSART: Further comments or questions? 4 Priscilla. 5 MS. WENDT: Well, let me just address Stuart's 6 question. I'm not sure exactly where we stand in 7 terms of fingerprinting ballast water. I don't 8 know. I can pose the question to David, if knows 9 anything more about that. 10 I think what we're looking at is trying to 11 mitigate whatever additional impacts there might 12 be, in terms of, I think, it just -- you can look 13 at the ballast water in 1 or 10 ships, that's not 14 going to tell you what's necessarily going to be 15 the ballast water in ships coming in in the future, 16 but there are ways to treat it, to mitigate any 17 adverse impacts. 18 The open ocean exchange is the probably the 19 simplest, or the least technologically demanding, 20 but I think that sort of is our bottom line. 21 We're just trying to mitigate whatever the 22 additional impacts are. We realize this is an 23 ongoing problem that's been ongoing for quite some 24 time. We're just now beginning to address it. 25 We're, quite honestly, posing the same questions to 41 1 2 the South Carolina Ports Authority with their 3 proposed expansion of the Charleston terminal. 4 And some of those state laws, I believe, in 5 California and Washington -- in Oakland, were 6 enacted as mitigation for port expansion. I mean, 7 there are things that can be done without knowing 8 the precise details of what's in the ballast water. 9 MR. MAIER: I think maybe the questions 10 regarding what's in the ballast water and how best 11 to treat it are being addressed right now through 12 experiments at SERC. 13 Those are the questions they're trying to 14 answer. Certainly, many of the states, us 15 included, are interested in hearing those results, 16 and are in kind of a holding pattern waiting to see 17 what comes out of those reports. 18 MR. STEVENS: Okay. 19 MR. BROWNE: Ballast water, ships dump 20 ballast water out to get lighter. So part of the 21 problem is the depth of the channel. The reason 22 they do release ballast water or shift it, they do 23 all of this movement from tank to tank, or lighten 24 the vessel is so that they can move when there's 25 not enough water in the -- under the keel for the 42 1 2 vessel to move. 3 That's the only thing I wanted to bring to 4 your attention. If they're not supposed to be 5 doing it, you probably couldn't find out where they 6 pick the ballast water up from. Usually, they like 7 to do those things at sea where it is cleanest, 8 because they don't like anything in the ballast 9 tanks, any problems with communities or anything 10 else, I would imagine. 11 The whole point of pumping ballast into the 12 river would be to lighten the vessel up, which is 13 a shallower draft. 14 MR. DYSART: Again, seeing no further cards, 15 we'll move on to the next item -- 10:01. Chuck 16 Watson requested 10, or I believe 15 minutes. 17 Chris Schuberth requested that we give this item 30 18 minutes, and that was reported in the previous 19 edition of the draft agenda. 20 Is there -- is there general support, or any 21 objections to allocating 30 minutes to whatever 22 Chris will be talking about, and the follow-up 23 questions. Will that be enough? 24 MR. BREWTON: I'd like to suggest just looking 25 at the information that we have in our hand-outs 43 1 2 here, it looks like Chuck has some very interesting 3 and technical and scientific information for us. 4 I'd like to say, let's give him whatever time 5 he needs to complete the presentation, and then 6 allocate whatever time is left for questions and 7 follow-up. He's his got equipment. I'd certainly 8 like to hear him. 9 MR. DYSART: Is that acceptable to the rest of 10 the membership? Any objections? Anybody can't 11 live with the Ben Brewton's recommendation? Okay. 12 Chuck Watson has whatever time he needs to 13 make a report, then the group will decide how much 14 time they wish to allocate for follow-up questions. 15 Chuck. 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: In front of you is a fairly 17 thick slide, so you can take notes for the 18 Potential Influence of the Savannah Harbor 19 Navigation Channel, and at the end of this you'll 20 get a little quiz to see where the addendum slides 21 go in, even though they have been numbered 22 and 22 23. And then there may be one or two others that 23 will be added to this. 24 Since Chuck has not been a part of this 25 process, I'd just like you to know he's really a 44 1 2 cutting edge, not -- not state of the practice 3 computer modeler. 4 In his 14 years in the hazard modeling 5 field, he's developed the arbiter of storm models, 6 TAOS, which you'll hear a lot about, which is an 7 integrated multi-hazard model which has been or is 8 in use by the U.S. Agency for International 9 Development, and the Organization of American 10 States, the World Bank, the States of Florida, 11 Hawaii, North Carolina, and virtually all the 12 Caribbean Countries. 13 His advice to the States of Georgia, North 14 Carolina and Florida Insurance Departments 15 regarding computer models of hurricanes, tornadoes, 16 and earthquakes, is used to set insurance rates. 17 And in his work, he, in Florida, has simply 18 included this area as part of that project, and he 19 said, you know, there's some very interesting 20 things showing up here. Are you interested? 21 I said, talk to me about it. Well, maybe we 22 should present some of this to the SEG. He did not 23 purposefully target the Savannah or the Charleston 24 Harbors. Chuck. 25 MR. WATSON: Thanks, Chris. Basically what 45 1 2 I'll do, I want to run through how the studies, 3 this data was created, and a little bit, about 4 probably two thirds of the presentation is going to 5 be about the techniques and technology involved in 6 it. 7 I have added a number of slides. This is very 8 much a work in progress. So what you have doesn't 9 exactly reflect what I'll be talking about. But, 10 basically, who did the work, why the studies were 11 done, the methodology, results, and what I think 12 some implications are for this group. 13 Just a little bit about me, I designed the 14 particular model series that was this TAOS. I've 15 done consulting for a lot of groups. I have my own 16 company, Watson Technical Consulting. It's now 17 being absorbed by another company, but that's a 18 different story. 19 I do a lot of work with Mark Johnson, 20 University of Central Florida. I've done a lot of 21 work with the Weather Channel, different groups 22 like that. To make a real clear disclaimer, that 23 any opinion that I present are strictly mine. They 24 don't involve any other studies. 25 Again, these results were part of the research 46 1 2 and development process for the modeling, and 3 certainly don't -- weren't involved in the other 4 projects. 5 Why was this done? And again, I think it is 6 important to mention -- Chris said, it's kind of 7 incidental to the rest of the work. What we're 8 really trying to figure out for the State of 9 Florida, I'm working on a project called the Local 10 Mitigation Strategy. Those are the hazard maps 11 designed to try to help local communities figure 12 out and reduce their losses and damage from 13 hurricanes, tornadoes and river flooding, the whole 14 spectrum of geophysical hazards. 15 And one of the key questions is, how do 16 engineering projects affect these maps, how do 17 environmental changes affect these maps; in other 18 words, you do this wonderful statewide project, 19 very high resolution information? What happens if 20 somebody goes out and renourishes the beach? Does 21 it help or hurt, or if they dredge a channel, does 22 that help or hurt? Those kinds of questions we're 23 looking to answer. 24 The second one was kind of interesting. 25 Naturally, everyone watches the Weather Channel all 47 1 2 the time, right? Blush. They did a series called 3 Storm of the Century last December. 4 One of the things we were worried about and 5 were curious about is first off, can we accurately 6 recreate these historical storms through computer 7 models, but also can we accurately project what 8 would happen if those storms happened today? 9 Particularly, for this one, we were looking at 10 the Long Island Express, the big hurricane that hit 11 New England in 1938. We were very curious about if 12 the same storm his today, what would the damages 13 be, the flooding be, those kinds of questions. 14 As part of the ongoing research and 15 development that's funded through a variety of 16 sources, again, this is largely through the 17 Organization of American States, and I work quite a 18 bit with the University of Central Florida on this, 19 we're looking at what is the sensitivity of storm 20 effects to small scale environmental changes. 21 We're looking at things like the potential for 22 global for sea level rise, what does that do to 23 hurricane impacts? Looking at, again, if you make 24 some small changes to the environment, road 25 projects or whatever, how does it impact damage? 48 1 2 Again, the sea level rise was actually had 3 some interesting implications. Methodology of -- 4 I'll go into a lot more detail on this, the key 5 projects were the New York area, the entire State 6 of Florida, particularly the '28 storm that hit 7 Miami. Andrew I left out of the list. Savannah 8 was a secondary test location. 9 Savannah is a very convenient research site 10 for me since this is where I am. If I have a 11 question about what's going on, I can pop into an 12 airplane and go look at it, or with GPS check it 13 with minimal fuss and mess. Kingston, Jamaica was 14 our other secondary test site. 15 Data bases and resolution, I'm going to spend 16 a few minutes here talking about the modeling 17 process. Chris suggested I spend a little bit of 18 time on this, since it's an area that a lot of the 19 decisions that SEG will be making are based off 20 results coming from numerical models. 21 Data bases, input and resolutions are two of 22 the most of critical issues. One of the areas that 23 I've done a lot work in is in the area of trying to 24 improve the resolution of these models. The 25 current Weather Service model for doing hurricane, 49 1 2 and storm surge is called SLOSH. It has a 3 resolution of about 1,000 meters, a little more 4 half mile. 5 Well, the kind of models were doing in 6 Florida, and were done for this study were on the 7 order of 30 meters, which is a substantial 8 improvement in resolution. In other words, we're 9 down to almost the integral structure level in 10 terms of being able to run the model. 11 That doesn't necessarily mean they're that 12 accurate, the resolutions are that high, unless you 13 reproduce phenomena that you're not able to do 14 with coarser models. 15 The basic process we go through when running 16 the models, we use a nested grid for a lot of 17 these studies. I wanted to mention that because 18 what it let's you do, you can run, in fact, just 19 about the entire Atlantic Ocean, all the areas 20 might impact. 21 Why would do this? Well, if you have got a 22 storm sitting up here, it's generating waves and 23 swells that propagates and impacts our coast. So 24 it's very difficult to run a localized grid, 25 especially if you're doing climate studies, looking 50 1 2 at hundreds of years worth of data. 3 You can use some historical data in a smaller 4 grid, but the method we prefer is using climate 5 models, using global weather models as inputs to 6 our system. It seems to work quite well. You get 7 pretty good results do that. 8 Satellite imagery is critical for a lot of the 9 work that we do. This is the area near Pennekamp 10 State Park for you scuba divers out there, these 11 are the reefs just offshore. You can see how we 12 can use this to improve our data. 13 What we can do is first I'll pick up the land 14 cover. You can see built up areas versus unbuilt 15 areas, I'll pick up the roads. You can grassy beds 16 near shore. So we can identify the bottom type. 17 That's very important for calculating the way water 18 flows. Obviously, you have more friction if you 19 have the grass on the bottom. So we can 20 incorporate that into the calculations for waves 21 and the calculations for water flow. 22 I mention the evil boat wakes, they're kind of 23 the bane of this kind of work. You'd be amazed. I 24 think we found something like 20,000 boat wakes in 25 the State of Florida on a sunny weekend when this 51 1 2 particular images was acquired. 3 The problem is when you are trying to look at 4 what's underneath, the boats stir up sediment. The 5 wake itself creates a disturbance in the water. So 6 we have to mask these and acquire data in other 7 areas. 8 A little closer to home, this is an image from 9 -- you recognize Tybee, Hilton Head, there's the 10 river. This one is a good example of some of the 11 problems you have to work around. For instance, 12 here is an aircraft con trail, and you can see the 13 shadow from that con trail. There's a ship heading 14 in toward the channel. If you look carefully, you 15 can pick out the actual navigational channel, the 16 deeper water is a different shade. 17 MR. BREWTON: Chuck, excuse me. Back up just 18 a tad. 19 MR. WATSON: Maybe a better example, this is 20 Gaskin Bank. Those of you who are familiar with 21 Hilton Head, that's often used as a dredge site, 22 a borrow site for the renourishment projects for 23 Hilton Head. 24 If you look carefully, you can make out the 25 dredge site. This image was made in '93. This is, 52 1 2 I believe, from the 1990 or '91 renourishment, 3 roughly two years. 4 From this we can actually monitor changes in 5 the bottom. Sometimes we send a ship out and run 6 patterns out here to get bathymetry, we can update 7 and improve the bathymetry by using the satellite 8 data. 9 Once we process it and create a composite DEM, 10 we can use a combination of satellite imagery, the 11 National Ocean Service, the Coast Guard soundings 12 that are made, and blend these to come up with 13 snapshots of what the bathymetry looks like at 14 different times. 15 MR. BREWTON: DEM? 16 MR. WATSON: Oh, digital elevation model. As 17 far as the modeling itself, these are the hazards 18 we were looking at; wind, waves, storm surge, 19 rainfall and inland flooding, debris, and the 20 damage caused by above. 21 This one is a particularly important point 22 since that's where the economic calculations were 23 made. I'll skip through some of these. You can 24 look at it in the handout. 25 The TAOS model itself can run either on a desk 53 1 2 top at a lower resolution, and by lower resolution 3 I mean a 900 meter grid, all the way through 4 multi-processers, cluster computers, or super 5 computers, where you can use some very complex, 6 long-term climate simulations, actually do couple 7 models, look at tsunami, things like that. 8 Well, the history of the model, it's been 9 around for quite a while, originally got started in 10 1989 with a project for Hilton Head looking at 11 storm damage. And as you can read through, it's 12 been used for a lot of other projects, particularly 13 real time applications. 14 Those are harder, because you have less 15 complete data, and you're trying to project into 16 the future. That's always a scary, iffy business. 17 You find out if you're wrong pretty quick. Doing 18 the 100 years projections is pretty easy. You're 19 not going to be around to face the consequences if 20 you are wrong. 21 One important point is there are basically 22 three surge models that evaluate -- the WMO is the 23 World Meteorological Organization, by the way. 24 It's the standard making element tasked with 25 for standardizing meteorological analysis 54 1 2 worldwide. 3 They've evaluated three models; the SLOSH 4 model, my model, and the Maddie (phonetic) France 5 system. TAOS is the only commercial model in that 6 group. It's also the only one that's approved for 7 storm surge, but wind/wave damage modeling. 8 I mentioned the TAOS model, and you'll hear 9 about it, but that's in a way a misnomer. TAOS 10 is actually a modeling platform. It has a lot of 11 modules so that you can actually select the 12 particular model that may be best for the problem 13 at hand. 14 The other advantage to it is you can create 15 ensemble forecasting. You can actually tell the 16 model to run each one of your wind fields, for 17 instance, so that would give us, in this case, five 18 different outputs. So you can then analyze that 19 statistically to come up with a most likely or 20 maximum likelihood estimate. I think that's very 21 important. 22 Any computer modeler can come out tell you, 23 this is the model. They're wrong. I think in any 24 model you can find a set of circumstances that it 25 won't work right for. Each one of -- for instance, 55 1 2 each one of these wind fields has advantages and 3 disadvantages. By blending them together and doing 4 what call ensemble forecasts, you have a much 5 better chance being right, but also you can figure 6 out statistically what your spread is. 7 So if you're making a projection of say five 8 feet of water, you can know, well, with 90% 9 certainty it's going to be within 4.8 feet to 5.2 10 feet. Again, using these ensembles gives you a 11 much better handle on the uncertainty. 12 Just real quickly, these are the different key 13 modules. Again, within each one of these modules 14 there are multiple options for a particular 15 simulation that you are running. 16 One thing I do want to mention that's another 17 key modeling terminology; TAOS is in tune. With a 18 lot of models, you have to collect historical data 19 for a particular site, and you run it, and you tune 20 calibration coefficients. 21 TAOS is pure physics model. It works anywhere 22 in the world blind. So that I do a model run, all 23 I need is the topography, bathymetry, land cover, 24 you plug that in, you plug in the meteorological 25 input in and it runs. 56 1 2 I've actually done blind runs, particularly 3 in the Indian Ocean where there's not huge amounts 4 of data for World Bank. Again, they're pretty 5 happy with the results. Again, there's no need to 6 tune it. Our corporate motto is if it doesn't work 7 everywhere, how do you know it really works 8 anywhere. 9 Just real quick, this is a hurricane wind 10 field. Those of you around here should be 11 familiar. Another kind of interesting point is 12 that you see these nice symmetrical wind fields, 13 but in a real storm, you never see those for 14 observations. 15 What's happening here depends on what's 16 happening upwind. You've got a ridge line, or even 17 tree cover here, maybe open marsh here, you'll have 18 higher winds at this point. So it's important 19 that the topography be incorporated, even in doing 20 the coastal model. 21 MR. MIKELL: What kind of topography? 22 MR. WATSON: Let me finish running through 23 the presentation. I've got some information on 24 topography. There are different pieces that are 25 scattered. 57 1 2 What we call -- what's generally called storm 3 surge actually is a combination of a lot of 4 different phenomena. We've got astronomical tide, 5 which around here can be significant -- what, seven 6 foot tides in this area; pressure setup that's the 7 interior of the storm or low pressure; the wind, 8 that's the water being blown onto shore, you can 9 think of currents being produced in the water, and 10 then the other -- other elements; wave, wave 11 setups, runoff. 12 So it's actually a lot of different processes. 13 These all interact in very complex, non-linear 14 ways. This is my politician's slide to those 15 that manage not to stay awake through the calculus, 16 give them a surprise. 17 This looks messy at first, but it's really 18 fairly simple when you break it down. It's the 19 Coriolis force, you've got what's called the 20 hydrostatic equilibrium force, which is a fancy way 21 of saying water pores. It tries to reach 22 equilibrium, and so on. 23 Again, this is just one little -- one piece of 24 one of the equations that goes into the model. In 25 fact, this is even simplified. The full physics 58 1 2 models that were used actually uses multiple 3 layers. These are what's called vertically 4 integrated forms. They've been around since the 5 50's. 6 It's important to understand that there's a 7 lot of non-linear interactions going on. You have 8 to be very careful, when you're designing and 9 structuring these models. 10 Waves, going to look through this a little 11 bit, they're very complex phenomena, actually one 12 of the tougher elements to model accurately, 13 how they break, how the energy gets transferred as 14 they move into shore. 15 Internally, TAOS has a number of modules to 16 deal with these, and actually a number of different 17 techniques that are used to deal with it. None of 18 the techniques are great. Some of them work better 19 in situations than others. 20 Damage models, here's where the rubber meets 21 the road, so to speak. These are the wind damage 22 curves. I'm going to flip ahead to this slide. 23 It's a single story water damage. Here's where -- 24 I want everyone to kind of remember this slide, 25 particularly this region right in here. 59 1 2 If you think about this, if you think about 3 your own house, especially if it's single story, 4 this will make a lot of sense. 5 As the water level rises the first foot or so, 6 you're not going to do that much damage. If you 7 think about it, most everything in your house is up 8 on shelves, it's scattered around. 9 Once you get two, three feet, now you're 10 starting to get in an area where you're causing 11 a lot of damage. If you get three feet of water 12 in a house, almost certainly you're going to have 13 stereo equipment, ovens, stoves, if you are like me 14 stove doesn't get used as much as the microwave, 15 you're going to get in trouble. 16 So you can see, a very small amount of water 17 change in here, if we go from say two feet, we're 18 looking at about 18% damage to three feet, we're 19 well over 30%, almost double the damage with just a 20 one foot water level change. 21 So again, remember this part of the curve, 22 because if you have got a little bit of water, 23 adding a little bit does a lot of damage. Once you 24 get up here, pretty much everything is already 25 messed up anyway, so adding another six inches of 60 1 2 water every six feet, it doesn't hurt all that 3 much. 4 Structurally, still water doesn't usually 5 cause a lot of damage. I'm sure the wallboard 6 will be messed up, carpets, but you haven't 7 comprised the structure. 8 Now, you start the water moving, three, 9 four feet of moving water, this curve starts to go 10 up very rapidly. Again, this is for still water 11 flooding. 12 For doing the runs for the Savannah area, I 13 used basically 12 different models. I had the TAOS 14 run do a 12 model ensemble. Most of the people 15 interested in the gory, technical details, we can 16 talk about it off-line. 17 I used three different wind models, two 18 different storm surge or water motion models. I 19 used two different wave models. The others I stuck 20 with some old standbys; the University of Texas 21 Center for Space Research Tide Model. I used the 22 trajectory based land use. Again, those are -- 23 gets into the gory details. If anyone wants to 24 look into that, we can. 25 The data processing system, as you might 61 1 2 imagine is fairly complex to do this type of 3 modeling, as I edge into the field of view again. 4 Probably, the two keys one called Earth Dome, 5 is a 32 processer cluster computer. It's roughly 6 -- I think I have a picture here. The other one 7 was the State of Florida, a computer we built for 8 them. The others are mainly just for access to 9 data processing and data ingesting. 10 A cluster computer, and this would be a whole 11 45 minute presentation or so, but in essence, the 12 way a cluster computer works, you take a number of 13 standard, off-the-shelf dual processer Pentium 14 class computers, you combine them using software 15 and hardware in such a way that it looks to the end 16 user like it's a single computer. 17 NASA originally developed the technique and 18 its starting to be used a lot. I think the 19 commercial world has been a little slow to pick it 20 up. 21 Certainly, in universities, this has become 22 a very popular technique. Again, this particular 23 system we have is actually faster than an IBM super 24 computer. It does take quite a bit of horsepower, 25 quite a bit of number cycle crunching to be able to 62 1 2 do this type of modeling. 3 Validation, you can spend all the time in the 4 world reading physics textbooks to put together a 5 model, but does it work? This is where you test 6 that out. 7 Here's an example from Florida. Our friends 8 from the Corps of Engineers go out and trudge 9 through the mud and get water level readings for -- 10 after the storms. I don't know how you can read 11 these. 12 There's a lot of comments based on people 13 that were actually there, and how long. Someone in 14 this case said the water was at its highest mark 15 for 30 minutes. Tide gauges are useful. They tend 16 to fail when you have a really bad storm. For 17 lesser storms they're useful. 18 What you do is you run that particular storm, 19 and you combine all your points. There's 119 of 20 them in this particular graphic. If you had 21 absolutely perfect forecast, it will all point to 22 the line right up on that line. 23 There's uncertainty in here. There's 24 measurement uncertainty. There's uncertainty in 25 exactly where the point is sometimes. There's 63 1 2 uncertainty in the meteorological input. We look 3 at hurricane Andrew, for instance, there is an 4 ongoing debate as to what the winds were in Andrew. 5 It was a well-observed storm. 6 So, as you can see, we did a pretty decent job 7 on this particular storm. Those of you that are 8 familiar with statistics, our R square number was 9 .97, which I'll take that number any day of the 10 week. 11 Again, this one is using only tide gauge 12 readings, which are a bit more -- a little less 13 uncertainty for 18 storms in the United States. 14 Here we have an R squared of about .96, which 15 again, I'll take that any day. 16 For individual storms, I think the lowest 17 was Gracie, which was a storm that hit near here 18 had the worst performance on -- had an R square of 19 .85, I think. Some of the others are frightening. 20 In essence, it basically boils down to TAOS 21 seems to be displaying about 95% of the observed 22 variation, if you have good meteorological input 23 then you've got good observations. 24 Well, this set of slides, there's about three 25 of them I don't think are in your packet. So you 64 1 2 have to wake up and pay attention now. 3 I think when you look at it and say, well, the 4 model is pretty good at verifying against 5 historical storms, what about the predictive 6 ability? One of the ways we can test, I did a 7 couple of runs using bathymetry for two different 8 storms, the 1928 storm in Miami and Hurricane 9 Andrew. 10 I wasn't able to do this exercise here. These 11 are two well-observed storms hitting populated 12 areas. Savannah, the last really bad storm we had 13 in this area was 1893 or so, and there weren't 14 a lot of really good, solid readings to compare. 15 I've run that storm and TAOS does pretty good 16 with it against the anecdotal kind of the evidence 17 we have. Here, we have two well-observed storms. 18 The Miami area, there's been a lot of engineering 19 changes. They have actually built islands there, 20 they've dredged channels. So what we should expect 21 to see here, again, this is a point I want to make, 22 you have to not only demonstrate you can simulate 23 the existing environment, but can you predict what 24 will happen if you change that environment? 25 That's what this particular exercise did. 65 1 2 What you can see here, the blue dots are using the 3 1928 bathymetry. The purple dots are using the 4 1996 bathymetry. What you can see is that the 5 model did measurably worse with the wrong 6 bathymetry. 7 Well, that's a good sign. That's saying the 8 bathymetry is making the model -- if you have the 9 right bathymetry, you're getting a more accurate 10 prediction. 11 What this is showing, in essence, we did run 12 similar to this for the New York -- for the '38 13 storm. I've also done tests on Hugo in the 14 Charleston Harbor. If you don't get the harbor 15 channel right, you don't get the storm surges 16 right. 17 Savannah runs -- I did some historical runs -- 18 I left one out. The 1893 storm on the list here, I 19 did a number of hypothetical runs. Then I did 20 multi-runs looking at what impact the navigation 21 channel might have on storm damage. 22 When I say none or zero, what I really mean is 23 effectively about 10 feet. That seemed to be 24 where, when I blended the channel into the DEM and 25 this appeared, the channel depth seemed to 66 1 2 stabilize about there. I'm sure the ports 3 authority probably has better data on that. 4 Again, I used the existing shoal pattern, 5 which is an important caveat here when looking at 6 when you get to these lesser levels of channel 7 depth, because if the channel weren't that deep, 8 the shoal pattern would be significantly different. 9 I seem to recall that when Oglethorpe came in 10 it was eight feet, was that the river depth? 11 Anyway, for the 90 knot test storm, basically did 12 the runs in two foot steps. All totaled, it was 13 about 4,000, almost 5,000 total model runs, total 14 simulations to come up with the data I'm about to 15 show you. 16 Individual runs are kind of interesting. This 17 shows that 90 knot 1886 storm, and you can see 18 the areas of flooding. Runs were all done at 30 19 meters. This particular print-out was done at 10 20 times that. Prints faster. 21 You can't see the detail at this level anyway, 22 but you can see that storm actually hit a little 23 bit south of the city, which raises an important 24 point I'll get to in a minute on the impact on the 25 channel. 67 1 2 It gives you an idea of what the surge looks 3 like for that. What you can then do, once you've 4 got all these runs is have the computer do 5 overlays. You look to see once you do the run, 6 where did -- where is the water different? 7 So, if you have no channel, which is 8 effectively about a 10 foot channel, versus a 30 9 foot deep channel, where are the differences? It 10 was surprising to me how far away. 11 That doesn't just apply to Savannah. Changes 12 in New York City, changes in Miami, you get 40, 50 13 kilometers away, you would get slight, by slight I 14 mean six inch, one foot water level differences. 15 There are hydrological reasons for it, from 16 the waves particularly, wave refraction and the way 17 the water stacks up. I was surprised how far away 18 some of the impacts were. 19 So if you blend all these 5,000 or so runs 20 together, and let the computer munch on the 21 statistics for a while, what you find out, as the 22 channel goes from none, again effectively about 10 23 feet, down to 30, 35 feet, the overall impact 24 in Chatham County decreases. 25 First response is why is that? Well, as you 68 1 2 deepen that channel it provides -- there's less 3 friction for the water to sneak out through the 4 channel, so to speak. So in essence, as fast as 5 the wind can pile the water up, it's draining back 6 out. 7 It actually has a fairly significant 8 effect. There is a little bit of increase in 9 Northwest Chatham, by that I mean the Port 10 Wentworth, Garden City area, but that's in 11 relatively -- it balances out with the rest of 12 the county. It doesn't see as much water. 13 Once you start to get deeper than around 30, 14 35 feet, the impact starts to increase, seems to be 15 the amount of water that's available within the 16 river system. 17 The wave focusing changes and you start to see 18 different effects around Tybee, Wassaw, Hilton 19 Head. Once you get greater than 38 feet, you start 20 to get one foot kind of water level increases in 21 various areas of the county. 22 Again, remember our curve. When you have got 23 three, four foot of water, adding another foot, you 24 start to see significant additional damage. 25 Adding a foot, you can easily in some areas 69 1 2 double the damage levels. The extended channel, I 3 didn't look in too much detail at the wave data, 4 but it does seem to have some focusing impact on 5 the storm waves away from the harbor proper or the 6 channel proper. 7 This is the zero -- I want to explain real 8 quick. That zero number, I basically turned off 9 the river and stopped it up, so that we could see 10 if the river wasn't there what our impacts would 11 be, and started with our 10 foot and then on down 12 with these runs. 13 So, you can see that the impact -- this is 14 31410, I believe Wilmington Island. Does that 15 include Skidaway? No, just Wilmington. Anyway, 16 looking at what happens to your damage in that zip 17 code as the channel -- as I said, as you deepen, at 18 first you're decreasing your damage levels in this 19 particular area. Then as you go deeper, it does 20 increase the damage slightly. 21 Well, blend all this together, what does it 22 mean? You have to view it in conjunction with 23 other losses -- old military term of making the 24 rubble bounce. If everything is already blown over 25 and destroyed, what's another six inches of water. 70 1 2 So what we have to do is blend the water 3 damage with our damages from all of our other 4 sources. 5 What we find is that it's kind of interesting, 6 and I've found this in other areas as well, there's 7 actually a greater impact on a near miss storms 8 than a direct hit. 9 A direct hit, everything is bulldozed anyway 10 so what does another few inches of water matter. 11 But with your near miss, you've only got two, three 12 feet of water. 13 Again, remember our damage curve. So that 14 extra six inches or a foot of water, makes a big 15 difference in the damages numbers. 16 You have to incorporate a lot of model 17 uncertainties and probabilities of storms to get a 18 really good picture. 19 Kind of to summarize it, for a $900,000,000 20 event, about a Category 3 hurricane, making a near 21 miss or into a direct hit on Savannah, the channel 22 adds about 60,000,000. If we go to about 48 feet, 23 that probably adds another 4,000,000 worth of 24 damage in the county. 25 You annualize it, look at all the different 71 1 2 spectrum of different storms that we see, the cost 3 for the county, it's about -- let's try that again 4 -- about 750,000, three quarters of a million, plus 5 or minus 200,000. 6 A lot of uncertainty is the value and location 7 of structures. I used zip code level data for the 8 assessment and then allocated it on the zip code 9 based on land use, land cover. 10 That's the technique we tested in Florida. It 11 works pretty well. You get about a 10% plus or 12 minus error using that technique. 13 Clearly -- in fact, I have a slide here 14 somewhere, I think that maybe we could improve that 15 upon study. That's probably a pretty decent number 16 as to what the impact of the deepening would be. 17 Just to sum up, I do think there's significant 18 evidence that's there's an impact of the channel 19 itself on local storm damage. Remember, small 20 increases in water levels can have a big increase 21 in the lost cost and your damage. 22 One of the things too, TAOS includes an 23 integrated tide model. It's the University of 24 Texas Center for Space Research model. 25 It provides forcings for the tides. It's not 72 1 2 just adding water level to the tides. It's 3 actually computing tidal currents. 4 What you find, because one of the topics I've 5 seen in the media that's been discussed is the 6 effect on tide ranges. 7 I didn't see any impact on tides, didn't 8 really, from experience in other sites, I didn't 9 really expect to see an increase in tide 10 increments. It's certainly less than, almost less 11 than five centimeters, and very likely less than 12 seven. 13 I'd be very surprised to see anything greater 14 than that. This one, again, I wasn't too surprised 15 given the results in other areas. You've got 16 impacts outside of the harbor proper. 17 I did want to mention this, I know one of 18 the questions, as I started putting this together 19 that came up, well, what about mitigation. 20 Mitigating these kinds of things is pretty tough. 21 That's one of the things we found in Florida, 22 that when you are figuring changes, in a lot of 23 cases, any changes you make to try to mitigate also 24 have consequences, some foreseen some unforeseen. 25 I would suspect it would be difficult, but 73 1 2 without doing an analysis, certainly can't write 3 that off for sure. 4 I would not be surprised at anything you did 5 try to mitigate the effects would end up either 6 causing more problems, or couldn't be able to 7 anticipate. 8 Potential refinements for serious study, if 9 you really wanted to nail this down, I would 10 certainly want to include dynamic offshore shoal 11 increments. 12 I think that's a critical element, since 13 it's a non-static system. You push some place and 14 sand is going to change, it's going to move around. 15 I also want to do a hindcast mode with the 16 dynamic bottom conditions to test the 17 predictability, but also I think we could learn how 18 some of the previous projects have impacted the 19 area, see if we can detect those. 20 We certainly could refine the infrastructure 21 data. SAGIS has -- Savannah area GIS has a data 22 set. I know they're not real popular, but the tax 23 assessor's data base can be useful. 24 Another point, TAOS computes salinity. I 25 didn't look at it for this. I probably should 74 1 2 have, but the inundations, flooding for the 3 wildlife refuge and other potential areas has a 4 greater salt water deposition. So I think that's 5 something that should probably be looked at. 6 Just a few things to toss out for your 7 consideration, as you're thinking about modeling 8 for looking at the deepening. 9 You've really got to go to high resolution. 10 That's the one thing we've learned in virtually 11 every case. If you have got the model physics 12 right, going to higher resolution helps you get 13 better data, particularly when you are looking at 14 wave refraction. You've got to be able to 15 reproduce the bottom topography to get accurate 16 results. 17 I'd be real leery about cutting the model 18 runnings too close either. Effectively, we were 19 modeling the entire East Coast when we were 20 doing these runs. 21 I'd make sure you keep the model 22 boundaries away from the harbor area, yet you've 23 got to do dynamic coupled modeling too. 24 If you split out the tide results, we found 25 that 2 or 3% error by using static tide levels, as 75 1 2 opposed to using dynamic -- actually modeling 3 tides. And dynamic boundary conditions, you have 4 to accurately model the wetting and drawing. 5 I think you have to verify you have 6 predictability. Reproducing the past doesn't 7 necessarily mean your calibration coefficients are 8 adequate for the future. 9 Finally, I have two suggestions that pop out. 10 The first, from looking at and talking to people 11 knowledgeable about it, I think it would be real 12 interesting and it wouldn't take very long to do 13 a lab correlation study. 14 In other words, look at the turtle population 15 versus changes to the built environment, such as 16 the renourishment placements in the harbor 17 deepening. 18 I think it would be fast and inexpensive. I 19 think you would learn quite a bit about sand 20 migration because it seems, from looking at the 21 satellite data and some other information, as you 22 do something at Tybee, you have impacts on Wassaw. 23 I think, from what I understand in talking to 24 Bobby Mullis, with Savannah Ogeechee, there's 25 data there that might be able to be used as an 76 1 2 indicator as to what the impacts are, plus, they 3 are a sensitive species. 4 Finally, I do suggest that the group factor 5 in the storm damage costs for economic 6 calculations. They're not large, but if it's a 7 great project, the cost won't matter. If it's a 8 marginal project, it becomes more important. 9 Obviously, if it is a bad project, it's another -- 10 I do have that suggestion. 11 I guess I didn't -- I thought I had a little 12 more topography. To very quickly answer your 13 question, topography comes from a number of 14 sources. 15 There's available data bases from the National 16 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. I 17 refine that usually with satellite data, 18 particularly synthetic aperture radar that the 19 shuttle missions acquire. 20 I'm also not above going out and getting the 21 GPS, getting the points and areas that -- where 22 there are problems. 23 MR. DYSART: Let me suggest we take a break 24 now. I'm sure there are lots and lots of 25 questions. 77 1 2 The court reporter has requested we not 3 beyond an hour and a half before we have a little 4 break. So at 10:40 I'm declaring a five minute 5 break. 6 (Short Break) 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. It's 10:55. I call the 8 meeting back to order. Chuck will now entertain 9 questions from the group. Who has the first 10 question for Chuck? 11 Does anyone have any questions for Chuck? 12 Keith Parsons has a question. Go ahead and speak 13 over the crowd. 14 MR. PARSONS: Okay. I was wondering on your 15 model, in your model, it's not unusual with the 16 severe types of storm events to have atmospheric 17 inputs, rain of a foot or better. 18 MR. WATSON: Right. 19 MR. PARSONS: Are these considered in your 20 model? 21 MR. WATSON: Yes. Rainfall, in tropical 22 cyclone modeling, rainfall is the one area that 23 will cause brave men and women to hide under the 24 table. 25 It's a very difficult area because you've 78 1 2 got stratoform rain, you've got convective rain. 3 It's a real mess. I have -- there are basically 4 three methods of handling the rainfall. 5 The one I used in this case, there is some 6 work done by Antheis (phonetic) at MIT. I can't 7 remember the other gentleman's name -- I can look 8 it up for you -- they have come up with typical 9 precipitation profiles within the storms. And so 10 I've used the climatological averages for Cat 3 11 hurricanes as the input for this. 12 MR. PARSONS: Do you incorporate some kind of 13 runoff function? 14 MR. WATSON: That's correct. That was 15 actually on one of the slides. There is rainfall 16 and runoff modeling. There is, again, within TAOS 17 there's three modules that handle that. 18 The one that was active for these simulations 19 is based on work done at the University of Oklahoma 20 for the Corps of Engineers. It includes 21 infiltration, and runoff, and evapo-transferation 22 (phonetic). 23 MR. PARSONS: I have second question I was 24 a little bit unclear on. The summary does not 25 appear to be an impact on local tidal ranges 79 1 2 greater than five to seven centimeters. 3 Is this basically saying these storm events 4 are -- what's the word I'm searching for -- don't 5 actually affect the tides themselves? 6 MR. WATSON: No. What I was saying, there 7 were a lot of runs that were done with storms far 8 away from the Savannah area. So it was basically 9 no impact. 10 I ran all 970 something storms since 1886. So 11 for the large percentage of those, there were no 12 impacts in Savannah. So what you have is just the 13 quiescent modeling of running the tides, since that 14 was the only forcing function, tides and local 15 winds. 16 So by looking at those and comparing how the 17 water levels change, I put basically a gauge at Ft. 18 Pulaski to look to see how the tides were doing, 19 and there were minimal changes to that, in the 20 centimeter range to the astronomical tides, as a 21 result of the deepening. 22 That's independent of any storm effects. What 23 it was doing to tides as a storm comes in, 24 obviously, that's a real complex question. Water 25 levels and currents are going crazy anyway. 80 1 2 MR. DYSART: Priscilla. 3 MS. WENDT: You note in your summary sheet 4 that impacts outside the harbor proper were 5 detected. You the mention Hilton Head 6 specifically. What kind of impacts did you detect 7 in Hilton Head? 8 MR. WATSON: Looking at wave levels, what was 9 interesting, that tidal creek that cuts through the 10 center of Hilton Head -- Broad Creek. It was 11 interesting in some configurations you get higher 12 water levels getting pushed up into in there. 13 It has a lot to do with the tides. There's a 14 tidal current that loops around, courses around 15 Hilton Head. I didn't study it, other than -- I 16 didn't look at it in detail other than to note 17 there were water level changes in a lot of the tide 18 creeks up into the South Carolina. 19 There was also wave refraction impacts to 20 Hilton Head. The next one down, Daufuskie -- 21 right Daufuskie, but again, the data is on tape for 22 those runs. 23 I just was the looking at the big picture of 24 it rather than getting into super specifics of it. 25 There were the higher water levels and wave 81 1 2 changes. 3 MR. DYSART: Chris. 4 MR. DESA: Just a quick question, did your 5 model also incorporate any type of siltation, as a 6 result of the storm surge? 7 MR. WATSON: Sediment transfer and -- 8 MR. DESA: Yes. 9 MR. WATSON: I didn't run it. I didn't look 10 at those changes. I mainly -- what I did was took, 11 in essence, snapshots of the bathymetry and ran it 12 in that mode. 13 In my suggested enhancements running the model 14 or anyone doing the modeling, one of the things I 15 would want to do is run it with sediment transfer 16 enabled, and again, run it over a time series to 17 see how the offshore sediments were changing, how 18 the erosion deposition rates would change. Again, 19 that was a little outside the scope of what I was 20 looking at. 21 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 22 MR. BREWTON: Chuck, I want to thank you for 23 that presentation. Great information there, and 24 nice computer graphics. We always appreciate 25 those. 82 1 2 A couple of questions, the resolution of what 3 you can predict with your model runs -- can be 4 brought to as little as 30 meters; is that -- 5 MR. WATSON: We've done runs all the way down 6 to one meter. Below 30 data management -- at 7 30, data management is rough. 8 When you get below 30, it gets to be a real 9 nightmare. The practical one, at least for our 10 implementation and model physics, seems to be about 11 10 meters. 12 Less than that, you get into -- you start to 13 -- there's just no way you can have an accurate 14 database. As an example, 30 meters, you're 15 basically at structure level. At 10 meters or 16 5 meters, where somebody would park their truck 17 on a particular day influences the outcome of your 18 model. 19 You've got to start modeling things like when 20 a wave hits that truck, where is it going to go, 21 which is just -- it's doable, but it's not 22 practical. 23 MR. BREWTON: Just out of curiosity, how long 24 does it take to run one of these runs at 30 meters? 25 MR. WATSON: 7 minutes per 24 hours. 83 1 2 MR. BREWTON: 24 hours to run 7 minutes 3 MR. WATSON: 7 minutes to run a 24 hour 4 simulation of a hurricane. 5 MR. BREWTON: At 30 -- 30 meter resolution -- 6 wow. 7 MR. WATSON: You have to remember, there's 32 8 dual processer systems each taking a little chunk 9 of that and running it, so -- 10 MR. BREWTON: You mentioned a couple times, 11 in your presentation, some effects on Northwestern 12 Chatham County. There's some low lying areas in 13 Northwestern Chatham County, Port Wentworth area 14 that extends into Effingham County. Could Southern 15 Effingham County be affected as well? 16 MR. WATSON: Right. I meant to mention that 17 somewhere. If I didn't, I left that out. Right. 18 It does change surge levels, water levels, well up 19 into Effingham. 20 MR. BREWTON: In relation to these, Wilmington 21 Island water levels, how do the water levels up 22 there relate? 23 MR. WATSON: It's in that same one to -- I 24 don't think I saw any changes over three feet. 25 Those were pretty isolated. Mainly, like in the 84 1 2 one foot range, which again, depending on where you 3 are in the damage curve, that's a problem. 4 MR. BREWTON: It can take you from no damage 5 to, I guess -- 6 MR. WATSON: It can take you from about 1% to 7 about 20%. 8 MR. BREWTON: That's one to three feet in 9 addition, or is that the -- 10 MR. WATSON: That was above the water level 11 that was there without the channel. 12 MR. BREWTON: Okay. Just to relate this to 13 the modeling efforts that are being done, Bo, on 14 the Savannah Harbor, what kind of resolution is the 15 model that y'all are using for predicting? 16 MR. ELLIS: It's not the same type of land 17 cover. We've got a different type of grid system 18 for our harbor hydrodynamics model, not the same 19 type of coverage that he's talking about. 20 MR. BREWTON: So what type do you have in that 21 model? 22 MR. ELLIS: It's a gridded model curved or 23 linear grid, 10 layers deep, you know, chopped up 24 into sections. 25 MR. BREWTON: What I'm trying to get at, y'all 85 1 2 were talking at the last SEG about the possibility 3 of coarsening that grid. 4 MR. ELLIS: Right. 5 MR. BREWTON: I was wondering, what is the 6 grid the way that you are running the model now, or 7 plan to run it initially, and what would be the 8 grid resolution -- 9 MR. ELLIS: There's no standard grid size. 10 You'll have to see. Some areas are chopped finer 11 than others, depending on what you want to see. 12 MR. WATSON: Are you in a finite element? 13 MR. ELLIS: Yes. 14 MR. WATSON: What's your -- what's your 15 minimum/maximum element sizes? 16 MR. ELLIS: I'm not sure. 17 MR. WATSON: So you're actually -- you're not 18 doing horizontal slices through it; it's all 19 vertical and all along the channel, so you're not 20 actually modeling on the side of the channel? 21 MR. ELLIS: It's 3-D. 22 MR. WATSON: 2-D. 23 MR. ELLIS: 3-D. It is chopped up 24 horizontally and vertically. 25 MR. WATSON: 2-D plus time, so you're not 86 1 2 actually -- 3 MR. ELLIS: 3-D. 4 MR. WATSON: You're not modeling -- what's 5 your third dimension? 6 MR. ELLIS: 3-D -- X, Y, Z. 7 MR. WATSON: So how far -- how far on either 8 of side of the channel are you modeling? 9 MR. ELLIS: We're only modeling in the 10 channel. 11 MR. WATSON: In that case, at best it could be 12 2-D. I need a chalkboard. Think of it this way, 13 one dimensional -- a line, a straight line is 14 two dimensional. So but you're modeling a line and 15 vertical space, but not horizontal space. So 16 that's only two dimensional. 17 MR. ELLIS: If you think of a volume that is 18 chopped up, it's sliced vertically and horizontally 19 into a lot of cells, gridded boxes, they're all 20 stacked up to represent the channel configuration. 21 MR. WATSON: But you're not modeling 22 horizontal. 23 MR. ELLIS: Yes, we are. 24 MR. WATSON: How far on either side of the 25 channel are you modeling? 87 1 2 MR. ELLIS: We're not. 3 MR. WATSON: Then it's a 2-D model. I'm 4 sorry. Physically, what you are saying doesn't 5 make any sense. 6 MR. DYSART: Let me suggest, are there other 7 questions right now first of Chuck? 8 MR. BREWTON: Well, I've got a question I need 9 to get clear on this, because I thought the model 10 that was being done for GPA and the SEG would 11 enable the prediction of the water quality, and so 12 forth, throughout the marshes in the refuge and 13 over on the private landowners, you know, what 14 would be the impact of the possible salinity 15 changes, and DO changes, and other things. 16 But we're really not -- this model really is 17 not going out into the marshes and so forth, it's 18 just predicting in the channel? 19 MR. ELLIS: Every -- within the tidal range, 20 all of the flooded shoreline is modeled. 21 MR. BREWTON: So that goes beyond the channel? 22 MR. SCHALLER: Yeah. 23 MR. ELLIS: Are you talking about the 24 navigational channel -- yes, it models outside, it 25 models the entire harbor and the offshore 88 1 2 condition. 3 MR. BREWTON: I'm talking about when the 4 tide comes in, the water spreads all over the 5 refuge, all the way to the shore, in South 6 Carolina, and up Ebenezer Creek and other places. 7 MR. ELLIS: Right. 8 MR. BREWTON: Does this model the extent of 9 the distribution of that water quality through 10 those marshes, through the entire extent of the 11 refuge, and the concerned private landowners, so 12 forth we have over on the South Carolina side, up 13 to the actual shoreline there, not just the river 14 channel, but throughout the marsh, extent of the 15 marshes. 16 MR. ELLIS: We model those flows. The 17 shoreline though is stable. 18 MR. BREWTON: What is the shoreline? Is the 19 shoreline you're referring to the river channel 20 shoreline, or the shoreline, and the extent of the 21 flooded marshes? 22 MR. ELLIS: The shoreline changes all the 23 time. 24 MR. WATSON: What did he just say? Did he use 25 a fixed shoreline? 89 1 2 MR. DYSART: Stuart Stevens' card is up. 3 MR. STEVENS: I'd like to hear the answer to 4 that. 5 MR. DYSART: Bo, would you like to draw a 6 picture or something so people can know what's 7 being discussed? 8 MR. ELLIS: Sure. 9 MR. STEVENS: I'll go ahead and ask my 10 question while we're waiting. 11 MR. DYSART: Is it a question of Bo or Chuck? 12 MR. STEVENS: I didn't know if Bo had 13 something to draw on or we need to wait for him to 14 find something to draw on. 15 Can I ask my question, Ben? Can I ask my 16 question while we're waiting? 17 MR. DYSART: Sure, Stuart. 18 MR. STEVENS: Chuck, I do appreciate the 19 presentation -- very enlightening. I'm curious. 20 It seems like the most important part of your 21 research that deals with this issue in the harbor 22 has to do with the incremental depths. 23 Can you explain again why, from your analysis, 24 deepening the harbor actually creates this 25 additional flooding problem? 90 1 2 MR. WATSON: At first, it doesn't. At first 3 by deepening, you're actually creating an outlet 4 for surge as it's coming in to get out. 5 Once you reach a certain point, you've got 6 two conflicting variables. Yes, you have a deeper 7 channel for the water to get out, but you've also 8 got more water initially in the system. 9 So after a certain point, the benefit you get 10 from flows out is overwhelmed by the fact you have 11 more water in the system. You can think of it as a 12 gross oversimplification, but it's no longer 13 counter-balanced by the hydrostatic equilibrium 14 force. So you have more water available to be 15 pushed on shore, to simplify it. 16 MR. STEVENS: That impact -- Wilmington Island 17 is not on the Savannah River -- 18 MR. WATSON: Right. 19 MR. STEVENS: But you still see that impact? 20 MR. WATSON: I used that zip code as an 21 example, Talahi, all of the islands in closer, 22 Pulaski those are all higher inundation, again 23 there's more water in the system. 24 MR. STEVENS: My last question, did I 25 understand you to say the insurance industry uses 91 1 2 your information to set rates for insurance? 3 MR. WATSON: I don't work directly for the 4 insurance industry, as a professional -- no offense 5 to anyone in insurance. I work for regulators. 6 So when a -- like, for instance State Farm 7 comes to Georgia or Florida, they say we've done 8 this computer model. Here's what we think is going 9 to happen, I evaluate the computer model and check 10 it against my own model. 11 All the techniques that I use are public 12 domain. It's published research. A lot of the 13 insurance models are proprietary. In effect what 14 I do is I provide an independent standard and try 15 to understand how they got the numbers they got. 16 MR. STEVENS: Are you aware, or is it true 17 that insurance companies are doing similar things, 18 and saying if you deepen this harbor, insurance 19 rates are going up? 20 MR. WATSON: Flood damage, they wouldn't care 21 about because there's no private flood insurance 22 -- for industrial -- but for residential there's 23 the private insurance. 24 The insurance models I've seen don't run at 25 this resolution, although the resolution isn't 92 1 2 necessarily -- I would guess that when they updated 3 their bathymetry and they're certain of their flood 4 model, it would be picked up. Presumably rates 5 would be changed to affect it. It wouldn't affect 6 residential rates. 7 It could affect industrial and commercial, 8 since there's no residential. The point I'm trying 9 to make, there's no residential, private 10 residential flood insurance. It's all 11 underwritten by FEMA. FEMA just eats whatever it 12 is. I guess we all pay. 13 MR. DYSART: It's my understanding we're 14 waiting on a flip chart. So we can draw a channel 15 so various people identify what they mean by the 16 word channel. 17 Are there other questions of Chuck. Rick. 18 MR. WESLEY: I'll wait on Bo. Looks like he's 19 ready. 20 MR. DYSART: He doesn't have anything to write 21 on. Do you need to sketch something -- proceed if 22 you wish. 23 MR. ELLIS: It's -- there are boxes. Each one 24 is -- 25 MR. DYSART: Can you state what your 93 1 2 understanding is of the question that is before the 3 body that y'all are talking about? 4 MR. ELLIS: I think people are trying to 5 visualize a 3-D model. It communicates -- 6 MR. BREWTON: Here we go. 7 MR. DYSART: Clarification taking place -- 8 let's have that on the record, so the members of 9 the stakeholders Evaluation Group can benefit from 10 that, otherwise we have a side conversation. 11 MR. ELLIS: People just want to be able to 12 visualize how that model -- our model is different 13 than the model you've been hearing about. 14 And if you look at the section, which is 15 slicing across the river, and this is the water 16 level which goes up and down, we've got 10 layers 17 in the channel representing the water levels, and 18 they expand and contract, as the water level goes 19 up and down with the tides. 20 It's also chopped across the channel 21 horizontally into a grid. And this is just looking 22 on the section. If you look at the plan -- 23 MR. SCHALLER: Bo, do forgive my interruption. 24 Don't you mean across the river, not across the 25 channel? 94 1 2 MR. ELLIS: Yes. River or channel, this is 3 the entire river -- 4 MR. SCHALLER: I think the problem we're 5 experiencing here, some people think the channel is 6 something different than the river. What you are 7 modeling is from shore to shore. 8 MR. ELLIS: In the entire harbor, in the back 9 river where there no navigation channel, the middle 10 river. 11 MR. SCHALLER: Right. 12 MR. ELLIS: This is a typical cross-section 13 across some body of water. 14 MR. BREWTON: If you're speaking of the river 15 channel as opposed to the navigational channel? 16 MR. WESLEY: You're talking about bank to 17 bank? 18 MR. REES: Bank to bank, the answer to that 19 is yes. Let's move on. 20 MR. ELLIS: Bank to bank, okay. This is a 21 part of the river. 22 MR. DYSART: Is this clarified, is this still 23 a question on the part of the members sitting 24 around the table, or is it already clarified now? 25 MR. WATSON: I would like to ask a question 95 1 2 when he finishes his drawing. 3 MR. DYSART: Does the membership of SEG need 4 the drawing finished? 5 MR. BREWTON: Yeah. 6 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton -- yes. Okay. 7 MR. ELLIS: All right. It is sliced, this is 8 horizontally and we call this our grid. When you 9 look at the plan view, when you are looking down at 10 the channel, this is bank to bank. These are the 11 outer shorelines, then you see this grid. 12 If you pull out a grid, it's a three 13 dimensional grid that is communicating in three 14 dimensions. 15 MR. BREWTON: What are the size ranges of 16 the grids in the model? 17 MR. ELLIS: It varies is what I'm saying. 18 MR. BREWTON: I know. From what to what? 19 MR. ELLIS: The square -- I'll have to find 20 that. 21 MR. WATSON: So you're saying this is a fixed 22 boundary? 23 MR. ELLIS: Yes. The shoreline is a fixed 24 boundary. 25 MR. WATSON: Are you incorporating wetting and 96 1 2 drawing; in other words, as the tide changes this 3 boundary moves back and forth, in some cases pretty 4 considerable distance through the marshes; so my 5 question would be are you simulating the moving 6 boundary condition of the shoreline? 7 MR. ELLIS: We are not simulating the moving 8 boundary condition. We are simulating the flow 9 through the marsh. Whenever you have areas that 10 flood and dry, which is difficult for these 11 computer models to simulate -- 12 MR. WATSON: I would disagree but -- 13 MR. ELLIS: -- then we have a marsh routine 14 that handles the flow for that water. 15 MR. WATSON: Is that marsh routine separate 16 from your grid routine; in other words, you're 17 knocking out a separate marsh routine to simulate 18 grid flow, is that what you're saying? 19 MR. ELLIS: I guess so. 20 MR. BREWTON: Let me ask you a question. If 21 you might let me use your pen, it might be easier 22 to ask my question. 23 When I look this section and plan, I see that 24 actually if we did a section of the whole estuary 25 there, I mean if we come from the Savannah side, 97 1 2 you come down, and you come up and there's marsh, 3 then there's the back channel, and then there's 4 marsh, and I guess maybe there's some lesser 5 channels till you get back to land on the South 6 Carolina side, that's more like what we're really 7 looking at. 8 When you look at the overview of the river, I 9 don't know, you have the islands, and the other 10 channels, some of the pilots would know more how 11 they go, there's little creeks and other things 12 through here. You get to the land on this side. 13 So I guess what I'm trying to get straight in 14 my mind, is the model that we're dealing with just 15 doing this, maybe this, and this, or does it take 16 on the -- 17 MR. ELLIS: Entire harbor. 18 MR. BREWTON: So what kind of grids do we have 19 across all this? 20 MR. ELLIS: It varies. All the way through 21 the marsh, all these different areas, you've seen 22 pictures of the grids. 23 MR. BREWTON: Yeah. 24 MR. ELLIS: I can bring -- I don't have them 25 today, but I can bring you -- 98 1 2 MR. BREWTON: But it does go out beyond the 3 river boundary, into the marshes -- 4 MR. WATSON: What happens if you get a water 5 level at your boundary; how do you treat the edges 6 of your grid, are the walls permeable or -- 7 MR. ELLIS: They're walls. 8 MR. DYSART: Are there questions that other 9 SEG members have of Chuck Watson -- Teri Leffek 10 then Rick. 11 MS. LEFFEK: On one of your slides you looked 12 at the impact of the channel and damage, and you 13 noted the net impact on the Chatham Navigation 14 Channel adds about 60,000,000 in damage to 15 900,000,000 in damage. What did you define as the 16 navigation channel, is that the current depth of 42 17 feet? 18 MR. WATSON: That's the current depth and 19 there's an increment. I'm sorry. It's left off 20 of your slide, but there's an incremental impact of 21 about 4,000,000. 22 MS. LEFFEK: For an additional effect to the 23 60,000,000 that's already occurred, if it's a 24 Category 3. The only thing that's applicable 25 to the economics for deepening would be if we went 99 1 2 to 48 feet, we would have to add that 4,000,000? 3 Okay. I wanted to make that distinction. 4 MR. WESLEY: In talking about the deepening in 5 your study, you were assuming that the riverbed 6 right now is 42 feet in every location, is that 7 correct? 8 MR. WATSON: No, that is not correct. I got 9 some of the profile data from the satellite 10 imagery. 11 We have to, I basically took an average 12 channel depth, and then took the bumpiness and 13 moved it up and down. 14 MR. WESLEY: You took an average depth? 15 MR. WATSON: When you say 42, that's what the 16 project is designed at. You've got various depths 17 along the channel. 18 MR. WESLEY: Right. 19 MR. WATSON: So when I varied it, I assumed 20 the proportionality would be the same. So if you 21 go to 30 feet, it keeps the same bumps. 22 MR. WESLEY: Right now, what did you use 23 as an average depth, instead of 42 feet, what did 24 you use, because the average depth would not be 42 25 feet. That's the minimum depth. 100 1 2 MR. WATSON: Just offhand, I don't know what 3 the number is. 4 MR. WESLEY: You don't know what depth you 5 used in a survey? 6 MR. WATSON: Which part of the river are you 7 talking about? 8 MR. WESLEY: You said you took everything and 9 you averaged it out. 10 MR. WATSON: Your minimum depth is 42. Below 11 mean low or lower water I think is the data that's 12 used. 13 MR. WESLEY: Mean low. 14 MR. WATSON: Is it mean low or mean lower? 15 MR. WESLEY: Mean low. 16 MR. WATSON: There is a difference between the 17 two datas. 18 MR. WESLEY: Right. 19 MR. WATSON: So what I did, I've got what the 20 river looked like actually from 1996 was the 21 satellite image I used. So that was the 22 configuration. I can't tell you exactly what depth 23 it is along each one. There's a computer routine 24 that processed the algorithm and bathymetry. 25 MR. WESLEY: What you're saying is you took 101 1 2 all the -- 3 MR. WATSON: It's not a flat bottom. 4 MR. WESLEY: That was my point. You had to 5 use one particular figure. You had to use a 6 certain -- you said you averaged it out, you took 7 the lows and highs? 8 MR. WATSON: No, no, no. 9 MR. WESLEY: Okay. 10 MR. WATSON: You've got the depth as it was in 11 '96, which varied from place to place. When I went 12 to use say a 30 foot configuration, basically 13 that's subtracting 12 feet from whatever the 14 bathymetry was from the channel at that point. So 15 some of it was deeper, some of it was less than 16 that. Hopefully not much, but realize otherwise 17 folks would be running aground. 18 Do you see what I mean? In other words, when 19 I say -- the initial baseline is the channel as it 20 existed in 1996. 21 MR. WESLEY: So you can forget the 30 feet 22 because there's no point in there that's 30 feet. 23 MR. WATSON: At that point, I did not look. I 24 assumed that it was 42 or deeper, since that's the 25 project depth. 102 1 2 I didn't go and check every individual grid 3 cell. When I created a 30 foot database, what I 4 did was subtracted 12 feet from that 42 foot depth, 5 so for the designated channel basically everything 6 moved up 12 feet. 7 MR. WESLEY: It's confusing. There are not 8 a lot of places in the river that are 42 feet. 9 Most of them are deeper than 42 feet already, is 10 that correct? 11 MR. WATSON: I think that's correct. Let's 12 say that here's -- here's -- that's your water 13 surface. I'm sure no one can read my writing here. 14 Your bottom is doing all kinds of things out here. 15 MR. WESLEY: Right, but it's not going above 16 42 feet. 17 MR. WATSON: That, we hope. I'm pretty sure 18 we're not, but I haven't looked at that. 19 MR. WESLEY: You have to assume it's not. 20 MR. WATSON: This presumably, this is some 21 depth. 22 MR. WESLEY: You've got to assume that's 42 23 feet. That's the projected depth. 24 MR. BROWNE: That's the maintained depth. 25 MR. WATSON: From the satellite bathymetry, 103 1 2 and other sources, we have some depth. 3 MR. WESLEY: You've got to assume that's 42 4 feet. 5 MR. WATSON: I'm not going to make that 6 assumption. I understand what you are saying and 7 you're probably right. This is whatever, and again 8 let's say it's 40 feet, so when I went to a 30 foot 9 configuration, hypothetically, basically, that's 10 minus 12 feet. 11 So here that got moved up to 30. Let's say 12 this is 52 feet. That's noW at 40. Basically, I 13 just moved the entire bottom up and down, based on 14 whatever that difference would be. So that way 15 it's not changing the fact that there's bumps and 16 grills -- 17 MR. WESLEY: Right. But you didn't look at 18 each grid to see how many 52 foot spots there are 19 and how many -- 20 MR. WATSON: No. 21 MR. WESLEY: Okay. 22 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 23 MR. BREWTON: I've got a question. Just 24 as a clarification, I hear you two guys talking. I 25 think you're talking about two different things. 104 1 2 When Chuck says he didn't look. I don't think he's 3 saying his computer didn't look. It processed all 4 that bumpiness. He's just saying he didn't 5 personally pull out each grid individually, that's 6 what I'm hearing. 7 MR. WATSON: Exactly. 8 MR. BREWTON: He doesn't mean he averaged it 9 out. His computer, the data put into his 10 computer -- 11 MR. WATSON: I assumed. 12 MR. BREWTON: -- accounted for all the bumps 13 in the satellite photographs and channel depths. 14 MR. WESLEY: It can't do that. It can only do 15 what he enters in there. I mean, the computer 16 doesn't know where they are. There's no way it can 17 do that. 18 MR. WATSON: Oh really. 19 MR. DYSART: I would request Ben and chuck not 20 both answer Rick at the same time. One of them 21 has to decide who wants to answer. 22 MR. BREWTON: Go ahead. 23 MR. DYSART: Chuck. 24 MR. WESLEY: Go ahead. 25 MR. WATSON: If you have got a terrain model 105 1 2 of an area, when we say it's 42 feet. Again, I'm 3 taking your word and everyone else's it's 42, or 4 deeper, or whatever. 5 MR. WESLEY: You don't have to take my word 6 for it. I mean, you did a survey. Is it -- is 7 that it is? 8 MR. WATSON: Again, I did not personally 9 examine all the cells. So I -- it would take about 10 10 minutes to check. I could pull it up and run a 11 full map on it. 12 In fact, it's not on this computer. I'd say 13 we could pull it up right now. When I say I 14 adjusted the depth, I basically adjusted the 15 existing depth and existing configuration, based on 16 whatever our target was. If it went to 30, went to 17 20, when it gets shallow, it almost becomes 18 pointless, because you're starting to pull in 19 surrounding. You just end up with holes basically, 20 because everything pops out. 21 MR. DYSART: Sam and then Will and then 22 Ben again. Let's move it around. 23 MR. DRAKE: I think, Rick, Chuck may be 24 confused. He doesn't realize the 42 foot depth 25 that the Corps does do 2 foot overburden-type of a 106 1 2 thing, advanced dredging you might have a 2 foot 3 margin of error. 4 There are places like that. It could be 4 to 5 6 feet. You're saying 50 feet. That's a lot of 6 error. I'd like to know whether you have seen 7 those kind of depths in places on the river, 8 because there seems to be some error there. 9 MR. WESLEY: I've seen a lot of places it's 10 over. 11 MR. WATSON: Actually, if I could suggest, 12 I'll check to see what's in the DEM. I've got a 13 pretty good level of confidence in the algorithms, 14 since I've used them in a lot different places. 15 It would be easy enough to pull that data up 16 and assess whether it is. Again, we're talking 17 about a data set that's roughly 25 billion points 18 in it, so that's actually an interesting question, 19 and that's something we can answer fairly easy. 20 MR. TOLLISON: I think that's important. 21 If you have got spots in the river in the 22 navigational channel, you say a lot of them are 50 23 feet -- 24 MR. WESLEY: They don't dredge that. There's 25 no dredging involved in some of the deeper areas. 107 1 2 MR. TOLLISON: I think that's important for 3 the SEG to know. 4 MR. WESLEY: That changes weekly. 5 MR. WATSON: If I could ask Bo, have y'all 6 found when you did your survey to build your DEM, 7 did you find those kinds of depth changes? 8 MR. ELLIS: We used the Corps survey, the 9 latest Corps survey. 10 MR. DYSART: Dan, do you have some 11 clarification on this specific issue? 12 MR. PARROTT: Yes, a couple issues. One is we 13 do have areas called advanced maintenance, areas 14 that are rapidly shoaling. We are allowed to 15 deepen two to four feet deeper than the authorized 16 project channel to allow for the shoal up not to 17 peak and interfere with the navigation channel. 18 Areas of 50 foot are 42 plus 4 feet for 19 advanced maintenance, plus 2 over depth and -- 50 20 foot is not unusual for that region, and there are 21 areas naturally that deep we don't dredge. If you 22 have areas deeper than 42, that's why. 23 MR. DYSART: Will, did you have a question? 24 MR. BURSON: No. 25 MR. DYSART: Ben, next Dodi, Patty and back to 108 1 2 Sam. 3 MR. BREWTON: I have a couple of questions 4 here prompted by what I just heard. I have one 5 for Chuck, I wanted to ask just and additional 6 clarification. 7 You didn't do a survey of the river bottom, as 8 I understand, you used the data from the Corps and 9 the satellite. 10 MR. WATSON: Yes, from the Corps through the 11 National Ocean Service, plus the satellite. 12 MR. BREWTON: When that was plugged into your 13 model simulation, what went in are all these 14 different depths; you didn't put in just one 15 average depth, you put in all the bumps? 16 MR. WATSON: All I did was define the channel 17 and had the system move it up. 18 MR. BREWTON: So you took the Corps' data 19 base and dumped that into your computer? 20 MR. WATSON: Plus the National Ocean Service, 21 plus the satellite. 22 MR. BREWTON: So that was an automated 23 process, you didn't go out and measure each of 24 these bumps, you used what the Corps measured? 25 MR. WATSON: I did a spot for this data set, 109 1 2 for this area, I think there were about 50 points, 3 where after that process there was a check done. 4 That's all automated. I didn't personally go in 5 and change data. 6 MR. BREWTON: That was the point. I'm saying 7 it was an automated process. That information was 8 there. Those considerations were in there. Those 9 variables were in there. 10 MR. WATSON: That's actually an important 11 assumption from a modeling standpoint, assuming the 12 dips and ridges would be in the same places, which 13 almost certainly they wouldn't be, since the 14 currents would be different, and erosion and 15 sedimentation rates would be different, but those 16 -- that's a different animal. 17 MR. BREWTON: The question arises here, from 18 what I've heard since then, based on Dan and what 19 the pilots and so forth are saying, there's places 20 -- what did you say, Dan, you had advanced 21 maintenance and what the other term -- over -- 22 MR. PARROTT: Allowable over depth. 23 MR. BREWTON: So you're in some places how 24 deep below the authorized channel depth now? 25 MR. PARROTT: Six to eight feet deeper than 110 1 2 the authorized channel. It's not continuous. 3 MR. BREWTON: I understand. There are spots. 4 MR. PARROTT: There are spots. 5 MR. BREWTON: Based on some of what we heard 6 in relation to the USGS and some of the other data 7 on the aquifer, possible aquifer confining layer 8 intrusion, I guess you might say, if we're at 42 9 feet now authorized, but actually dredging in spots 10 to 50 feet, does that mean two parts of the 11 question; one I'll ask and you can respond to this, 12 if we're authorized at 48 feet there may be 13 advanced maintenance and what was the term? 14 MR. PARROTT: Over depth dredging. 15 MR. BREWTON: Over depth dredging, that would 16 actually bring the channel down to 56 feet. 17 MR. PARROTT: In spots. If you look at the 18 environmental impact statement, the feasibility 19 report, that was taken into account. The advanced 20 maintenance locations were assumed to be the same 21 location. Everything shifted down. 22 MR. BREWTON: Much like Chuck did. 23 MR. PARROTT: That's correct. The aquifer 24 study took that into consideration, 50, 52 feet, 25 the aquifer study looked at a depth of 56 feet. 111 1 2 MR. BREWTON: The quote I saw subsequent to 3 the last meeting from Dr. Henry was referring to 4 certain specific depths, and he said 48 feet likely 5 wouldn't be a problem, but anymore almost certainly 6 would be. 7 MR. PARROTT: He's probably referring to the 8 48 foot project. 9 MR. BREWTON: Well, I think since we're 10 talking about our water supply, somehow or another 11 we need to find out whether he was probably 12 referring to that or really referring to that. How 13 can we do that? 14 MR. PARROTT: Next month at the SEG -- 15 MR. BREWTON: Dr. Henry's going to be here? 16 MR. PARROTT: Carl Smith will be here. He 17 will discuss the parameters of the aquifer study, 18 how deep the channel is assumed to be, the borings 19 taken, the permeable tests that were performed to 20 evaluate that. 21 MR. BREWTON: Could we invite Dr. Henry at the 22 same time? 23 MS. McINTOSH: I have. 24 MR. DYSART: So we will hear that next month. 25 Dodi, then Patty, then Sam, then Rick. It's now 112 1 2 11:35, so we have about an hour and 25 minutes left 3 on the agenda. 4 MS. GAY: Yes, no response, hopefully. Would 5 harbor deepening or could harbor deepening reduce 6 the damage created by natural flooding? 7 MR. WATSON: Unfortunately, that's not a yes 8 or no. 9 MS. GAY: Depending. 10 MR. WATSON: Yes, up to a point and then no. 11 As you deepen, you get a bit superficial at first 12 up to a certain point. Then after a certain point, 13 speaking in general, it appears that as you deepen 14 you decrease the flood damage, but then after a 15 certain point you begin to increase flood damage. 16 For the Savannah configuration, it seems like 17 that break even point is about 30 to 35 feet. 18 MR. DYSART: Patty. 19 MS. McINTOSH: I wanted to ask Dan Parrott if 20 he has a map or graphic or something showing where 21 those points of advanced maintenance are, and what 22 the depths at each point are? 23 MR. PARROTT: We publish quarterly surveys, 24 annual surveys, that clearly show the where on the 25 channel it is. 113 1 2 MS. McINTOSH: Can you provide those to us 3 at the next meeting? 4 MR. PARROTT: Those are the public documents. 5 The harbor pilots use those. 6 MR. DYSART: Sam. 7 MR. DRAKE: Sam Drake, this is to Dan also. 8 Dan, I guess, Kings Island Turner Basin would be 9 one of those areas deepened to 50 feet by the 10 Corps -- 11 MR. PARROTT: Uh-huh. 12 MR. DRAKE: -- under some policy. Is that a 13 regional or national policy that allows you to go 14 six more feet. I mean, I don't understand. It was 15 two and two, four feet max. Seems you're adding 16 another four feet somehow to the equation. 17 MR. PARROTT: My understanding, I'm not an 18 expert in this area, I understand the issue of 19 advanced maintenance is something within our OM 20 program. We have the authority to look at those. 21 The actual parameters, what it takes to justify the 22 details, I can find out. 23 MR. DRAKE: So you guys can go to a 50 24 foot channel administratively for the entire 25 length of -- 114 1 2 MR. PARROTT: No, no -- 3 MR. DRAKE: -- the channel? 4 MR. PARROTT: Not the entire length, no. 5 MR. DRAKE: You can pick and choose 6 selectively, seems like you -- 7 MR. PARROTT: It's justified by where shoaling 8 locations are. If we propose to headquarters an 9 advanced maintenance of the entire harbor, it would 10 not get approved. It won't locally anyway. 11 MR. DRAKE: Seems like the sturgeon in the 12 Kings Island Turner Basin really is the Corps issue 13 since going from 4 to 2 feet to 50 feet may have 14 created a problem. Of course, South Carolina DNR 15 is looking into it right now. 16 MR. PARROTT: Well 17 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey with the Corps. The 18 Corps does have authority to do some of the 19 advanced maintenance. The advanced maintenance at 20 the Kings Island Turner Basin, there was an 21 environmental assessment prepared for that. 22 It received full public review for that 23 project improvement. And National Marine Fisheries 24 Service had -- you know, that went to National 25 Marine Fisheries Service, you know, for their 115 1 2 comments on impacts to sturgeon. 3 MR. DRAKE: That would go to 50 feet? 4 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 5 MR. DYSART: Rick and Morgan. 6 MR. WESLEY: Chuck, would you explain again, 7 you talked the Broad River. Was that involved in 8 storm surge, is that -- you talked about waves in 9 the Broad River in Hilton Head, and how far would 10 the effects be with the deepening, in your opinion, 11 outside the Chatham County area? 12 MR. WATSON: Broad Creek. 13 MR. WESLEY: As far as you went or -- 14 MR. WATSON: No. Broad Creek was the area 15 that I was referring to. That's the little tidal 16 creek that almost splits Hilton Head in half. I 17 did some interesting higher water levels in that 18 creek. There were impacts. 19 MR. WESLEY: In what situation, a storm 20 situation? 21 MR. WATSON: Storm surge. In other words, if 22 I remember right, about two feet higher water 23 levels in some parts of Broad Creek. 24 MR. WESLEY: From the deepening in the river 25 of four feet? 116 1 2 MR. WATSON: No. There was about two feet of 3 additional water. For that event, I think there 4 was -- again, this is just off the top of my head 5 -- I seem to remember there was about a six foot 6 surge in Broad Creek, just normally. 7 When you put the channel in, you get an extra 8 foot or so, one to two feet, depending on channel 9 depth in that area. Why it's there is a 10 combination. 11 It's hard to separate out because all these 12 forces interact. It's likely the increased amount 13 of water in the system, wave refraction I suspect 14 had something to do with it. Maybe being -- it's 15 not Calibogue Sound -- again, there's a complex 16 interaction there. 17 I would say you have to go at least 30 18 kilometers on either side of the channel to really 19 capture that. 20 MR. WESLEY: So you feel like 30 kilometers 21 either of the side channel deepening -- 22 MR. WATSON: Right. 23 MR. WESLEY: So Hilton Head, possibly Hilton 24 Head could be affected by the deepening in 25 Charleston? 117 1 2 MR. WATSON: Works both ways. We found 3 impacts from some of the engineering works around 4 New York City that extend from as much 80 5 kilometers. 6 MR. WESLEY: So we could be affected by the 7 deepening in Charleston, perhaps, and what kind of 8 affects? 9 MR. WATSON: By affect, I'm talking about I 10 use a cutoff of about five centimeters. Anything 11 in that range, you're starting to get into the 12 model noise issues, but 80 would be very unusual, 13 40, 30, there I think you're probably starting to 14 see real effects. Certainly 10, 20 range, that 15 makes physical sense to me, that there are those 16 kinds of impacts. 17 MR. DYSART: Morgan, Teri, then Ben Brewton. 18 MR. REES: I want to point out we have already 19 included in the general reevaluation report and 20 tier two EIS process and evaluation of whether it 21 would make sense to continue the advanced 22 maintenance program, and you know, what impacts 23 might be saved if we don't, or whatever, but that 24 -- the tier one EIS did consider the impacts of 25 continuing that advanced maintenance process for 118 1 2 whatever it's worth. 3 We're aware of the issue. It's included in 4 our plan to evaluate in the tier two, so that 5 should be pointed out. 6 MS. LEFFEK: When you talked about deepening, 7 did you talk about deepening the entire width of 8 the channel? 9 My understanding is this deepening -- you're 10 deepening mainly the middle part of the channel. 11 Would that impact your model? This question is to 12 Chuck. 13 MR. WATSON: I used the engineering drawings. 14 I think those came out of the tier one EIS. That 15 includes -- that's a good point. 16 When I raised the level of the channel or 17 deepened it, I extended it to whatever the -- in 18 other words, as I raised it, it didn't create a 19 bump out in the deep water. 20 I basically cut it off where the surrounding 21 bathymetry was averaged. That was a true average 22 where it averaged into the surrounding bathymetry. 23 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 24 MR. BREWTON: Chuck, on the issue of the 25 positive effect on the drainage of deepening the 119 1 2 channel up to, you said to around 35 feet or so, 3 and then the negative effect after that; does that 4 positive effect being the additional outflow of 5 water, is that present even when the tide is 6 incoming and the winds are coming from offshore as 7 the storm moves in, or is it in the aftermath of 8 that? 9 MR. WATSON: It's a very complex situation, 10 because you've got the normal flow of the river, 11 which I used the climatological average flows 12 basically for whatever time of year the simulation 13 was running. 14 So you've got river flow. You've got tides 15 going in and out. You've got rainfall runoff. 16 That was another issue. Then you've got the storm 17 surge. You've got the wind and waves starting to 18 pile up water. It's very dependent on the tide 19 cycle. 20 The worst time for a storm to come in isn't 21 high tide. It's actually two hours ahead of high 22 tide. 23 The reason for that is that then all the 24 forces are working together, in terms of bringing 25 large amounts of water into the tidal creek system. 120 1 2 MR. BREWTON: Is that beneficial effect below 3 35 feet present, even at that point in the cycle, 4 or is -- 5 MR. WATSON: Its benefits depend on where you 6 are in the cycle. At low tide right now, you're 7 probably -- the current depth you're probably 8 always getting a slight negative impact. You're 9 certainly worse at high tide all the way around 10 than you are at low tide. 11 So again, I'd have to look at the actual 12 hydrographs to see. In general at the current -- 13 at deeper than 35, you're almost always getting a 14 negative impact. 15 MR. BREWTON: So we're well past the point 16 at which the deepening is negatively impacting? 17 MR. WATSON: I'd have to look. There's 18 probably some events, like on an outgoing tide 19 where you are still getting a positive benefit. 20 When I ran the full climate run analysis, the 21 big run that came up with the statistics, those 22 would be included in that run. So you're getting 23 the positive benefits from the tide cycle were 24 included in the loss number. 25 MR. BREWTON: Thanks. Ben, I have a 121 1 2 suggestion. I need to ask one question of Bo, when 3 is the presentation on the data collection effort 4 going to be made? 5 In other words, that's something we had on the 6 agenda pending the development of the MTRG report 7 on the data collection. That's been postponed a 8 couple of times. 9 MR. ELLIS: I don't understand your question. 10 MR. BREWTON: The questions and discussions 11 that had arisen in several previous meetings around 12 the data collection efforts and the -- some of the 13 questions of irregularities or problems with those, 14 we deferred or postponed additional discussion 15 about that until the MTRG had put together a 16 complete report, in which those errors and so forth 17 were going to incorporated in the overall context, 18 so we could see it in context. 19 I think that was on the agenda for one month, 20 and then it was postponed because the report wasn't 21 finished yet. I was just asking when will that 22 report be finished and available, when will that 23 be back on the agenda here for MTRG to present 24 that? 25 MR. ELLIS: I don't think necessarily it's 122 1 2 scheduled by the MTRG, but probably two or three 3 months. 4 MR. BREWTON: Well, now, originally that was 5 going to be in February, I think, so it's been 6 that much delayed? 7 MR. ELLIS: That was going to be the 8 preliminary draft report. 9 MR. BREWTON: Right. 10 MR. ELLIS: That was -- sections presented to 11 GPA and then to the MTRG. 12 MR. BREWTON: Right. I'm saying that 13 report was postponed pending some other event. You 14 said it would be about a month. You're saying now, 15 that was two or three months -- 16 MR. ELLIS: That's when the review and 17 comments will be completed by the MTRG. That's my 18 best guess. 19 MR. DYSART: Would this discussion be more 20 appropriate under Roman VIII, preparation of the 21 next agenda? 22 MR. BREWTON: Well, here's what -- I didn't 23 realize it was that complex. I thought that report 24 had been pending for several months. 25 What I was going to suggest, Dan Parrott had I 123 1 2 think answered Patty by saying he could bring in 3 the map of the channel maintenance. And it seemed 4 to me that some of the questions we were asking 5 Chuck and asking Bo, seems to me maybe we need a 6 little bit of a refresher on the MTRG model and 7 the data collection. 8 I was hoping maybe we could take a look at 9 that at one time to see, in context, to see exactly 10 what our model is doing, what the data collection 11 is doing, how that relates to these points Dan 12 mentioned. I was going to suggest maybe we could 13 put that on the agenda for next month. 14 MR. DYSART: Why don't let's do that when 15 we prepare the agenda a little later in the 16 meeting. That's a great idea. 17 MR. BREWTON: Okay. 18 MR. DYSART: Seeing -- are you through, Ben? 19 MR. BREWTON: Yes, I'm sorry. 20 MR. DYSART: Seeing no further cards up, I 21 will thank Chuck for his presentation, and at 10 22 minutes to noon, we will proceed with the committee 23 reports. The first committee report will be Bill 24 Farmer, Beach Erosion. 25 MR. FARMER: All right. A handout has been 124 1 2 distributed to you. I'd like to read just a few 3 words from this to give you an update as to what we 4 have accomplished. 5 The first paragraph, the first numbered 6 paragraph indicates that we're going to revise the 7 study proposals during the next month, and bring 8 back to you study proposals at the May meeting. 9 The second paragraph indicated that we had a 10 visitor, a Tracy Rice, who works with the US Fish 11 and Wildlife Service, on the Wilmington project, 12 and there's a very close parallel up there, in that 13 she indicated one fourth of the harbor project 14 dredge materials were being beneficially used, and 15 the incremental cost to accomplish that was about 16 1.5 million. 17 Through that extra expenditure, there was a 18 governmental savings of about $60,000,000. That's 19 the kind of effort that we're trying to put forth 20 here, and see if such a similar result can be 21 achieved for the deepening of the ocean channel. 22 The third paragraph indicates that Charles 23 Griffen attended our meeting. He gave us a copy of 24 an extract from an engineering regulation. And it 25 basically indicates that disposal of sediments on 125 1 2 beaches can be accomplished under various 3 conditions. 4 First of all, if it is the least costly method 5 of getting rid of the dredge materials, then you 6 can put it on the beach very -- quite readily, if 7 it meets environmental standards and so forth. 8 In the middle of the paragraph I have yellowed 9 in the word benefits. If you read the word 10 surrounding that, it indicates when the disposal on 11 the beaches is not the least costly, you can still 12 do it, and you can get federal cost share dollars 13 if you can prove the benefits of putting the sand 14 on the beaches is worthwhile, and is worth more 15 than the cost. 16 So the substance of the two studies we're 17 trying to develop, for approval by the SEG, is to 18 evaluate the benefits and the costs of all the 19 alternate placements of dredge materials, such that 20 these kinds of decisions can be made. 21 We ran into a little difficult into the fact 22 that the Georgia Ports Authority is a little 23 sensitive on having money spent for costs -- for 24 analysis that are not directly project-related. So 25 we determined it's a little bit more research has 126 1 2 to be done as to what the Georgia Ports Authority 3 is actually required to do, as opposed to what 4 they ought to do, as opposed to what they're 5 willing to do and that sort of thing. 6 It's going to take another month or so to work 7 through all that kind of discussion. And hopefully 8 at the next meeting, we will have an answer for the 9 SEG to consider and recommend thereafter. 10 MR. DYSART: Questions, comments, relating 11 to Bill's committee report. Stuart. 12 MR. STEVENS: I guess I would like to add one 13 of the things we've been interested in is to see a 14 comprehensive study done related to the movement of 15 sand. 16 I've met with Congressman Kingston to discuss 17 that as part of Order 99. Last week when I was 18 in Washington, the Coastal States Organization that 19 I represent, that Governor Barnes is on that's made 20 up of 32 coastal states and territories, we did 21 pass a resolution that was sent to Congress to 22 encourage the money to be appropriated to do 23 this comprehensive study of erosion, as well as 24 a comprehensive look at how sand is handled within 25 the districts. Hopefully we'll see some money for 127 1 2 that this next June. 3 MR. DYSART: Further comments, questions? 4 Next committee report, Dredging and Disposal 5 report. Fred. 6 MR. BEASON: We did not meet. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. How about Fisheries and 8 Aquatic Resources report. Bill Bailey. 9 MR. BAILEY: Okay. I have two things. The 10 Fisheries Committee met on March 14th to provide 11 some information to GPA about the two fisheries 12 studies that the SEG approved before. 13 We talked about how the studies fit into the 14 Corps' project evaluation framework, also how 15 those studies could assist in the evaluation of 16 potential project impacts. 17 We also talked about whether both years of 18 the study were needed. Those are the things that 19 we went over. The second item was the mission 20 statement that I've distributed. 21 The Fisheries Committee has now agreed to this 22 mission statement, so I'd like to submit that as 23 this is what we think we're doing. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. 25 MR. BAILEY: That's it. 128 1 2 MR. DYSART: Anything to add, comments, 3 questions? Seeing none, Bo, what do you have from 4 MTRG? 5 MR. ELLIS: No report this month. We did meet 6 last Thursday. I will be coordinating a report 7 with the rest of the committee, and we'll give it 8 next time. 9 We had more preliminary review of the data and 10 preliminary review of the hydrodynamic model now 11 under development. Really, there was no action 12 items to report to the committee. We will have 13 a status report later this month. 14 MR. DYSART: Questions, comments, concerning 15 MTRG? Stuart Stevens. 16 MR. STEVENS: Just a question, Bo, did you 17 discuss at your MTRG the issue we had last time 18 about the coarseness of the grids and all; was that 19 brought up? 20 MR. ELLIS: Yes, we did. We did a get report 21 from the modeler, who is handling the hydrodynamic 22 model, and some of the testing he's done on 23 different grid sizes, how that's affecting the 24 results. No conclusion and no final 25 recommendation. We are continuing to look at it. 129 1 2 MR. STEVENS: Thank you. 3 MR. DYSART: Seeing no further cards up, how 4 about the Striped Bass Committee. Carl Hall. 5 MR. HALL: Tom couldn't be here. I'll state 6 it for him. The Striped Bass Committee didn't meet 7 in March, they met in February. At the last March 8 SEG meeting, Tom had not completed the minutes 9 because it was a late meeting. 10 He did discuss the record keeping decisions 11 that were decided. Also, we had a draft mission 12 statement at the time. 13 Last Friday, after our committee had a chance 14 to comment on the February minutes and the mission 15 statement, Tom made the final revisions and sent 16 it out to the members. I've just passed it out to 17 you today. It's February 22nd minutes of the 18 February 22nd meeting, but these are the minutes 19 and the mission statement as revised to reflect the 20 comments of all the members. 21 Although the mission statement is on the last 22 page and indicates draft, we assume this is final. 23 I just noticed that. Tom gave me this stuff this 24 morning. Maybe we need to correct that. 25 Basically, what the committee met for, one of 130 1 2 the reasons in February, since Larry was back in 3 town again was to, you know, to discuss the current 4 project, assessment of the spawning sites and 5 reproductive status of striped bass in the Savannah 6 River Estuary, to address specific questions the 7 study will answer concerning the deepening. 8 Basically, these are reflected in terms of 9 intended results, deliverables and intend use in 10 the EIS mitigation plan. That was the basis of the 11 meeting in February. No meeting in March. 12 MR. DYSART: Any questions or comments 13 concerning the Striped Bass Committee, anything to 14 be added by any other committee members? 15 MR. HALL: Of course, the study is well under 16 way, as you saw in Gail's article in the Savannah 17 Morning News. 18 MR. DYSART: Next, Communication Committee. 19 Ben Brewton. Okay. Next there being -- I don't 20 know whether there's a report or not. We will go 21 ahead to Judy Jennings Economics Work Group. Judy. 22 MS. JENNINGS: We met last month. The topic 23 primarily was looking at the list of issues that 24 have been identified as issues. We want to address 25 some topics were added to that. 131 1 2 We'll meet today at 3:00 p.m. at Lockwood 3 Greene. Primarily, the topic of business will be 4 to begin to prioritize to those issues, so we 5 can address them in some systematic order. 6 The last meeting we added to the list of 7 issues to be addressed, and today I'll expect we'll 8 work on prioritizing the at 3:00 at Lockwood Greene 9 today. Hope you'll come. 10 MR. DYSART: I see a lot of faces around the 11 table that were at the League of Women Voters 12 meeting last night that Judy chaired. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Different hat. 14 MR. DYSART: Lots of different hats. That 15 was, I think added -- I think added a lot of 16 opportunities to get word out in the various 17 presentations about the mission, and what is going 18 on with the Stakeholders Evaluation Group. I 19 thought that was very, very helpful. 20 MS. JENNINGS: Thank you, Ben. 21 MR. DYSART: Next, Operating Guidelines, 22 Morgan Rees. Patty. 23 MS. McINTOSH: I just wanted to add to 24 Judy's report. One thing we did ask Morgan for was 25 a list of the typical items studied in the economic 132 1 2 analysis, with hopes of discussing somethings we 3 might add to that. And that will be forthcoming at 4 today's meeting, is that correct? 5 MS. JENNINGS: Also Patty, I appreciate that. 6 There was a rather -- a rather lengthy, I think, 7 very good discussion about the methodology for 8 economic analysis. 9 And in general, we intend to explore the 10 nature of the typical core analysis, and what 11 alternatives there may be to that. Also, what the 12 flexibility there is in the attempt for the core 13 analysis for a benefit cost ratio. That was it. 14 MS. McINTOSH: If I can add, part of the 15 concern there, on my part anyway, was that in the 16 typical core analysis you don't look at local and 17 regional economic impacts, as I understand. I 18 think those are real important, as we go through 19 the tier two process. 20 MS. JENNINGS: I, to further say, I would 21 really appreciate anybody with any concept of a 22 thought about the economic analysis to please come, 23 and we have a very long list of issues. 24 I would say there's 25 or 30 items by now, and 25 that's a long way from where we started a year ago. 133 1 2 That may have to be addressed to some extent in the 3 original tier one. I think we've identified some 4 topics that were not identified or addressed in the 5 tier one analysis. 6 So we need -- we're open for input. My sense 7 -- no, my expectation is that all of the issues 8 will be addressed. 9 MR. DYSART: Are there further questions or 10 comments? Thank you, Patty. Okay. Morgan Rees, I 11 believe you indicated that you would not -- 12 MR. REES: We did not meet and there is no 13 report. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you very much. Then 15 having completed the committee reports, we'll move 16 on to new business, and Bill Bailey, according to 17 this is to report on the committee chair's joint 18 report on issues, based on input from all of the 19 SEG committee chairs. Bill. 20 MR. BAILEY: Committee chair -- chairs met on 21 March 22nd. All of the technical committees were 22 represented. 23 We reviewed the studies that the SEG has 24 recommended. We also reviewed studies that the 25 various committees may be considering. We also 134 1 2 went over other issues that the committee -- 3 committee chairs thought were still outstanding 4 issues. 5 We don't have a -- a report yet. We plan on 6 meeting again this next month, and we'll probably 7 have a report at the next SEG meeting. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. So you will have 9 recommendations, recommended action items, so forth 10 next time? 11 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 12 MR. DYSART: Patty. 13 MS. McINTOSH: Just a question for the whole 14 SEG. Do we need to be adding something along the 15 lines of what Chuck Watson presented this morning 16 to our list -- our matrix list of studies. Is that 17 something we're already studying under one of these 18 other categories, or do we need to add it as an 19 official SEG study? 20 MR. DYSART: What are the views around the 21 table. 22 MR. DYSART: Keith Parsons. Bill Farmer next. 23 MR. PARSONS: I think what was the presented, 24 obviously, has some implications on the number of 25 these issues, particularly potential additional 135 1 2 impacts to the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge, 3 and impacts to the economic analysis. 4 I noticed in here he has analyzed the cost 5 figures in his report. That should probably be 6 considered in the economic analysis -- just a 7 number of items like that. 8 Whether it needs to be in its own separate 9 category of investigation or not, I don't know, but 10 I think each of these committees, Beach Erosion 11 Committee, there's probably some information they 12 need to look at in a little more detail, you know. 13 There's a whole myriad of implications 14 presented by this storm report today that should, 15 at least, be given consideration to the separate 16 committees. 17 MR. DYSART: Bill. 18 MR. FARMER: Same exact thought, but it could 19 be added as one more issue, storm damage effects 20 from the project, and that issue could have impacts 21 across several committees, like Keith has 22 indicated. 23 So it can be added to the matrix quite simply, 24 and each committee could look at it and see if they 25 wanted to analyze that impact or not. 136 1 2 MR. DYSART: Other comments. Thank you, Bill. 3 Seeing no cards up, we'll move on to the next. 4 MR. STEVENS: Are we going to add it to the 5 matrix or not? I think we ought to add a line 6 to the matrix. It's a pretty simple thing to do. 7 I didn't hear that was -- 8 MR. DYSART: What will we call it? 9 MR. STEVENS: Storm damage impacts, or 10 whatever. Ask Bill to put it on the line. Can we 11 do that? 12 MR. DYSART: I see a lot of heads nodding. I 13 see some not moving any direction. Is there anyone 14 who cannot live with that, in which case that is 15 indeed a consensus by SEG standards, and we direct 16 Bill to add that to the Farm-o-Gram matrix. Thank 17 you. I will make a declarative statement we have 18 reached a consensus on something. 19 MR. MIKELL: Rob Mikell, who is going to take 20 ownership of that issue, who is going to be 21 responsible for it? 22 MR. FARMER: I think each committee would look 23 at it to see if it impacts them. In other words, 24 the Fisheries Committee, they would say they need 25 to analyze that, the Beach Erosion would analyze 137 1 2 that. Some committees would not be impacted, like 3 Bilge Water, whatever, that wouldn't have any 4 impact. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. So the -- where we have an 6 actual working impact-related committee, they will 7 determine what they need, what part of that area 8 they will be assuming responsibility for. Thank 9 you. 10 Next item is further discussion, overview of 11 progress on studies from SEG members in general. 12 We've heard from the committee chairs, and now the 13 next thing presumably is how do you feel about 14 progress on studies, as far as just all around the 15 table? Anything else that needs to be added? 16 Anybody have any views they want to share on the 17 record? Judy. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. This may not be the 19 place. This is not a question on progress on the 20 studies, but I do have some interest in progress 21 for the project in terms of engineering and other 22 things that may not be happening at the table. 23 Is the time to ask up today, or is there some 24 other place to do it? I'm comfortable we're 25 hearing adequate reports. 138 1 2 To me, that is not a comprehensive picture of 3 the project. I don't know if this is the place to 4 talk about it or not. Thank you. 5 MR. DYSART: Morgan Rees 6 MR. REES: Yes. This is the place. You 7 may recall somewhere on the agenda, this is as good 8 as any, last month we made a commitment to provide 9 a status of report of everything we're doing and 10 how we see that it fits into the schedule, so 11 forth at the May meeting. 12 We're working on that. We actually had a 13 pretty lengthy meeting the other day -- boy, are we 14 going to get this done by the May meeting, but 15 we essentially hope to have a full status report of 16 everything that's going on, relative to the 17 project, at the next meeting. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Thank you. 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. Further questions on that 20 item? Comments. Next item on the agenda is where 21 do things stand with respect to the two fish 22 studies. 23 MR. SCHALLER: That's Bill and I. I guess 24 with your indulgence, I just want to report to the 25 SEG that we've met at least once, and perhaps more 139 1 2 to discuss those issues. 3 They are currently processed administratively 4 for approval, so we can get both of those studies 5 underway. 6 MR. DYSART: Bill. Do you have anything to 7 state? 8 MR. BAILEY: No. 9 MR. DYSART: John Robinette. 10 MR. ROBINETTE: Yeah. I've got a question for 11 Bill. Will they be funded in time for you to do 12 the work that you need to do this spring? 13 MR. BAILEY: I'm not -- I guess. 14 MR. ROBINETTE: Did you miss that window, I 15 mean, window of opportunity? 16 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure of the answer to 17 that. 18 MR. DYSART: Did everyone hear the question 19 and answer? 20 MS. JENNINGS: No, I did not hear John's 21 question. 22 MR. ROBINETTE: I was asking if the funding 23 was going to come in to capture that window of 24 opportunity to look at what's happening in those 25 creeks and stuff this spring. 140 1 2 Striped bass spawning starts in March, so it 3 may be a little late, and it may have to go through 4 next spring, you know. That was my question. 5 MR. SCHALLER: There's already -- 6 MR. HALL: It's already underway on -- 7 MR. ROBINETTE: Right, but what I'm saying -- 8 MR. HALL: -- the larval fish. 9 MR. SCHALLER: It's a matter of, you know, 10 documenting the paper trail, I guess, John, in 11 terms of the approvals to get the project in 12 motion. That's what we're doing. 13 MR. ROBINETTE: I was just wondering, you 14 know, some of these things had a time line, you 15 know, they have to be done at certain times. They 16 have to be done -- they have to be done at certain 17 times of the year. So -- 18 MR. SCHALLER: Ask Larry Keegan. 19 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan with Lockwood 20 Greene, as best we understand things, John, I think 21 this is accurate to say the temporal and spatial 22 distribution studies are slated for a two year 23 period. We think that will run two years from 24 whenever it starts. 25 MR. ROBINETTE: Okay. 141 1 2 MR. KEEGAN: The spawning aggregation study is 3 tied to a spawning season, one season, and given 4 that we may or may not make it this season, but we 5 have a two year pole intent. We'll do it next 6 season. 7 MR. ROBINETTE: Okay. 8 MR. KEEGAN: We think we can get them both 9 done in a reasonable time. 10 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Next item on the 11 agenda is the status of the proposed Fish and 12 Wildlife Service Studies. Mitch, and John and 13 David Schaller. Who would like to speak on that 14 first? 15 MR. SCHALLER: Well -- 16 MR. ROBINETTE: Well -- 17 MR. SCHALLER: -- I yield. I can report on 18 the tidal wetlands study, and the March -- marsh 19 succession study. I believe there are two elements 20 of that with the project identified therein that 21 have been approved -- both of them. 22 The other resource utilization studies, 23 they're not yet approved, but they're forthcoming. 24 So, we're going to get those done too. 25 MR. DYSART: John, do you have any comment on 142 1 2 that. 3 MR. ROBINETTE: No, except that the -- it's in 4 the same boat with the other studies I was talking 5 about. We'll probably have to do some migratory 6 bird stuff next spring instead of this spring. 7 We're going to miss that particular spring 8 window. It will be proposed as a year long study. 9 We'll go a year from when we start. 10 MR. DYSART: Sam. 11 MR. DRAKE: I'd just like to add this is kind 12 of the fourth month that we've come to the table 13 asking for approval of these studies. We've met 14 twice with ATM and research and Larry one time, I 15 think to fine tune a document to justify the 16 studies. 17 We have quite a variety of birds to feed on, 18 quite a variety of critters out there that are 19 depending on quite a variety of plant species. 20 We're trying to pull it altogether. What we're 21 hung up on is $125,000, 60,000 for a Nekton study 22 and 65,000 for migratory bird study. 23 So I hope we can expedite this and get the 24 studies underway, because this is the primary part 25 of the study my biologists identify for what we 143 1 2 need on the refuge. I hope it does move forward. 3 MR. DYSART: David Schaller. 4 MR. SCHALLER: Sam, I take exception to that 5 comment. We're not hung up on anything. We just 6 reported we're going to fund the marsh succession 7 studies and approved the other studies that you 8 just mentioned. 9 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 10 MR. BREWTON: Could somebody review just 11 briefly an overview of what the marsh succession 12 study will examine and try to answer. 13 MR. DYSART: Who would like to make a 14 presentation? 15 MR. DRAKE: I have a copy I'll give to you, 16 Ben. 17 MR. BREWTON: I want to for the sake of the 18 question, I want to ask could somebody give -- I 19 see Larry Keegan's card up there. 20 MR. DYSART: Larry, do you want to give an 21 overview? 22 MR. KEEGAN: I'll try. It's difficult to put 23 in a few words. There are a series of studies for 24 what's been called marsh succession. We use a 25 little different title. It is material developed 144 1 2 jointly between Fish and Wildlife people and their 3 research and ATM. They include things like the 4 water level study, seed production study, tree 5 gap analysis, seed production study -- I may have 6 said that -- continued vegetative monitoring, 7 continued salinity monitoring, development 8 salinity, spatial synoptic, and marsh vegetative 9 survey, and I'm sure I missed a couple. There's 10 about 10 or 12 things in there, all of which taken 11 together and put together are aimed at trying to 12 resolve the question of what's happening in the 13 freshwater marsh and what will happen. Is that a 14 fair characterization, John? 15 MR. ROBINETTE: Yes. 16 MR. DRAKE: Very good, you hit 99%. 17 MR. KEEGAN: Resource utilization, which we 18 discussed at the same time consists of three 19 studies; a Nekton study, a seed production study 20 and a migratory bird study. 21 Those three are focused at developing 22 information about what particular species feed off 23 of things that are produced by the freshwater and 24 what's produced by the freshwater in the way of 25 seeds for feeding. As a complement, the 145 1 2 Fisheries Committee recommended a temporal and 3 spatial distribution study. They don't overlap, 4 but they complement. So when you put them all 5 together, it should address, as best we know, the 6 concerns about the freshwater marshes and provide 7 the information for decision making. Does that 8 help? 9 MR. BREWTON: Yes. I have two follow-up 10 questions. Larry, I have to say you answered that 11 so well people probably think I fed you that 12 question prior to the meeting so you could 13 rehearse. 14 MR. KEEGAN: Absolutely not. 15 MR. BREWTON: One question, what are the 16 physical boundaries of the study area on the marsh 17 succession. 18 MR. KEEGAN: I'd have to go back and look that 19 up. I can't tell you off the top of my head. 20 MR. BREWTON: Just the refuge, does it go 21 beyond the refuge into the private holdings on the 22 South Carolina side, and so forth. 23 MR. DRAKE: One of transects, I think, is 24 on private land down there, Murray Hill down below 25 Fife Plantation. 146 1 2 MR. BREWTON: Does this include areas that 3 have already been affected, as well as areas that 4 may be affected? 5 MR. DRAKE: Fresh, salt and brackish marshes. 6 MR. BREWTON: Final question, what I'm 7 wondering is it seems like this would be awfully 8 dependent upon the projections coming out of the 9 model. 10 I was wondering if some of the questions that 11 arose earlier about the boundaries of the channel, 12 and this marsh routine, and so forth; have they 13 been satisfactorily answered that we can be very 14 confident that you're going to have all the 15 information and access to model runs that will be 16 accurate in a way to be able to support that study 17 and answer the questions, or do we not know that 18 yet? 19 MR. KEEGAN: I think we -- I'm certainly 20 confident we'll have all the information we need. 21 I'll ask John to give an opinion for the Fish and 22 Wildlife Service. 23 MR. ROBINETTE: Yes. ATM and Dr. Wiley 24 Kitchens, who is our guy that's doing the marsh 25 studies, he did the marsh studies back when we were 147 1 2 working on the tide gate problem. 3 He's very familiar with this situation. He is 4 a modeler himself. He has worked hand in hand with 5 ATM to get the field information that is needed by 6 Wiley and by ATM, and to dovetail that into the 7 model run. 8 So they can predict not only what is out 9 there, but what stage of recovery that tidal marsh 10 is, since we've taken the tide gate out of 11 operation, and what will happen in the future. 12 MR. BREWTON: So that's being looked at very 13 carefully? 14 MR. ROBINETTE: Yes, very, very carefully. 15 MR. BREWTON: As far as being able to predict 16 the whole extent of the study area. 17 MR. ROBINETTE: That will be the basis for us 18 to make a decision. 19 MR. DYSART: I determine that the answer is 20 yes? 21 MR. ROBINETTE: Yes. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. Good. Ben is back. Do 23 you have a Communications Committee report? 24 MR. BREWTON: I don't. We did not meet this 25 month. I was hoping to give Larry Keegan a brief 148 1 2 presentation on the changes made to the web site. 3 We will defer that to next month. I will say Larry 4 does have something up and running and ready to 5 accept any informational, or explanatory, or 6 related information to any of the agenda topics 7 from this or past or future meetings. 8 If anyone has any relevant information, you 9 can contact Larry. He can tell you the method of 10 putting that up. We'll try to have a brief 11 presentation next month too. If you have something 12 now, don't hesitate on any topics we're discussing. 13 Thanks. 14 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Okay. We have now 15 reached the part of the agenda that says we will 16 prepare next month's agenda. 17 MR. BREWTON: What about the Card Smith 18 aquifer? 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. Now, did I understand that 20 that would not be taking place this month? 21 MR. PARROTT: That's correct. At the close 22 of last month's meeting, Card Smith was out of 23 town this week. A lot people were on the way 24 out the door, so it will be May. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. So it's deferred to May. 149 1 2 MR. BREWTON: One item I had, if I might go 3 back on the agenda, was trying to perhaps 4 coordinate this information from Dan regarding the 5 channel maintenance points together with the data 6 collection. 7 I guess we need to ask a little more about 8 that, and maybe getting Bo to give us a refresher 9 course on that model with some particular emphasis 10 on the questions that came up today. 11 If we could do that next month, I know that 12 would helpful for me. I would make that part one. 13 Part two, I'll ask the question after he answers 14 that about the data collection. 15 MR. DYSART: Is that a suggestion for the 16 agenda or a question. 17 MR. BREWTON: My suggestion for the agenda 18 item next month is we could ask ATM to -- in 19 conjunction with Dan Parrott's maintenance points 20 and particular points there -- sort of give us a 21 quick refresher on the data collection points, the 22 model, the scope of the model, and the resolution 23 of that model at different points -- just address 24 some of the questions that came up today. We had a 25 nice little graphic presentation he gave us a few 150 1 2 months back. 3 MR. DYSART: Are there -- Chris. 4 MR. SCHUBERTH: I'd like to go back to the 5 aquifer. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. 7 MR. SCHUBERTH: Card Smith, I guess, was going 8 to make the presentation. I realize this has been 9 basically resolved about five, six years ago, but 10 there seems to be a new reinterpretation or 11 reinterpretation of what may or may not be 12 happening. 13 I would like to allocate some time to this 14 question, and I would like to see additional 15 individuals specifically address this question, 16 people like Jim Henry, and particularly people like 17 the USGS, who are raising the question of possible 18 exchange of waters between upper and lower and the 19 question of whether 48 feet is a safe level, which 20 all the evidence indicates 50 feet is safe, 52 feet 21 is safe. 22 I originally asked way back in the second or 23 third meeting, how many more deepenings can go on, 24 and when we reach the bedrock, there is no 25 bedrock, I realize that, there are confining 151 1 2 restraints; I really would like to know what the 3 confining restraint will ultimately be. 4 MR. DYSART: Dan. 5 MR. PARROTT: Since you brought this issue up 6 last month, it would be very helpful for us at the 7 Corps to be able to answer your question. 8 Specifically, to that end, we would like to 9 know what specific questions and comments are there 10 on the system report, who at USGS are making you 11 have these questions, and what are their questions, 12 so we can come prepared to give you the answers. 13 As a general issue, when people have questions 14 it doesn't do us any good to answer your questions. 15 Sometime in the next two weeks, I would 16 appreciate you saying these the areas we'd like 17 to evaluate in the area of the presentation, these 18 are the specific questions, these are the people 19 asking the questions. That would help us a lot. 20 MR. DYSART: Chris, were you saying you wanted 21 Mr. Henry invited to testify or speak? 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: Speak to the question. 23 MR. BREWTON: And someone from USGS, I think, 24 he suggested. May I ask a quick question in 25 relation to this -- is Card Smith with the Corps of 152 1 2 Engineers or USGS? 3 MR. PARROTT: Card Smith was the technical 4 person on the team with the Corps of Engineers 5 responsible for the scoping, preparation, and 6 coordination with USGS and Dr. Henry on the aquifer 7 report. 8 MR. DYSART: Who will invite the USGS and 9 Dr. Henry? 10 MS. McINTOSH: I can do that. 11 MR. DYSART: Patty will take care of that. 12 Okay. Patty and Sam's cards are up. 13 MS. McINTOSH: Dan, one of the things you just 14 said to Chris was that you would like questions 15 asked specifically that address what's in the 16 report. 17 I asked for that report a month ago, and was 18 told it would be sent to me. We can't -- I mean -- 19 ask those questions without the report. 20 MR. PARROTT: USGS person -- people should be 21 able to provide those questions. 22 MS. McINTOSH: I asked Card Smith for the 23 report. It hasn't been given to me yet. 24 MR. PARROTT: I was in Costa Rica the last two 25 weeks. I'll check on that when I get back. 153 1 2 MR. BREWTON: It's in the transcript of the 3 last meeting where you and I, I guess some others 4 asked for that. The Corps said they would get them 5 to us. 6 MS. McINTOSH: I subsequently talked to Card. 7 He said there was some difficulty in getting copies 8 of the report to give out. I was wondering what 9 was the status of the report; is it available? 10 MR. PARROTT: My understanding is yes, it is 11 available. Card was working on preparing it. It 12 is a multi-colored fold-out paper. He was in the 13 process of getting done with it when I was left 14 for Costa Rica. I'll check on it when I get back. 15 MR. DYSART: Sam. 16 MR. DRAKE: Item FF on the Farm-o-Gram, 17 impacts on adjacent South Carolina properties, and 18 Mr. Robbie Harrison, who is a landowner in South 19 Carolina of Fife Plantation, has asked for an 20 opportunity to come and address the SEG on some of 21 his concerns, and some of the impacts to his 22 property. 23 So I leave it up to Teri Leffek. If she could 24 find out, maybe May would be a good date, on that 25 particular meeting, if we can get included on the 154 1 2 agenda, I think we need to hear from him. 3 MR. DYSART: Teri has acknowledged and will 4 follow-up on that. Chris. 5 MR. SCHUBERTH: Let me just respond to Dan. 6 I'm not questioning the report. I just would like, 7 since this report was published what -- three years 8 ago? 9 MR. PARROTT: '98. 10 MR. SCHUBERTH: Two years ago. 11 MR. PARROTT: May of '98 when the draft was 12 reported, concluded, and included as part of the 13 study. 14 MR. SCHUBERTH: I do think there simply should 15 be a presentation, even though it's 100% correct. 16 MR. PARROTT: I'm sorry. 17 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think the SEG should have 18 discussion or presentation, even though I will 19 assume that that report is 100% correct. 20 MR. PARROTT: The point of my question, and 21 the question from Patty, the people of USGS have 22 questions, and it would help us a lot if the 23 presentation could be geared toward answering those 24 questions. 25 If they are available, if there are questions 155 1 2 about the report, we'd love to hear specific 3 questions regarding the scope, evaluation, anything 4 about it, so we can answer those. 5 MR. SCHUBERTH: I'll sit with Patty and work 6 on that. 7 MR. PARROTT: We can have a whole long 8 discussion, find out what we didn't answer about 9 the question and didn't have the data to answer 10 about the question. 11 MR. DYSART: Rob Mikell. 12 MR. MIKELL: Is the report on the status of 13 all the studies still on the agenda for next month? 14 MR. DYSART: Yes. Bill Bailey reported on the 15 committee chairs that got together and had 16 discussion on that. They will bring in the report 17 with action items, recommendations, so forth for 18 discussion next time. Presumably, you have 19 something to post before the next meeting, Bill on 20 the web site? 21 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure. We'll try. 22 MR. DYSART: We have a few other items that 23 look like they were not acted on. We rolled them 24 forward I noted. Are there other agenda items we 25 can wind up in the next few minutes, or do you want 156 1 2 to take break? 3 (Short Break) 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. It's 12:40. We're going to 5 reconvene and let's finish the agenda preparation. 6 What else do we have? Teri was going to follow-up 7 with Robbie. That was the last item. What other 8 items do you have to add to the agenda? 9 MR. BREWTON: I have a question about the 10 whole issue of the additional storm surge water 11 that Chuck Watson touched on in his presentation 12 there. 13 I don't have an answer to this right now, but 14 I think one of the things we ought to put on the 15 agenda is for the SEG to consider whether that is 16 an issue that needs to be more specifically 17 addressed. 18 MS. LEFFEK: We've dealt with that. 19 MR. BREWTON: While I was out of the room? 20 MS. McINTOSH: It's being added to the matrix. 21 MR. BREWTON: The other thing I have -- is Bo 22 still here? There he is. I wanted to go back -- 23 the first part was this issue about reviewing the 24 modeling, the grid, and so forth, but the second 25 part I wanted to touch on was the data collection 157 1 2 report that we were talking about. 3 I caught Bo by surprise there. He said he 4 didn't know what I was the talking about. We 5 actually had it on the agenda for at least two 6 months and postponed it. I was trying to pin down 7 a little bit more specifically where that is, what 8 the delay was, and when we might be able to have 9 that report on that? 10 MR. DYSART: That is a suggested agenda item 11 for May. 12 MR. ELLIS: For me to answer that, I mean, 13 MTRG, when we're going to finish that? 14 MR. BREWTON: I don't know. If you can answer 15 that now -- 16 MR. DYSART: Is this a question or proposed 17 agenda item? 18 MR. BREWTON: Well, it's a proposed agenda 19 item, subject to what Bo might tell us right now, 20 whether it is realistic or not. What I was 21 proposing was an agenda item to see if we could 22 have some report on the report. 23 MR. ELLIS: Like I said, two, three months. 24 We should comments from the MTRG. They will be 25 reported back to the SEG. Is that what you are 158 1 2 looking for? 3 MR. BREWTON: Has the draft report been 4 issued? 5 MR. ELLIS: No. 6 MR. BREWTON: Well, in February I understood 7 there was a draft report coming sometime later that 8 month. Has that bee postponed? 9 MR. ELLIS: We're working on a draft report. 10 MR. BREWTON: Has the scope changed or just 11 the time it's going to take preparing it? 12 MR. ELLIS: Just we're still working on it. 13 The scope hasn't changed at all. 14 MR. DYSART: Do you have anything to report in 15 May that's responsive to what Ben is talking about? 16 MR. ELLIS: I still don't understand. Does he 17 want a report of where we stand and what we plan to 18 do? 19 MR. BREWTON: Well, if we can't get the report 20 -- I will ask for this as an agenda item -- if we 21 can't get the data collection report, if it's not 22 ready, could we have a status report telling why 23 it's going to apparently take five or six months 24 longer than it was first projected, and did the 25 scope change, and sort of what the general status 159 1 2 of it is, and fill us in on that. 3 MR. DYSART: Status of the data collection 4 report. 5 MR. ELLIS: Okay. 6 MR. DYSART: Other agenda items proposed? 7 Seeing no cards up, no action behind me, or in 8 front of me, or what not; I would assume that we 9 have everything from the group here. If within the 10 next few days you have any other ideas, please 11 provide them to me by e-mail, and I will prepare a 12 draft agenda in the abbreviated format that we are 13 using today, and get it posted promptly. Anything 14 else -- anything else the madam court reporter 15 suggested that instead of having to go back and 16 review tapes and change records and so forth, like 17 we used to do a year or so ago when we started 18 creating the backlog, she suggested Patty would 19 simply restate what she wanted stated. It would be 20 in the record. It would be a whole lot easier than 21 everybody going back and forth, so forth. 22 MS. McINTOSH: Right now? 23 MR. DYSART: Yes. 24 MS. McINTOSH: I'd really like to see the 25 record before I do that. I also think it probably 160 1 2 was covered sufficiently by my statement of the 3 problem that would be in today's transcript. 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. I think it is certainly my 5 view we want things clarified on the record. 6 That's why a lot of money is being spent, so there 7 will be a legal record provided verbatim. We want 8 to make sure if anybody has anything on their mind 9 that is appropriate, drives accomplishment of 10 the mission of this body, it is on the record. So 11 thank you, Patty. Bill Farmer. 12 MR. FARMER: It should be noted we have 13 finished the agenda 10 minutes ahead of time. 14 MR. DYSART: So far. 15 MS. GAY: Motion to adjourn. 16 MR. FARMER: Move that we adjourn. 17 MR. DYSART: Anybody not live with that 18 recommendation. I make a declarative statement for 19 the record we have a consensus and will adjourn. 20 Thank you very much. 21 (Meeting concluded at 12:46 p.m.) 22 23 24 25 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C E R T I F I C A T E 162 1 2 G E O R G I A : 3 CHATHAM COUNTY: 4 I hereby certify that the foregoing 5 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 6 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 7 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 8 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 160 represent 9 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 10 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 11 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 12 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 13 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 14 anywise interested in the result of said case. 15 This, the 18th day of April, 2000. 16 17 18 ________________________ Kathleen Dore, Certified 19 Court Reporter, B-2041 20 21 22 23 24 25