1
1
2
3
4
5
6
STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP
7
8
MEETING
9
OF
10
OCTOBER 4, 2005
11
12
13
14
MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE MUSEUM
15
16
POOLER, GEORGIA
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
1
2
3
I N D E X
4
5 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS
---------- 3
6
7 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATIONS
8 By Joe Hoke
---------------------------- 8
9 By Steve Davie
------------------------- 10
10 By Chuck Watson
------------------------ 33
11
12
13 COMMITTEE REPORTS --------------------------
114
14
15 GENERAL DISCUSSION -------------------------
117
16
17
18 CERTIFICATE --------------------------------
138
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS
2
(THE REPORTER: I am appearing today on
3 behalf of my
employer, Tom Crites & Associates.
4 My office was
requested by Georgia Ports
5 Authority to provide
a court reporter today at
6 9:00 a.m. at this
address.
7
Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well
8 as at the
instructions of my employer, I wish
9 to disclose that,
other than accepting to serve
10 as your reporter, we
have not entered into any
11 other contractual
agreement with any party
12 involved in this
case.)
13
MR. DYSART: Good morning. Okay I'm Ben
14 Dysart, the SEG
facilitator. I'd like to
15 welcome y'all.
I see a lot of familiar faces
16 around here. I
see a few faces that aren't
17 totally regulars,
and I would like to suggest
18 that we introduce
ourselves, and indicate what
19 your affiliation is,
and any kind of
20 affiliation you want
to state is fine. And
21 madam court
reporter, you want to start off on
22 your forward
left. Start off, please, sir.
23
MR. HOKE: I'm Joe Hoke, hydraulic
24 engineer with the
Corps of Engineers in
25 Savannah
4
1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS
2
MR. DAVIE: Steven Davie with Tetra Tech,
3 and we're doing the
hydrodynamic and water
4 quality modelling for
the harbor.
5
MR. GARRETT: Alan Garrett, Project
6 Manager with Corps of
Engineers in Savannah.
7
MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Island Beach Task
8 force.
9
MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, citizen.
10
MR. THOMAS: Paul Thomas, EMD Chemicals
11
MR. BROWNELL: Press Brownell with the
12 Department of
Commerce, National Marine
13 Fisheries Service.
14
MS. WENDT: Priscilla Wendt, South
15 Carolina DNR, Marine
Resources Division.
16
MS. COLLINS-RAHN: Lucille Collins-Rahn,
17 Georgia Sierra
18
MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia
19 Sierra.
20
MR. FLEMING: Joel Fleming, Georgia DNR,
21 Fisheries.
22
MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of
23 Savannah, Savannah
Harbor Committee
24
MR. KYLER: Dave Kyler, Center for a
25 Sustainable Coast.
5
1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS
2
MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports
3 Authority.
4
MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for
5 GPA.
6
MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia
7 Ports Authority.
8
MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant for
9 GPA.
10
MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports
11 Authority.
12
MS. MAYLE: Mary Mayle, Savannah Morning
13 News.
14
MR. FLOCK: Allan Flock, US. Fish and
15 Wildlife Service,
Savannah Refuge.
16
MR. PRUSA: Tom Prusa, Refuge Manager,
17 Coastal Refuge in
Savannah.
18
MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife
19 service.
20
MR. BERSON: Will Berson, The Georgia
21 Conservancy.
22
MR. HALL: Carl Hall, georgia Wildlife
23 Federation.
24
MR. GRIFFIN: David Griffin, Georgia
25 Department of
Transportation.
6
1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS
2
MR. WRIGHT: Tom Wright, citizen.
3
MR. WATSON: Chuck Watson, Kinetics
4 Analysis Corporation.
5
MR. DYSART: Thank you. This is a very
6 nice group and I
welcome you all. You've all
7 had the opportunity
-- let's see. First of
8 all, I have the draft
agenda for this meeting.
9
It has been posted for a little while, and
10 here it is.
Take a quick look at it. If
11 there's anything
else that you would like to
12 put on the agenda,
please indicate now.
13
If there's anything you need moved around
14 or modified, feel
free. The custom and
15 tradition of this
body is that anyone has the
16 privilege of putting
an item on the agenda, any
17 interested party,
and presumably anyone who
18 walks in the door is
considered to be an
19 interested party.
20
So this is the input that I got from the
21 Interim Agenda
Committee, for the most part.
22 And if there's any
changes you want to make,
23 let me know.
If not, we'll consider this to be
24 the agenda we will
work on from this meeting.
25
Seeing no objections, we will accept this
7
1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS
2 as the agenda for the
meeting, and we will try
3 to get out of here by
no later than the --
4 1:00 o'clock.
5
You've had an opportunity to review the
6 transcript of July
meeting. Are there any
7 corrections or
clarifications for the record?
8 Seeing no requests
for corrections, we will
9 consider these, this
transcript as posted to be
10 a true record of the
July meeting.
11
Okay. Next, scientific briefings, and
12 things coming from
that. And the first request
13 was from, I got a
request from Tom Garrett, and
14 also the Interim
Agenda Committee relating to
15 model issues.
16
There were also other people who had
17 comments and so
forth on that. It appeared
18 that with at least
two items on here relating
19 to model update, we
would hopefully get covered
20 whatever people
wanted to cover. Tom, who
21 would like to speak.
22
MR. GARRETT: Start with Joe Hoke
23 initially, Joe and
Steve will talk about the
24 concerns that were
expressed last week
25 regarding the seven
year model run with the
8
1 PRESENTATION - HOKE
2 EFDC model. So
Joe, you guys tag team.
3
MR. HOKE: All right. I was at the
4 interim SEG meeting
which was that the August
5 or September -- I
think it was early September,
6 late August somewhere
back about a month ago.
7
We talked about this issue, and I was
8 asked to get back to
review panel, and also to
9 Chuck Watson over
here, who was the
10 subcontractor on the
report, and try to send
11 out the latest
information to everyone, see
12 whether there was
any kind of consensus reached
13 on the issue that
came up.
14
So I'm back now to present what's been
15 going on in the last
month. So just to review
16 the basic problem,
this is from the Kinetic
17 Analysis
Corporation, which is Chuck Watson,
18 the executive
summary from his report that's in
19 the -- it's the
appendix for the May 2005 Tetra
20 Tech modelling
report.
21
It says, even with stability problems, the
22 enhanced grid model
appears to present a
23 significant
improvement over the TMDL model,
24 has the potential to
become an extremely useful
25 tool in studying the
Lower Savannah River.
9
1 PRESENTATION - HOKE
2
However, the inability to conduct seven
3 year test runs is a
source of serious concern,
4 with respect to the
suitability of the model's
5 for predictive
purposes.
6
Therefore, Kinetic Analysis Corporation
7 does not recommend
the operational use of the
8 enhanced grid model
for predictive modelling of
9 bathymetric changes,
means deepening, until the
10 stability issues can
be resolved.
11
I guess there was a question that came up
12 -- well, Steve had
addressed the -- Steve Davie
13 had addressed the
last meeting here, and there
14 was some concern
about why he didn't -- why he
15 didn't mention this
part of the KEC executive
16 summary that they
don't recommend.
17
So we go on to the next slide here, this
18 is from the model,
this is from the June 2005
19 technical review
panel meeting.
20
And this is from the minutes of that
21 meeting. And
it says, the group concluded the
22 inability of the
model to run over the seven
23 year period of data
does not reflect on the
24 structure of the
model or its performance, and
25 it should not be a
consideration of the models
10
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 usefulness, or its
intended purposes of
3 predicting the
impacts of the Savannah Harbor
4 Expansion Project,
like developing a TMDL or
5 permitting point
source discharges.
6
So that was from the review panel. The
7 review panel includes
EPA, US Geological
8 Survey, US Fish and
Wildlife, and both the
9 States of Georgia and
South Carolina, the
10 Harbor Committee --
Bob.
11
So this is the Tetra Tech response to the
12 question, and they
performed some stability and
13 mass balance tests,
and presented that to the
14 technical review
group, and researched the --
15 why the problem was
occurring.
16
It appears to not to be a stability issue
17 with the
model. It's actual reality. There
18 are, somewhere in
the back or little back
19 river, one of the
cells in the model goes dry
20 during the run.
21
The model is not designed to run without
22 the water
everywhere, so it does what you then
23 expect it to, it
ceases to run at that point.
24 That's what occurred
in December of 2000.
25
MR. DAVIE: There are some models that
11
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 do wetting and
drying, where they would
3 actually let the
cells go dry, and EFDC has the
4 ability to do it, but
we don't have it
5 configured.
6
It takes a -- it would be an exponential
7 amount of time to run
that. It takes the model
8 a lot longer to run
that, the calculations
9 through it, so we've
elected not to do that.
10
MR. HOKE: One of the other things is
11 because it's paired
with the WASP model, the
12 WASP is not able to
dry either, so that is over
13 the riding.
14
So to come back through the EFDC model
15 here, the model
failed to run through the full
16 seven years because
there's not enough water
17 in the little back
river.
18
The high tide on December 17th of 2000 was
19 only four feet,
which is a very usually low
20 tide -- on December
19th, I'm sorry, it was a
21 low high tide, and
on the December 19th minus
22 two was an extremely
low low tide.
23
At the same time, we also had the worst of
24 the drought that was
going on, so we had the
25 lowest inflows
coming down from Clyo.
12
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2
Now, the TMDL grid was able to run through
3 that period because
the cells in that area were
4 deeper. For
this model we had a superior
5 bathymetry. The
USGS has done more recent
6 surveys, and we have
better and more realistic
7 data in that area.
8
So that would explain why it ran in the
9 initial larger grid
model, but did not run
10 through this
enhanced grid model.
11
MR. DAVIE: That area back around the
12 wildlife refuge, we
didn't have a lot of good
13 bathymetry data, so
some of it was our best
14 judgment.
15
Some of it was being in the field and
16 having some kind of
spotted field measurements.
17 When the Corps
contracted with USGS to do a
18 survey of the back
river, little back river,
19 middle river,
basically that entire area
20 adjacent to the
refuge, the little back and
21 back rivers were
much shallower than expected
22 -- not really
expected, but shallower than what
23 we actually had in
our TMDL model. So we
24 altered that and
used the 2004 data set,
25 because that was the
most up-to-date.
13
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2
MR. HOKE: So we go back and look at the
3 water surface
elevation data, in other words
4 the tidal boundary
that we were using; this is
5 the ocean boundary.
6
And initially, it was felt that there was
7 some discussion there
was a gap in the data
8 during that time
period, that the gauge may
9 have failed and there
was not real data during
10 that time period,
but USGS went back and took a
11 look at it and found
out that it was real data.
12
So then the next thing, Tetra Tech went
13 and looked at the
gauge down at St. Simons and
14 compared the two to
see -- to make another
15 attempt to verify
the event that it was
16 something real that
happened, and not just some
17 anomaly of the gauge
on the Savannah River.
18
So they compared the two gauges and found
19 the correlation, so
it looks like it was real
20 data that was used
in the boundary. This is --
21 this shows the data
from St. Simons, and
22 illustrates the two
points I was talking about
23 earlier.
24
That's the very low high tide there on the
25 17th of
December. It's only four feet. Then
14
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 down here on the 19th
of December, we have the
3 extremely low low
tide at minus two.
4
So it's a very unusual combination. We
5 expect that to be a
wind driven event. It was
6 beyond the normal
predictive tide cycle.
7
MR. DAVIE: We were looking to see if
8 there was some
meteorological event, like a
9 hurricane more
recently or something, but the
10 best we could find
is there was a series of
11 high pressure events
that were offshore. It
12 had to do with
something related to that.
13
You know, what happens there on December
14 17th is usually the
high tides, especially
15 during the spring
tide which is what was
16 occurring during
this time, the high tides are
17 six to eight feet,
so all that water is going
18 in the system.
19
On that particular day, we only had four
20 feet, so all that
volume of water did not move
21 into the Savannah
Harbor system, and then two
22 days later, we got a
low dip.
23
So basically, the upper part of the model,
24 the little back
river, just went dry. And
25 that's why I put in
the text there, it's a
15
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 realty issue that it
was really dry there.
3 It's not a function
of the model or model
4 stability that it's a
real phenomenon.
5
MR. HOKE: This assumes a little bit on
6 the same time period,
so you can see -- see two
7 points a little bit
better. This again is St.
8 Simons. It was
almost identical to what was
9 recorded at Ft.
Pulaski.
10
So the approach that Tetra Tech took to
11 run the model over
the seven years was to
12 adjust that water
level data, during those two
13 days. So they
modified 10 out of a little over
14 245,000 data points,
which is less than .004%.
15
The rationale behind adjusting the tidal
16 boundary was that
it's not a critical period
17 for modelling
scenarios. Of all the periods
18 we're looking at,
for the analysis of the
19 deepening scenarios,
none of them go through
20 the December 2000,
so we knew we wouldn't be
21 reusing this period
in the future for the
22 analysis.
23
We were looking at the -- Fisheries, we
24 were focusing on, I
think it was January,
25 March, April and
August are the primary
16
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 Fisheries
concerns. And the dissolved oxygen
3 is primarily through
the summer months.
4
We also have some year long runs in 1999,
5 but this particular
period is not an issue for
6 future comparisons.
7
So with that slight modification, it does
8 run for the full
seven years without going dry.
9 So the model is still
stable and the review
10 group felt that it
was a useful tool.
11
And this shows the change that was made to
12 the boundary
condition, on those two dates, to
13 get it to run.
The dark blue is the recorded
14 data, and the pink
color shows the -- what was
15 actually used in the
-- to get it to run for
16 seven years.
17
MR. DAVIE: We didn't alter the really low
18 tide on the
17th. We just altered the low low
19 tide on the 19th,
and then we made a slight
20 adjustment later on
on the 22nd.
21
The total correction was only 10 data
22 points. This
is 15 minute data out of seven
23 years. So it's
-- it's a very minor issue. I
24 also want to make, I
guess, a statement that
25 this is most
discussion that we've had about
17
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 this issue over the
past year of doing the
3 modelling.
4
We've had many technical review meetings.
5 we've got the Corps
running the model.
6 Obviously, Chuck has
been running the model.
7 The State of South
Carolina, Wade Cantrell has
8 been running the
model. Paul Conrads has run
9 the model -- whom am
I leaving out.
10
Anyway, there's a lot of people running
11 the model, and there
are issues. There are
12 still some issues we
need to address for the
13 model. This is
very low priority, and we
14 haven't even had
this lengthy discussion with
15 the technical review
group.
16
So, you know, I'm here just to state the
17 facts.
Hopefully, a bigger issue of this is
18 not made, but that's
why we're here.
19
EPA is -- Jim Greenfield has been running
20 the model -- Jim
Greenfield ran the TMDL model
21 and this model, so I
just wanted to make that
22 statement.
23
MR. HOKE: So as the interim committee
24 requested, we sent
all this information that
25 you just saw on
those slides back out to the
18
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 technical reviewers,
so some of the comments we
3 got back, Jim
Greenfield from EPA said that
4 probably one day out
of seven years was not a
5 big deal. Ed
Eudaly --
6
MR. DAVIE: You have got to read the rest
7 of it, we were
spending too much resources even
8 considering that a
so-called issue.
9
MR. HOKE: Ed Eudaly said the interagency
10 remains as stated in
their letter. They had
11 already considered
that, when they made their
12 comments. He
just wanted to make sure that we
13 were addressing
their concern in the final
14 report, which Tetra
Tech is working on now
15 addressing the
comments that we got from the
16 technical reviewers.
17
Paul Conrads, he also had just reiterated
18 his comments that he
had sent in previously
19 that concurred with
Ed's e-mail. This is from
20 Georgia EPD.
It says their position is still
21 the same as they had
said back -- they still
22 concurred with the
June 20 review meeting
23 minutes.
24
MR. DAVIE: That was a technical review
25 meeting.
19
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2
MR. HOKE: The reviewers did not believe
3 the uncertainty
report issues, with the seven
4 year simulation, were
a significant concern.
5
And then South Carolina DHEC, Wade
6 cantrell, he said he
does not think it has to
7 run through the
December 2000 period to be
8 useful for evaluating
impacts. But he does
9 think it does need to
be explained and kept in
10 mind.
11
MR. DAVIE: This goes back to the last SEG
12 meeting, which was
July, when I gave an update
13 and Joe gave an
update on the reviewers'
14 comments. We
produced a final modelling
15 report, and we have
a collection of comments --
16 there's 12 comments
that were addressing and
17 we're resolving with
the reviewers, before we
18 send out the final
final reports.
19
Of those 12 comments, we had categorized
20 those as A, B, C or
D. I gave an update of
21 that on at the last
meeting.
22
Wade's referring here that, keep it in
23 mind or it needs to
be explained as one of
24 those
categories. We're writing that up. That
25 will ultimately
become part of the final
20
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 report.
3
MR. HOKE: That's where we stand on that
4 issue. We have
some examples of the EFDC
5 post-processor.
We probably ought to break
6 here and make sure we
complete all the
7 questions on this,
and also get Chuck's input
8 on his position on
this, and come back to this
9 part in a few
minutes. So we keep -- keep
10 things in order.
11
MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia Wildlife
12 Federation.
Approximately what period were the
13 original depth data
you were using in the
14 model, what time
frame was that?
15
MR. DAVIE: It varied. Most of it came
16 off the NOAA
navigational charts, so as stated
17 on there, it could
be 1970, 1980 in the overlap
18 surveys.
19
We used some cross-sections when ATM did
20 the study back in
'99, they did some flow
21 transects under the
port authority field data
22 collection, so we
had some select transects.
23
MR. HALL: That process was still
24 changing, but I was
still the original
25 supervisor with
DNR. We were concerned that
21
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 the back river, you
know, was still silting in
3 some, because when
the tide gate was put in in
4 the early 70s, when
that new cut coming in off
5 the main channel of
the back river was put in,
6 theoretically to
flush more water down the
7 little back river,
and the little back river
8 was dredged about a
third of the way down, it
9 only took one year to
fill right back in.
10
Of course now, with that little water
11 coming through there
draining off, I think we
12 know that you don't
have a main river going
13 through there.
14
It's better to have probably silting less
15 at a dead end,
before it's cut. It's still
16 silting in.
That's our concern, especially
17 construction of the
tide gate structure, and
18 something has to
account, you know, for the
19 fact that once we
finally got big spawning
20 striped bass and
brood fish, you know, they are
21 staging and doing
their thing back there right
22 up to the time it's
time to release their eggs,
23 and now they
leave. They don't spawn there
24 anymore.
25
It's probably a velocity and depth issue.
22
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 That's been our main
concern for a long time,
3 the depth change,
that's changing a lot, I
4 think, since that
main channel, water channel
5 off of the main river
was put in.
6
MR. DAVIE: We understand that too. What
7 I didn't want to do
was make to conclusions off
8 our older data versus
the 2004 survey, because
9 a lot of that was
patched together. Some of it
10 was judgment, you
know.
11
We had one cross-section here and one
12 cross-section
here. We had to do some judgment
13 in between.
But the 2004 survey that USGS did
14 for the Corps was
extensive.
15
It started at the tide gate and went up,
16 it started at the
middle river and went up, it
17 started at Houlihan
Bridge and went up.
18
I think they did transects every 500 feet.
19 They also ran
longitudinal transects going down
20 the middle of the
river and going down the
21 sides. We have
a great data set in 2004.
22
MR. HALL: I'm glad that's in there
23 because I've been
worried all along about
24 maybe things are
changing faster than we
25 realize, over the
last 30 years, in that little
23
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 back river.
3
MR. DAVIE: Sure has been a lot of changes
4 -- Rifle Cut.
5
MR. HALL: Or the whole back river.
6
MR. HOKE: I don't want to make it sound
7 like we're being
critical of Chuck's work. He
8 provided a lot of
information that was useful
9 in improving the
model. This one point here we
10 have a little
disagreement over, the relative
11 importance of it.
12
We certainly all agree that the model is
13 not perfect, but you
never get a model to
14 perfection.
The question is is just whether it
15 is an acceptable
level to be useful for our
16 comparison that
we're doing right now, and we
17 think that it is.
18
MR. HALL: I'm just glad maybe it's good
19 to happen.
It's really accented the issue for
20 the depth
changes. It's sort of been hard to
21 put our finger on,
over the years, with some
22 Corps studies,
whatever.
23
MR. DAVIE: Chuck, I think, will probably
24 mention, Chuck gave
us several comments along
25 the way.
24
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2
A lot of them we agreed with and we took
3 in and it definitely
made the model better. I
4 said that at the July
meeting, that KEC's work
5 definitely made our
modelling work better.
6
There's some issues we had disagreements
7 with, like Joe said,
I think some we felt like
8 were less important,
some were more important.
9
This came up before it's not a new issue.
10 You know, Chuck had
looked into it before, and
11 one of Chuck's
comment was, at the time we did
12 agree with, Chuck
said we shouldn't go modify
13 the boundary.
14
You know, if the model's crashing and
15 there's a real
reason why it's crashing, we
16 shouldn't go out and
modify the boundary. At
17 the time, we agreed
with that, and so instead
18 of forcing the model
to try and run seven years
19 or the worst case
would be going into the
20 little back, and
deepening the little back just
21 to get the model run.
22
We didn't feel like that was the right
23 thing to do
either. We left the bathymetry as
24 it is, instead of
forcing it to run seven
25 years, we broke it
up. We ran a three year
25
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 period and a three
year period, and we just
3 basically skipped it.
4
Now that this issue is being discussed at
5 the SEG, and I've
heard there's a lot of
6 comments going back
and forth, I said it's
7 really a minor
issue. When you look at it in
8 this context, I'm now
okay -- I guess I changed
9 my opinion here, I'm
now okay modifying it for
10 these few data
points to run for seven years.
11
Whether we change this, or leave it the
12 way we had it in the
report, makes no bearing
13 on the calibration
and the usefulness of the
14 model, but if the
seven year run is an issue,
15 that's being
discussed today, and I guess
16 discussed over the
past few weeks, we can get
17 the model to run for
seven years.
18
It doesn't take away from the validity of
19 the work. So I
think, with that, I guess we
20 can take
questions. I know Chuck probably --
21
MS. JENNINGS: Just a couple, if you'll
22 indulge me just a
minute.
23
MR. DYSART: Does the body want to have
24 this discussion or
do you want hear from
25 Mr. Watson.
What is the pleasure of the body?
26
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 Go ahead, Judy.
3
MS. JENNINGS: I'm not going to able to
4 absorb a lot.
I'm sorry. I just wasn't fast
5 enough to pick it
up. What was the Fish and
6 Wildlife Service's
comment? Go back to that
7 slide.
8
MR. DAVIE: There was Actually two,
9 because Paul Conrads,
I think, is helping Fish
10 and Wildlife review
the model. There's the one
11 from Fish and
Wildlife, Ed Eudaly.
12
MR. HOKE: Probably better to get it from
13 the horse's mouth
over there.
14
MR. EUDALY: Well, what's the question?
15
MS. JENNINGS: It just went past me too
16 fast. No
question, I just wanted to see it
17 again.
18
MR. DAVIE: Paul Conrads follow up to
19 Ed's comment was the
seven year issue is not a
20 concern, but the
issue that were stated before,
21 that are documented
in the meeting notes and
22 the comments on the
model, those are still a
23 concern and issue
for Fish and Wildlife
24 Service. Those
are being addressed through our
25 responses to their
comments.
27
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2
MR. EUDALY: Probably the most important
3 -- well, one thing is
summarize, it's pretty
4 summarized there, but
we don't think that the
5 seven year problem is
a major issue.
6
But we still have a number of concerns
7 that are being
addressed. We anticipate those
8 will be addressed in
the final report and
9 resolved. A lot
of those deal with the tidal
10 dynamics in the back
and middle and the front
11 river to some extent.
12
There's some other sensitivity issues, but
13 what we want to see
is all those issues we
14 brought with USGS
addressed in the final
15 report. We're
hopeful those -- all those
16 questions will be
adequately answered at that
17 time.
18
MS. JENNINGS: I didn't have an issue. I
19 couldn't read it
that fast. Also about the low
20 tide, the negative
two, help me understand. I
21 mean, it's
dry. How can it be negative two
22 dry?
23
MR. WATSON: I have a point on that.
24
MR. DAVIE: Sure.
25
MR. WATSON: That particular period was,
28
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 again, you mentioned
there was a high pressure
3 system. It was
a prolonged period of offshore
4 winds, so this gets
to one of the problems and
5 one of the data
contentions that I have that
6 we can discuss.
7
In effect, what you are doing, and Steve
8 correct me on this if
I'm wrong, as I
9 understand, you're
taking the readings at the
10 Ft. Pulaski gauge
and applying those as your
11 offshore boundary
condition.
12
MR. DAVIE: Correct.
13
MR. WATSON: That's not, for extreme
14 events in
particular, that's a risky thing to
15 do. I
mentioned it in some of comments I'd
16 mentioned about the
hurricane modelling.
17
What you have got is a near shore area.
18 Wind forces and wind
stresses introduce
19 currents into the
water, and so that's one --
20 one of the reasons
why you had the modelling
21 aborted at that
point.
22
I think because you've got a boundary
23 conflict, in
essence, and that you're applying
24 a near shore
condition to an offshore boundary,
25 it's probably
exaggerating the tidal boundary
29
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 conditions on the
offshore side. That may have
3 gone over some
peoples' heads, but --
4
MR. DAVIE: I think I agree with part of
5 that. I mean,
our ultimate test is how well
6 we're comparing at
Ft. Pulaski, and during that
7 time it compared well.
8
Your comment, you know, the winds and any
9 offshore --
10
MR. WATSON: It wasn't the tidal forcing
11 issue, it was
offshore -- and Judy, this wasn't
12 the tides were that
low. If you look at the
13 astronomical tides
offshore, you would not have
14 seen that low low --
or the low high or the low
15 low, it would have
been a normal tide offshore.
16
The problem was you had wind blowing water
17 near the shore
offshore. That only happens in
18 shallow water.
Once get out 100, 150 feet, the
19 wind stresses aren't
really influencing the
20 water levels.
21
So if you had gone to the beach that day,
22 you would have had a
lot more beach, because
23 the water level was
lower. The wind was
24 blowing the water
out. But if you had gone a
25 couple of miles
offshore, it would have been
30
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 your depth reading,
normal depth offshore.
3
So it was a near shore condition. That's
4 where you get into a
little bit of a problem
5 forcing an offshore
boundary with a near shore
6 reading.
7
MS. JENNINGS: My last question was that
8 since it wasn't --
you know, since you -- it
9 could be configured
for wet and dry, but it was
10 too much time to do
it, time consuming, too
11 expensive, something
like that; is that what I
12 understand?
13
MR. DAVIE: Time consuming as far as model
14 run time.
15
MS. JENNINGS: It means too expensive?
16
MR. DAVIE: Not necessarily. It's
17 logistical. We
were given -- the whole idea
18 was to transfer the
model to the Corps and the
19 federal and state
agencies. We worked with
20 them enough to know
their limitations and what
21 they can run and
what they can't.
22
When you give a model to Georgia EPD, it
23 has -- it takes a
week to run, logistically
24 they are most likely
not going to be running
25 the model.
31
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2
MS. JENNINGS: Having said that, with
3 those 6,000 cells
even from day one, you
4 realized that if one
of them went dry the model
5 would not run through
it. Would you have been
6 -- have been able to
say that before that data
7 occurred?
8
MR. DAVIE: What was the question?
9
MS. JENNINGS: Since it's not configured
10 to handle dry, even
before the event happened
11 on the 17th or 20th,
you would anticipate the
12 model, if you
encountered the dry cell
13 somewhere along the
6,000, you always knew it
14 wouldn't go through
that?
15
MR. DAVIE: You have to remember the whole
16 point of our
modelling work is to predict, and
17 to summarize in one
sentence would be to
18 predict salinity and
dissolved oxygen changes
19 to whatever, to
deepening, to point source
20 changes, whatever.
21
If there's no water there, we don't have
22 salinity and we
don't have DO. So we're not
23 modelling dry
marsh. We're not modelling dry
24 riverbeds.
We're modelling water.
25
So the goal and the purpose is to model
32
1 PRESENTATION - DAVIE
2 water where the water
is. I don't know if I
3 answered that.
4
MR. HOKE: I think the short answer to her
5 question is yes.
6
MS. JENNINGS: I think that is it.
7
MR. DAVIE: What he said.
8
MS. JENNINGS: What he said. Okay.
9
MR. DYSART: Has the Corps' -- you're
10 through with your
presentation?
11
MR. HOKE: On this piece of it, yes.
12
MR. DYSART: Okay. Let me clarify. Is
13 Mr. Watson here as
part of your presentation,
14 you keep referring
to him, that he will be
15 speaking; so is he
part of your presentation
16 or --
17
MR. HOKE: I think he was requested to
18 come and also to
expand on his comments that he
19 was making.
20
MR. DYSART: Okay. Fine. Continue.
21
MR. DAVIE: I just have -- at the last SEG
22 meeting, I talked
about this post-processer,
23 how we're going to
start looking at the model
24 results. I
brought some examples, four or five
25 slides, but it's not
related to this topic
33
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 we're discussing here.
3
MR. DYSART: Go ahead.
4
MR. HOKE: Do you want us to proceed into
5 this next topic, or
do you want --
6
MR. DAVIE: Ask Chuck if he has more.
7
MR. WATSON: I'd like to run through a few
8 slides real quick,
just to kind of explain in a
9 little more detail
the stuff I sent you guys.
10
MR. DYSART: Okay. Then we would like to
11 hear from Chuck
Watson, please. Do you want
12 the lights off,
Chuck?
13
MR. WATSON: Yes, please. I think this is
14 called a smoke check
was the technical term. I
15 guess a couple of
quick points, I haven't seen
16 some of the -- I
haven't seen a lot of the
17 agency responses on
the e-mail traffic on this.
18
I guess I wasn't in that loop. I guess
19 one issue that --
one of the issues is this
20 simulated versus
real data. I think it's
21 actually an
important one. This discussion of
22 boundary conditions,
I know that gets a little
23 bit technical, but I
think it does go to --
24 there's an odd --
Steven and I have talked
25 about this.
34
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2
There's sort of an odd dichotomy here in
3 that we have a lot of
data on the Savannah
4 River, and on this
particular there was some
5 very intense data
collection period.
6
Then when we look at it, there's also some
7 things that we wish
had. You normally have
8 that in any
environment, but this one seems so
9 strange because we
have a lot of data, it's
10 just at least from
my perspective, it's not
11 always at the times
and places I'd like to see
12 that data.
13
So when you design a data collection
14 exercise to validate
a model, ordinarily at
15 least the way I like
to do it is where you run
16 the two
hand-in-hand, so that you're using the
17 model to drive your
data collection and vice
18 versa, the data
collection can drive the model.
19
I think things were a little bit out of
20 sync with this
particular exercise. If Steve
21 wants to agree or
disagree with that, I guess
22 -- but again, from
my perspective, -- let's see
23 here.
24
This is why you never want to do -- okay.
25 Basically, I'd like
to run through my slide set
35
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 real quickly here,
just to kind of review some
3 of the conclusions
from the A Team A report
4 that Joe summarized
in the executive summary.
5
We had an e-mail exchange on the 21st to
6 23rd, and just some
of my comments on that, and
7 finally just to
summarize where I stand on the
8 model, for what's
that worth, and then some
9 conclusions,
recommendations.
10
Again, what's in the green font is what
11 were excerpts from
the A Team A report. I
12 think this is an
important point. The crashes
13 at the end of 2000,
we entered that -- this was
14 a very painful
process. We were going back and
15 forth trying to
figure out what was going on
16 with that, because
some configurations were
17 aborting, some of
them weren't, even trying
18 different compilers
on different computers, I
19 primarily used the
Lenix (phonetic) operating
20 system and the Intel
compilers, Intel brand
21 compilers. You
guys were using --
22
MR. DAVIE: AbSoft.
23
MR. WATSON: -- AbSoft on the Microsoft
24 Windows program, and
we were trying to figure
25 out, is this a
compiler issue.
36
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2
The program -- the EFDC computer model
3 code is written in
Fortunegram, and so you have
4 to use a compiler to
translate that text, for
5 tran language into
something a particular
6 computer can execute.
7
So there shouldn't be any difference.
8 You'll see minor --
with a complex computer
9 model, you get minor
roundoff errors. I do a
10 lot of climate
models. Even if you run a
11 climate model for
six months, on the same
12 computer twice, you
get two different
13 answers because of
literally cosmic rays going
14 through the computer
changing bits.
15
So people tend to think, ah, you run a
16 computer, you get
the same answer everytime.
17 That's not always
true. Subtle things can
18 influence it.
Hopefully, if you do five plus
19 five you get 10, but
when you are talking about
20 integrating of
complex differential equations,
21 over long periods of
time, sometimes you don't
22 get identical
answers.
23
What you want is to get answers that are
24 very close together,
what we call roundoff
25 error -- a little
lesson in computer science.
37
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2
This is the one point I wanted to
3 highlight is that
because we spent so much time
4 and effort trying to
figure out, and I would
5 agree the comment, we
probably a spent a lot
6 more resources on
looking at this December of
7 2000 issue than maybe
we should have, but it
8 boiled down to I
wasn't able to run the full
9 suite of uncertainty
analysis routines that we
10 did on the TMDL
model.
11
I do want to emphasis this, that the
12 enhanced grid model
for the test that we did
13 run, it looked good.
14
There were some things that because of
15 again this, we're
nervous about. I do want to
16 emphasize,
basically, the decreased uncertainty
17 from the TMDL grid.
18
The problem was when we tried some of the
19 other runs, one of
the things we do is called a
20 perturbation
analysis, where we take the grid
21 and randomly make
very small changes to the
22 bathymetry to see
how that changes the model.
23
We were unable to successfully complete a
24 lot of those
runs. Those crashed or aborted at
25 times other than
December 2000.
38
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2
So our final recommendation was it finally
3 came down to a time
and resource issue, as with
4 a lot of engineering
problems. You get into
5 this area of how --
you are never going to be
6 perfection, but is it
good enough is what it
7 boils down to.
8
A lot of time it's going to come down to
9 professional opinion
and professional
10 differences.
But again, this was my concern,
11 that we really
needed to understand this.
12 Again, as I said,
the report doubts will
13 remain as to
stability. I'm using stability in
14 probably a wider
context than Steve is.
15
I'm including grid configuration issues
16 and model
specification issues as part of that
17 stability
term. Again, e-mails, hopefully I'm
18 not misquoting here,
basically from his
19 presentation today,
is the grid cell going dry?
20
Now, the EFDC model can, in fact, handle
21 wetting and
drying. That is again, to be
22 clear, switched off
in order to support the
23 water quality
modelling. Now, that was a
24 design
decision. It's one we can agree or
25 disagree with.
I would tend to disagree.
39
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2
I understand the WASP in raw form can't
3 handle wetting and
drying. I think there are
4 some things you can
do. Again, it boils down
5 is it important to do
and do you spend the time
6 and money to do it.
7
I know a lot of people want to take the
8 very pure scientific
standpoint of you do
9 everything you can,
but at some point you do
10 have to make
decisions; is the particular
11 approach or
methodology good enough or not?
12
It is going to boil down to the opinion,
13 the professional
opinion in a lot of cases.
14 Again, I want to
emphasis I think Tetra Tech
15 did a good job,
within the time resource
16 constraints.
17
They basically started and developed an
18 entirely new grid,
implemented it, and got it
19 running in what --
six months. That's a fair
20 amount of effort for
this type of project.
21
My contention, after seeing the exchanges
22 I saw in looking at
the new information, I
23 still stand by the A
Team A report. I think we
24 need to look not
just at the December 2000
25 issues, but at some
of these wider issues it
40
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 raised.
3
I think I would put it into three broad
4 categories. The
first is I'm going to call it
5 grid stability.
I think December 2000, it's
6 more of an issue --
you did have a series of
7 events combined.
8
One thing I wanted to double check when we
9 talked about this in
May, you guys did not look
10 at the CFL
diagnostics in the model; have you
11 had a chance to look
at that?
12
MR. DAVIE: What now?
13
MR. WATSON: The CFL diagnostics in the
14 model outputs.
I know it was switched off --
15
MR. DAVIE: I'm not sure.
16
MR. WATSON: That was an area -- I know
17 towards the end we
briefly exchanged some
18 e-mails. For
those of you that were asleep
19 during your six
quarters of calculus that
20 didn't hear about
the Courant Fredrich Levy
21 (phonetic)
condition, it's an equation that
22 when you do -- when
you solve differential
23 equations, it's a
term you use to assess
24 whether your grid is
stable.
25
It relates to how fast changes propagate
41
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 between grid
cells. The model -- EFDC is
3 pretty neat in that
it has -- you can turn on
4 an output that for
every time step it is
5 generating a layer
which shows you whether or
6 not -- how close the
grid cells are to
7 violating that
condition.
8
If you violate that condition, that means
9 you are getting
numerically inaccurate results.
10 What concerned me
was it was getting close to
11 violations in that
back river area.
12
And it's interesting that area keeps
13 coming up. The
rest of the grid was fine.
14 That back river
area, it kept flirting with
15 exceeding CFL.
16
Normally, this may not be much --
17 normally, you don't
want to go up to 80% CFL.
18 It would get up to
90, 95% in places.
19
MR. DAVIE: Because it's so shallow.
20
MR. WATSON: Because it's so shallow. I
21 think the other
issue were the weirs (phonetic)
22 that you put into
the marshes. In order to
23 keep the marshes
from going dry, what Tetra
24 Tech did was -- a
weir is basically like a
25 little speed bump
that keeps the water from
42
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 completely draining
out of the marsh.
3
As the levels dropped, and you get close
4 to the top to those
weirs, it gets shallow
5 crossing. Flow
rates tend to get a wild
6 fluctuations,
basically, as get near that, and
7 before it goes below
that level and stabilizes.
8
I suspect that was happening. So the
9 question is is that
influencing your numerical
10 results?
11
The bottom line is we don't know. We
12 didn't have time to
look at it and test it.
13 The marsh depiction,
that's that second point,
14 the marsh storage
and release. I've got a
15 slide on that.
16
Extreme event, I looked at the surge
17 report. I had
some concerns about it. That
18 was something that I
didn't get to look at,
19 that had not been
done at the time of the --
20 again, I think this
kind of hits that stability
21 grid configuration.
22
I mentioned this is the exercise from the
23 report. We
were able to run a lot of
24 scenarios. The
TMDL was basically a tank. We
25 did all kinds of
stuff, in fact, tried to make
43
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 it crash. And
it didn't crash on any of the
3 runs.
4
It was a very well-structured, stable,
5 grid. The
uncertainty in it wasn't as good as
6 we would like to have
seen, but it was a very
7 stable, very robust
configuration.
8
The enhanced grid was not nearly so
9 robust. Again,
it failed the perturbation
10 analyses, some of
the other runs when we
11 changed bottom
friction.
12
Rather than completing the run and
13 producing a result,
it would abort. So that's
14 not necessarily a
bad thing, because sometimes
15 a very accurate
model will be a very sensitive
16 model.
17
But what made me nervous about it was when
18 you combined this
with the December 2000.
19 Again, as near as we
can tell, the boundary
20 conditions for
December 2000 were realistic.
21
The one caveat to that, and I think by
22 disagreeing with you
I'm helping your case
23 somewhat, you're
applying a near shore boundary
24 to offshore, and I
think it may be, in effect,
25 making an
unrealistic condition, but that's
44
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 getting into some of
the gory details.
3
Again, as I mentioned, the diagnostics
4 indicated some
marginal stability, again, low
5 flow
conditions. So that was a source of
6 concern for me.
7
MR. DAVIE: During the low flows on the
8 little back river, as
you guys, most of you
9 know, you can have a
foot or two of water back
10 there easily,
especially Rifle Cut.
11
MR. WATSON: Sure.
12
MR. DAVIE: I've been on Rifle Cut during
13 a low flow, during a
low tide, and a johnboat
14 will get stuck on a
stump. There's some
15 shallow areas.
Your point is it's been
16 shallowing over the
time.
17
MR. HALL: Above the tide gate,
18 historically, that
area was never shallow until
19 the tide gate was
operating.
20
MR. DAVIE: There are places on the middle
21 river you would get
stuck on a low spring,
22 spring is when you
get the wide ranges. During
23 the summertime,
you'll get stuck in the middle
24 river.
25
So Chuck and I, I think he said it best,
45
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 we have different
definitions of stability.
3 When the model
crashes, when you have got a
4 couple of inches of
water, you know, these
5 models aren't going
-- and I'm really talking
6 about the water
quality side.
7
When you look at the way the water quality
8 models work, and
you're doing a water quality
9 model on a couple
inches of water, you've got
10 reiterations and
fluctuations from the bed.
11 You've got all these
dynamics. They're not
12 designed --
13
MR. WATSON: Ordinarily what you do, you
14 have a cutoff
flow. Once the water level drops
15 below -- when you
use the moving boundary in
16 the water quality
model, when you get to a
17 certain point, you
cut off the water quality
18 side, let the
hydrodynamics take care of
19 wetting and
drying. And then when the water
20 returned, you use
whatever the characteristics
21 of the flow was from
the cell feeding that one
22 that then filled it
up.
23
So you can -- it is commonly done to have
24 water quality models
with moving boundaries.
25 It's just another
order of computational
46
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 complexity.
3
Again, you have to decide, do you need
4 that level of
complexity in order to simulate
5 the system that
you're looking at.
6
MR. DAVIE: Let me add one thing, it kind
7 of goes along with
Judy's point. We actually
8 did the wetting and
drying in the marsh cells
9 early on.
10
In the hydro model, everything seemed to
11 work. We
weren't that far along in the
12 modelling yet, but
everything seemed to be in
13 check and
working. We went to the water
14 quality, and we
started looking at DO, and some
15 of the parameters.
16
From the water quality, we were getting
17 results that were
not making sense. We were
18 getting dissolved
oxygen in the 30s, it was
19 because the water
quality was simulating on --
20
MR. WATSON: You were setting the cutoffs,
21 and how you do the
wetting and drying
22 interfaces that --
23
MR. DAVIE: That's why we were setting
24 weirs.
25
MR. WATSON: The tide phase is another
47
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 area that I
highlighted in the report. And
3 again, if you the
look errors, this is 01 line.
4 It's probably hard to
see. You see this
5 green bound, that's
the error.
6
This is the Fish and Wildlife station
7 dock, and this is on
the incoming tide. You've
8 got a pretty nice
symmetric area, a little bit
9 of a high bias.
That's very much an
10 acceptable.
11
This is salinity error. Then look at what
12 happens on the
outgoing tide. Your errors
13 explode. Now,
to me, that's indicative of,
14 again as I've said,
in the report one potential
15 source is marsh
depiction and storage.
16
This is -- there's other possibilities,
17 bottom roughness and
channel geometry. Channel
18 geometry, that's
important because that's
19 what's probably
causing some of the run aborts
20 in the back
river. And geometry is depth. Is
21 it real, is it a
facing problem, is it the
22 weirs triggering it?
23
Again, I think that you get into a lot of
24 these issues.
The extreme event --
25
MR. WRIGHT: Go back and explain the units
48
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 on the left side of
that chart to show how big
3 the error was, please?
4
MR. WATSON: Sure. That was in parts per
5 thousand.
6
MR. DAVIE: That's .1 PPT.
7
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. That's what I
8 wanted to know.
9
MR. DAVIE: .1 .2 PPT.
10
MR. WATSON: So it's going from minus 1
11 0 .1 .2 .3 .4
.5. Did that --
12
MR. WRIGHT: Yes, thank you.
13
MR. WATSON: When I saw the extreme event
14 modelling, my first
thought was whoa, this
15 methodology is
problematic. Again, this get to
16 possibly what is
triggering that December 2000
17 issue.
18
It's a wider issue with the modelling and
19 boundary condition,
and I know that using near
20 shore tide gauges,
and using that to force your
21 offshore boundary, I
think it's much more
22 common in the
engineering world than it is in
23 the particularly
meteorology/storm surge world.
24
I just have kind of a problem with that
25 from a physics,
model physics standpoint. The
49
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 coastline
configuration, what was done was they
3 used the Hurricane
Hugo hydrograph, and applied
4 that to the offshore
boundary to simulator a
5 storm surge.
6
That's really, I think, a very dangerous
7 thing to do for a lot
of reasons. First off,
8 the tide gauge was
inside Charleston Harbor.
9 It was -- the
shoaling geometry was different.
10 The other issue of
treating the coastline as a
11 vertical wall,
there's no moving boundary in
12 the model.
13
That's the same issue with the marshes
14 we're talking about,
wetting and drying. And
15 the large surges, in
Savannah, from overland
16 flow, it really
changes the hydrodynamics.
17 Think about the road
to Tybee gets topped at
18 high tide, spring
tide. Imagine you put 15
19 feet of water there,
the water is going to be
20 flowing around Tybee
over to the South Carolina
21 side, all kinds of
Savannah ends up being --
22 the pluff part of
Savannah ends up being an
23 island.
24
I think it's really inappropriate to use
25 a model with static,
fixed boundaries to do
50
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 extreme events, but I
was talking to Joe about
3 this earlier, all
that said, the numbers
4 actually are pretty
close to what I got five
5 years ago, I think it
was, when I ran the set
6 of scenarios with the
full moving grid
7 boundary, that .5 to
one foot.
8
I disagree a little bit on the conclusion
9 that was in the track
surge report, that it was
10 insignificant,
because the thing is this gets
11 into that issue if
you've three feet of water
12 in a house, say you
add six inches to it,
13 that's that height
that a lot of material is.
14
You think about TVs, clothes in drawers.
15 adding six inches of
water in the Savannah area
16 can result in
several million in additional
17 damages.
18
Now, you're making the rubble balance --
19 you're familiar with
that term -- talking about
20 several million in a
multi billion dollar
21 event. When I
was thinking about this,
22 hopefully no one
from FEMA here, is they're
23 going to waste more
sending ice to the wrong
24 state than the
initial damage. But it is, you
25 know, several
million is not insignificant,
51
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 it's just in the
scope of the analysis, several
3 million. At
least for me it's pretty
4 significant.
5
So what does this boil down to, the bottom
6 line, no model is
perfect, but the question you
7 have to ask, is the
model acceptable quality to
8 answer the questions
we're asking of it?
9
My response to that is kind of in three
10 areas. Again,
I think for the basic modelling
11 tasks, it's probably
acceptable. If this were
12 -- most engineering
projects, there's such
13 large economic
consequences for this project,
14 there's such
potential of environmental
15 disruption for this
project, I think we need to
16 know.
17
And again, I would like to be more
18 comfortable.
I'd like to have a little more
19 data, focused field
collection. This is
20 something I brought
up, I think in January we
21 had an e-mail
exchange over this. And even
22 last year, my
original scope of work had some
23 data collection in
it.
24
Again, I think that would really be
25 helpful to have some
additional information to
52
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 verify this.
There is some doubt. Is that
3 back channel area
being modelled -- are the
4 tide phase errors, is
that introducing any
5 biases, once you
start deepening the channel?
6
For the purpose of marsh secession
7 alternate sea level,
I'm more nervous about
8 that. I think
it may be acceptable, but I'm
9 really concerned
about this lack of moving
10 boundaries
conditions for that, particularly
11 talking about the 25
centimeter rise, sea level
12 rise scenario.
13
That's an area that is sort of an
14 expertise of mine,
other people tell me. I
15 don't claim to be an
expert in anything
16 anymore.
17
That's one thing about science, the more
18
you learn, the more you realize how
19 ignorant you are of
how nature works. I'll put
20 that on the record
too.
21
I think you may be okay on this. I have a
22 heightened level of
concerns. Again, some
23 tests can confirm it.
24
Extreme events, I've just got a real
25 problem with
that. Again, because the lack of
53
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 moving boundary, the
application. Wind forcing
3 is so critical in the
near shore area for storm
4 surges and for
currents, I did some test runs
5 using a couple of
other models, and compared
6 them to the
hydrographs that Joe got, and they
7 were -- the
hydrographs were very different.
8
the water levels were the same. One thing
9 I don't know, are you
looking at salinity or
10 just looking at the
raw hydrographs?
11
MR. HOKE: Yeah, just the water level.
12
MR. WATSON: Salinity for a storm surge,
13 by the way,
everything is going to saltwater
14 all the way to
Effingham County. You don't
15 need a computer
model to figure that out for
16 a big surge.
17
So recommendation on this, again, and this
18 kind of goes back to
some earlier
19 recommendations that
really need -- for me to
20 be comfortable, I
would need some additional
21 data collection,
some additional modelling runs
22 and tests.
23
I think they could be focused. I don't
24 think they would get
in the way of other work.
25 I really don't think
it's likely to completely
54
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 invalidate the model.
3
I think it would be more likely to refine
4 it and get increased
confidence in it. On the
5 extreme event, gosh,
unless you're going to go
6 with a completely
different methodology, I'm
7 just not comfortable
with the EFDC enhanced
8 grid configuration
for that.
9
From past work and experience, I would say
10 incremental impacts
aren't going to be that
11 great, and unless
there is some absolute
12 requirement to do
that modelling, I think it's
13 pretty fair to say
that events are rare -- 15
14 foot storm surge,
that's approximately a 90
15 year event here, if
that.
16
I'm not sure how critical, again, that's
17 something that
depends on what your studies are
18 saying.
19
If it's required, I really think you have
20 to go with a
different model. I think,
21 basically,
particularly the conclusion page
22 kind of summarizes
it, I think the modelling --
23 this certainly is
not an issue like it was last
24 year, I think, with
the earlier modelling
25 efforts where you
look at it and go, wow,
55
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 there's serious
physical flaws here.
3
I think it's more of a case of how close
4 do we need to be, how
confident do we need to
5 be in the modelling,
and the procedures that we
6 went through to get
where we are, and what the
7 applications are?
8
How critical is it to be right in that
9 back area, in the
back river area. That I
10 think is where the
problem is. I think it goes
11 to some of those
issues, the wetting and drying
12 and the model
forcing.
13
So I guess the bottom line is I disagree
14 with the
conclusions, to a certain extent, that
15 I think the December
2000 is a symptom of other
16 issues. It's
not a problem in and of itself.
17 It's more that back
area of the marsh
18 configuration, that
area probably could use
19 some additional work.
20
MR. DYSART: Questions -- thank you.
21 David Kyler.
22
MR. KYLER: Chuck, on the subject of
23 extreme events, you
made a distinction between
24 the water level and
the hydrograph. Can you
25 explain that and
it's implications?
56
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2
MR. WATSON: The -- as I understand the
3 way -- the way Joe
did the analysis on the
4 surge was to take the
water level changes that
5 were observed at
Customs House in Charleston
6 Harbor, and they were
scaled to a five, was it
7 five, 10, 15 foot
surge?
8
MR. HOKE: I think the gauge amount was 6
9 -- 6.7, 6.9. It
was around seven feet. So
10 they were scaled
five, 10, 15 foot surge to try
11 to represent the
larger surge like up to
12 McClellanville was
the peak.
13
MR. WATSON: And that was applied to the
14 normal tides in
Savannah to force the offshore
15 boundary.
16
MR. HOKE: Correct.
17
MR. WATSON: There was no wind forcing
18 changes?
19
MR. HOKE: No.
20
MR. WATSON: In my view, that's really
21 problematic in a lot
of ways. The first is
22 that Charleston was
on the backside of
23 Hurricane
Hugo. There was very complex -- if
24 you look at the
water level changes at Customs
25 House, during that
event, you had offshore
57
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 winds combined with
the angle of the approach
3 of the storm.
4
I think it's very tough to take and apply
5 that situation to
Savannah. You have a fairly
6 widemouth area there,
and then the harbor split
7 Cooper -- and what's
the other river?
8
MR. DAVIE: Wando Ashley.
9
MR. WATSON: Yeah. So that's a very
10 different situation
from what you have at the
11 mouth of Savannah
River, and in particular the
12 wind forcing issue
is a big thing to me.
13
But storm surge isn't generated offshore.
14 Storm surge is
caused by the wind pushing water
15 up on to the
shore. It's not out in deep
16 water, the water
rising and falling like tides.
17 It's the water
literally being forced inshore.
18
If the water's 100 feet deep, you
19 basically don't have
a storm surge. You just
20 have a pressure
surge. So to take the surge
21 from inshore and
apply it out in the water,
22 technically from a
physics standpoint, that's
23 just wrong.
24
MR. DAVIE: I think -- I mean, maybe the
25 question, Joe, I
think the question to the
58
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 corps was if you look
at a deep -- deepened
3 channel, and you put
a surge so it wasn't
4 necessarily a
hurricane modelling effort, it
5 was put a five foot
surge, a 10 foot surge, and
6 a 15 foot surge, and
run it under the existing
7 channel, then run it
under a deepened channel,
8 then look at the
difference between those two
9 runs.
10
MR. HOKE: Right.
11
MR. DAVIE: It wasn't actually simulating
12 a surge, but it was
saying does a deepened
13 channel change the
water level --
14
MR. HOKE: Change the way it moves --
15
MR. DAVIE: -- moves inland from a surge.
16
MR. HOKE: It was admittedly a rough kind
17 of ball pack type
thing. From previous studies
18 we weren't expecting
much of a change, so there
19 wasn't any push to
spend a whole lot of money
20 on a new model in
this area.
21
We were just trying to get a rough idea
22 of the comparison
between the existing and
23 deepened channel.
24
MR. DAVIE: Just a comment. I want to
25 make sure, some of
the comments Chuck's making
59
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 are directly related
to the hurricane surge
3 modelling, which is
just a draft report that
4 Joe just finished up.
5
Some of those have implications on the
6 surge modelling,
whereas the bulk of the work,
7 and the work that
we've been doing over the
8 past year has been
for the hydrodynamic and
9 salinity and DO
modelling.
10
The surge modelling has really -- I mean,
11 you did it in a
couple of weeks and wrote it
12 up. It's a
small effort in comparison to the
13 overall model
development. It doesn't take
14 away from Chuck's
comments, but to put it in
15 context.
16
MR. WATSON: The Bigger issue really is
17 probably just the
marsh depiction and the
18 overall grid
geometry. And this issue of, I
19 guess, what you
could boil it down to, are the
20 problems that caused
the runs to abort in 2000
21 something that is
potentially causing noise in
22 the model through
the whole run period; I
23 guess, to try to
capture it in one sentence?
24
My conclusion to that is we don't know.
25 So the question
really boils down to is the
60
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 model good enough, in
the light of a potential
3 problem, given the
consequences and what the
4 model outputs are
being used, for planning
5 mitigation, for
presumably some people deciding
6 even whether they
will support or oppose the
7 project, based on the
potential outputs or what
8 the potential
consequences are?
9
MR. GARRETT: Have we not heard the
10 technical water
group say that yes, it is
11 acceptable?
Isn't that one of the comments?
12
MR. WATSON: Yes, I think that's what it
13 boils down to.
14
MR. GARRETT: Well, I was trying to figure
15 out where we are
with this.
16
MR. WATSON: Basically, as I understand
17 what it boils down
to is what the working group
18 has said, and
various agencies. I obviously
19 don't speak for them.
20
From what you are saying, I've not seen
21 this comment.
I'm not on that internal loop,
22 so I haven't had a
chance to see that.
23
MS. MOORER: Aren't they on the website,
24 the questions they
have?
25
MR. DAVIE: They were discussed at the
61
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 June meeting.
3
MR. WATSON: Some of the e-mails I think
4 you showed I have,
but anyway, what it boils
5 down to, yeah,
they're saying, as I understand
6 it, they're happy
with the model. They're
7 comfortable with it.
8
What I'm saying, if someone called me into
9 a court case, these
are things I would point
10 out. Things
that -- what my recommendation is
11 deal with them
upfront.
12
Are they important enough to deal with?
13 Again, what's in the
profession opinion? In my
14 20 years or so
experience in computer modelling
15 says that I think
these are things that should
16 probably be
addressed.
17
You know, you've got scheduling pressures.
18 You've got,
obviously, money is always an
19 issue. So --
20
MS. MOORER: Excuse me. Are these some of
21 the -- some of the
questions, Ed, raised by the
22 federal agencies in
these 12 issues? They're
23 addressing some of
these concerns that he's
24 raised here to put a
little more confidence
25 into the model, am I
right, Ed, as to some of
62
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 the questions you've
raised?
3
MR. EUDALY: Yeah. We have not -- I
4 forgot exactly how we
worded it. We believe
5 the model is a great
improvement. We think
6 it's getting there.
7
We did list, along with USGS, a lot
8 concerns, especially
-- or a lot of issues that
9 need to be addressed,
including the tidal
10 dynamics, ebb tidal
dynamics, which may be
11 related to some
marsh storage issue.
12
But we asked for additional sensitivity
13 runs, additional
explanations, additional work.
14 And again, we expect
that to be addressed in
15 the final
report. And then we'll review that.
16 We'll make our
additional recommendations or
17 whatever we think is
needed.
18
So, at this time, we think it shows -- we
19 think it's been
greatly improved. We think it
20 shows a lot of
promise. We want to see these
21 issues addressed.
22
Some of these, again, may be related to
23 some of the issues
you brought up, like the
24 marsh storage.
That could influence tidal
25 dynamics, ebb tidal
dynamics, so forth. I
63
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 think that's a pretty
good summary of our
3 position right now.
4
MR. DYSART: Let ask, David Kyler, have
5 they answered your
question?
6
MR. KYLER: If they have, I haven't been
7 able to understand.
8
MR. DYSART: Okay. I want to try to
9 answer the questions
and not have a continuing
10 dialogue among the
presenters. Is that --
11
MR. KYLER: Thank you. I still don't
12 understand the
distinction between water depth
13 and the hydrograph
and what that implies for
14 the consequences of
storm surge.
15
MR. WATSON: Sure. If you look at the
16 water depth, let's
say you've got a 15 foot
17 storm surge above
your normal tide level.
18
That's just telling you the raw water
19 height. The
water depth, once it moves inland,
20 let's say you live
on Wilmington Island and
21 you are 12 feet --
yeah, 12 feet above sea
22 level.
23
You have a 15 foot surge, you're in three
24 feet of water.
Now, that's where the
25 discussion about
this six inches of water depth
64
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 increase or decrease,
does that make a
3 difference to you?
4
It makes a lot of difference. If you
5 think about the
normal house, normal
6 construction, and you
think about where the
7 property in the house
is distributed, usually
8 between one and four
feet, that's where you go
9 from 5% contents loss
to 70% content loss.
10 Does that --
11
MR. KYLER: Well, all that says to me is
12 that the hydrograph,
is that depth over time?
13
MR. WATSON: I'm sorry. A hydrograph is
14 a plot of the water
depth over time. That's
15 all that is.
It's usually referenced to mean
16 sea level or --
17
MR. KYLER: And what is the significance
18 or distinction
between those two, water depth
19 over time and water
depth, in terms of
20 analyzing the surge
and the cost of the surge?
21
MR. WATSON: The -- what you care about is
22 what causes the
hydrograph to behave in a
23 certain way.
And that gets to be very complex
24 because some of it
is because of the natural
25 astronomical tides.
65
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2
Part of it is because of the wind blowing
3 the water
around. That wind blowing the water
4 around mainly has an
impact in the near shore
5 area, usually with a
water depth less than 30
6 feet to 50 feet.
7
Once you get out to water much deeper than
8 150 feet, then the
water level changes aren't
9 that much.
10
When we talk about hydrographs, what we're
11 really talking about
is what's causing --
12 indirectly what
we're talking about is what's
13 causing the water
levels to change. All the
14 hydrograph is is the
plot of that over time.
15
MR. KYLER: And that's important to note
16 in analyzing
consequence and costs of a storm
17 surge?
18
MR. WATSON: Exactly. You need to know
19 duration, how long
is an area unindated, how
20 high is the water,
not just the raw height but
21 how high is it above
the ground you're standing
22 on.
23
I think one of the e-mails we exchanged is
24 that six inches may
not be much, but if you are
25 chin deep in water,
it makes a lot of
66
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 difference.
3
MR. DYSART: Judy.
4
MS. JENNINGS: This may go back to some of
5 the stuff that Ed is
saying that his concerns
6 are, and some of the
issues you brought up are
7 in common.
8
You said there was a greater incidence of
9 error on the outgoing
tide than incoming?
10
MR. WATSON: The errors on the outgoing
11 side are three or
four times what they are on
12 the inbound side.
13
MS. JENNINGS: I'm realizing if we stand
14 there and look at
it, we might be able to see
15 it, what is the
model seeing that causes that?
16
MR. WATSON: It could be a lot of things.
17 It could be how the
geometry of how the marshes
18 are in the
model. It could be bottom friction.
19 Is it fair to say we
don't really know yet
20 completely why?
21
MR. DAVIE: My take on it, when I see the
22 uncertainty of .1
PPT, I'm comfortable with
23 that.
24
MR. WATSON: Yeah, but it's .4 for the
25 outbound side.
67
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2
MR. DAVIE: The accuracy of the salinity
3 reading is about .1.
4
MR. WATSON: What's the salinity factor
5 about three parts per
thousand?
6
MR. DAVIE: The little back river gets
7 as high as five or
six during --
8
MR. WATSON: So in other words, you're
9 talking about a 10%
error -- see, that's where
10 it gets to the
agencies in looking, does it
11 matter if your
estimate is off by .3.
12
MR. DAVIE: Well, there's two things.
13 There's the
uncertainty in the data, and then
14 there's uncertainty
in the model. If the
15 uncertainty analysis
is .1 .2, the instruments
16 can't measure -- the
instruments typically
17 don't measure below
.1.
18
So if you go out and take a reading, you
19 get a 0 or .1., you
don't get much below
20 that so --
21
MR. WATSON: But does it matter? I guess
22 the question is,
does it matter if the reading
23 is 4 -- is it going
make a difference in your
24 mitigation
assessment, if the model predicts .3
25 -- if it measures
3.0 versus 3.3 or 2.7,
68
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 because that's your
band.
3
So the model, if it says 3.0, then the
4 salinity could be
anywhere between 2.7 and 3.3.
5 Now, does it matter
to you whether it's 2.7
6 versus 3.3? If
that makes a difference, then
7 the model is not good
enough or the data
8 collection is not
good enough, one or the
9 other.
10
If that difference doesn't matter, then
11 you're okay.
So there's two questions, what is
12 it versus does it
matter. And that's something
13 only the users of
the data can resolve.
14
MS. JENNINGS: If I could ask for
15 clarification.
Steven, you said marsh in the
16 model -- I'm
assuming no marshes in the model.
17
MR. DAVIE: There are marshes in the
18 model. We have
grid cells representing the
19 marsh model.
20
MS. JENNINGS: See, that's where I bog
21 down on the wet and
dry issue, because at least
22 twice a day the
marshes are going to be dry.
23
MR. DAVIE: The marshes in the refuge
24 area, if you look at
the refuge area, there are
25 creeks in those
marshes. We call them tidal
69
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 creeks. Fish
and Wildlife may have a different
3 term.
4
Not all of those go dry on every tidal
5 cycle. The
marshes themselves will be dry, but
6 the tidal creeks and
-- we look at it as
7 storage.
8
All the water that's in those little
9 feeder creeks, we
consider that as part of the
10 marsh. Now,
I'm not a marsh biologist. If you
11 go and talk to marsh
folks, they probably
12 wouldn't separate
them as tidal creeks and
13 marshes.
14
We have marshes represented in the model.
15 We do have -- I
think -- 30 or 27 cells that
16 represent
marsh. I wanted to respond to Hope.
17 I'll keep it brief.
18
MR. DYSART: Okay. After that, we'll have
19 a break. First
after the break will be Will
20 Berson.
21
MR. DAVIE: The technical review committee
22 in June came up with
a list of 12 comments. We
23 typed them up and
sent them out to everybody.
24
When the state and federal agencies
25 submitted their
letters to the Corps, those 12
70
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 items were attached,
or at least referenced.
3
All the federal and state agencies now
4 have the list of
12. The only one that dealt
5 with uncertainty, or
any of this discussion
6 we're talking about
today was number 12, and
7 this was part of the
consensus of the group.
8
The inability of the model to run seven
9 years is not a big
deal and should not be a
10 consideration of the
model's usefulness.
11
The second piece of that was, go look at
12 that data in
December of 2000. The original
13 thought, from USGS,
is that that was a gap in
14 the record, and that
was filled in with some
15 kind of other data
or synthetic data.
16
So the second piece of action item number
17 12 or comment number
12 was, it's not a big
18 deal, but go look at
it and see.
19
That prompted us. We're responding to all
20 of these
comments. That prompted us to go look
21 at the data, get
USGS to resubmit it.
22
So the uncertainty analysis was addressed
23 as part of the
reviewers. They all read
24 Chuck's
report. I think they got a lot of
25 Chuck's
report. It's the first time we can put
71
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 error bounds or
uncertainty numbers on our
3 model results, which
is very useful.
4
And this is the way they addressed the
5 uncertainty. It
was number 12. When you guys
6 see the comments and
responses, you'll see that
7 written up.
8
Now, there were other items outlined in
9 there about some
marsh flows and ebb flows on
10 the little back
river. That's another item in
11 that list of
12. Ed referenced that a little
12 bit ago.
13
So we have accounted for comments from the
14 federal and state
agencies. We're
15 responding to those.
16
MR. DYSART: Those comments are a matter
17 of public record;
are they posted, Larry?
18
MR. KEEGAN: I honestly don't remember if
19 they're posted on
the Harbor Deepening Website
20 yet or not.
They may or may not be.
21
MR. DAVIE: I think since they're public
22 record, since the
state and federal agencies
23 referenced them and
attached them to the
24 letters --
25
MR. KEEGAN: I know the letters that came
72
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 in from the agencies
were posted, and at least
3 one of those, I
believe the Fish and Wildlife
4 Service appended the
entirety of that meeting's
5 conclusions --
6
MS. MOORER: Yes.
7
MR. KEEGAN: -- as I recall.
8
MS. MOORER: You said just then in
9 answering my question
about the importance of
10 understanding the
variation of the model,
11 because no model is
perfect, and
12 understanding what
the .1 PPT or what have you,
13 it's just important
to understand that when you
14 are making your
conclusions from the
15 predictions, isn't
that what -- how you use the
16 model?
17
MR. DAVIE: Correct. And it's my
18 understanding, and
the Corps can add to this,
19 that's why the work
was -- that's why the work
20 was contracted to
Chuck. Let's put the
21 uncertainty on
there, so when the model is
22 predicting a 3, is
it really 2.7 to 3.3. Let's
23 put those error
bounds.
24
I don't believe there's been a decision
25 made on exactly how
to use it. If the model is
73
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 predicting a 3 and
the uncertainty says it's
3 2.7 to 3.3, are you
conservative and pick a
4 3.3? I don't
think that decision has been
5 made.
6
MS. MOORER: But it's important to
7 understand that range.
8
MR. DAVIE: Correct.
9
MR. WATSON: Again, I think it's important
10 to recognize that
once you have that range,
11 does that range
matter? Again, if that's such
12 a low level it's not
impacting anything, then
13 who cares.
14
On the other hand, if it matters, if 2.7
15 means there's no
problem and 3.3 means you've
16 got to embark on
$500,000,000 mitigation
17 effort, then
obviously you care a lot.
18
And that's, again, I think what that boils
19 down to is what my
concern is. We can probably
20 reduce those
uncertainties, or have a better
21 handle on those
uncertainty bounds with a
22 little more data and
a little more study.
23
Now, is that necessary or not? That's
24 something that the
agencies need to decide.
25
MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's start with Will
74
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 Berson after a 10
minute break.
3
(Short Break)
4
MR. DYSART: Let's call the meeting back
5 to order. We'll
start with Will, and then
6 Press, Joel and
Larry. Will.
7
MR. BERSON: I really think I should wait
8 for Steve to rejoin
us. There are, I think,
9 two issues here I
want to say.
10
The first is I'm sympathetic to what I've
11 heard which is we're
spending a lot of time on
12 an issue that may or
may not affect the model.
13 but let's be frank,
the reason that we're
14 spending this much
time on this issue is that
15 we were given a
partial quote of what Chuck
16 Watson said at the
last meeting.
17
He basically, Steve, you said everything
18 up to however, and
gave us the impression that
19 everything was fine
with the model, that Chuck
20 was saying it was
substantial improvement and
21 there was no mention
of what followed
22 afterwards.
23
Now, in fairness, as an SEG participant if
24 I had done that, I
imagine there are a lot of
25 folks around this
table that would be very
75
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 critical of that, and
deservedly so.
3
So my first point is the reason we're
4 involved in this is
because we were given half
5 the story, and so the
fact that we're very
6 concerned about what
that means is very
7 important.
8
The second is, and it's a question that
9 seems to me we have a
fairly simple outline of
10 ways to move
forward, are you willing to do
11 what Chuck suggests
that you do? Is that
12 contained in the
recommendations you've
13 received so far?
14
If so, I don't think that we have an
15 issue. If not,
I think it's a case of deja vu
16 all over again,
where Chuck is trying to warn
17 us about model
problems and we won't be
18 listening to him.
19
MR. DAVIE: Can I respond?
20
MR. DYSART: Sure.
21
MR. DAVIE: When Joe and I gave the
22 update, I think the
SEG invited us to give an
23 update on the model
and where we were at. The
24 update was not only
from Joe and I, it was an
25 overall summary from
the technical review
76
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 committee.
3
If you guys think these discussions are
4 tough, this is all we
do in the technical
5 meetings, hours and
hours. And it's more than
6 water level.
It's every parameter, it's every
7 grid cell. I
mean, we're hashing out a lot of
8 details.
9
Chuck has been at a couple. He hasn't
10 been at all of
them. He wasn't at the June
11 meeting. I
gave you guys an update and a
12 summary of not only
my viewpoint, but the whole
13 technical committee;
federal, state agencies,
14 Harbor Committee's
represented.
15
And my update was based on that. Chuck's
16 report -- I told
Chuck from day one his report
17 will go in
unedited. It will go in with the
18 cover from the start
to the finish, and it will
19 go in our modelling
report.
20
Whatever he comes up with, he's running
21 the model, whatever
he comes up with, it is
22 what it is and it
goes in our report. And
23 that's the way it is
in there.
24
We discussed Chuck's report, his report
25 from cover to cover
was presented to the
77
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 technical reviewers
because it was part of our
3 main report.
4
It was unanimous that the seven year run
5 was not an issue for
any technical reviewer --
6 any technical
reviewer. So my summary to the
7 group was yeah, Chuck
had recommendations. We
8 heard him. We
accepted most of them. We made
9 a lot of changes in
the enhanced grid, based on
10 what Chuck said.
11
We didn't agree with everything, and a lot
12 of it is
professional disagreements, but yeah,
13 I didn't stand up
here and endorse that Chuck
14 Watson said that the
not model is not usable,
15 whatever the wording
was, because that was not
16 the consensus from
the technical reviewers.
17
The way I understand it from the Corps is
18 the Corps wants the
technical reviewers made up
19 of federal, state
agencies, and the Harbor
20 Committee to tell
them is the model usable,
21 is the model
defensible, have we improved on it
22 from the TMDL,
because we had already proved
23 that the TMDL was an
acceptable model, is the
24 usable and ready to
go?
25
Unanimously, at the June meeting before
78
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 the letter came out
was, the model is
3 defensible, the model
is usable, can be used
4 for permits, it can
be used for deepening
5 impacts, and other
production runs as
6 necessary. And
that was unanimous.
7
That's what I gave. I didn't -- I didn't
8 shortchange or didn't
cut short Chuck's
9 summary, because I
wasn't going to give a
10 summary of Chuck's
work. I gave a one Power
11 Point slide. I
addressed the bullets.
12
It wasn't my work. It was Chuck's work.
13 You guys talked to
Chuck enough. You know
14 where he
stands. He was invited here. He can
15 say whatever he
wants.
16
I wasn't shortchanging, I wasn't trying to
17 cut off the
conclusions of Chuck's report. I
18 was giving it from
not only my perspective, but
19 from the entire
technical review committee.
20
MR. DYSART: Chuck, would you like to
21 respond to Will,
please?
22
MR. WATSON: I'm going to have duck out.
23 I guess two
points. First is that as far as
24 what was said or not
said, I wasn't here. I'm
25 not even going touch
that, but the model, to
79
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 get what I think the
core of your question is,
3 my concern is
probably more to do with
4 defensibility than
anything.
5
We were talking about this over the break.
6 I think there are
issues that I feel additional
7 tests would really
nail the defensibility
8 issue. Again, I
think in my summary slide
9 there I basically
said that is it okay for
10 doing the routine
modelling of the channel, I
11 think it's probably
pretty close.
12
But there are some issues -- I know that
13 there have been
agency review issues raised,
14 and my contention is
I think there are a few
15 more things to be
done to nail that down.
16
Is that -- as far as the way, again, my
17 report was
presented, Steve is correct, part of
18 the contractual
arrangement. My report went in
19 all the way through
raw without edits. I think
20 it needed
some. I think found typos in it.
21
MR. DAVIE: Chuck let us look at the
22 report. It
wasn't here you go. Here's my
23 answer. We
worked with Chuck along the way. I
24 knew what was going
to be in his report before
25 he gave it to me.
80
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2
And that's just, I think, professional
3 courtesy on both
sides. This was the slide
4 that I gave at the
SEG meeting on July 12th. I
5 think -- I mean, I
still stand by it. My
6 comments that were in
the meeting notes was not
7 just me reporting on
Chuck's work. It was
8 those 12 issues, and
those 12 comments, where
9 the agencies
stood. I stand behind what I
10 said.
11
MR. WATSON: I disagree with the
12 conclusion that the
model is ready for
13 operational use, if
that is the conclusion. I
14 think it needs some
additional testing, some
15 additional
validation.
16
Again, we're in that realm of I respect
17 Tetra Tech's
position on this. I disagree with
18 it. Just
because I disagree with it doesn't
19 mean they're
wrong. It means they're stupid --
20 it's a joke.
21
But again, you're getting into that gray
22 area. You've
got the agencies. The agencies
23 are looking at
this. If they look at it, and I
24 would like to think,
at least some of them
25 would agree,
particularly on the marsh storage,
81
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 and I think that
asymmetric error, to me, is a
3 source of concern.
4
What it is going to boil down to is
5 different, a source
of scientific concern
6 versus a source of
engineering concern. That
7 gets into that gray
area, and you've got to see
8 how the data's being
used.
9
Again, with Tetra Tech I felt it was a
10 pretty good working
relationship. We had a lot
11 of exchanges.
It boiled down to I submitted a
12 lot of ideas to
them. I think some of them
13 didn't end up in the
report. They just went
14 ahead and did it.
15
Again, we're down to, I think, the model
16 is 90% there, 95%
there. I would like to see
17 some additional
validation and additional
18 tests. If they
feel it's necessary, I'm sure
19 they will do it.
20
MR. DAVIE: I think ultimately it's up to
21 the technical review
group. So it doesn't
22 really matter if
Chuck and I have a
23 disagreement about
an issue.
24
It is bigger than us. It's the technical
25 review committee,
the federal and state
82
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 agencies, the Harbor
Committee. If the
3 technical review
committee says I need you to
4 do something, with
the December 2000 water
5 level data, and I
don't agree, it doesn't
6 matter.
7
I mean that's what the Corps -- that's our
8 contract to the Corps
is to make sure the
9 technical review
committee is happy with your
10 model, and they can
come out and say the model
11 is defensible.
That's my job, to do whatever
12 it takes.
13
MR. HOKE: I want to add there is another
14 meeting coming up of
the technical review
15 group, once you
complete your analysis of all
16 the questions that
were raised that you've been
17 working on recently.
18
MR. DYSART: If Chuck is going to be
19 ducking out, I want
to know is there anybody
20 who has questions
that they need or want a
21 response from him
on? Joel.
22
MR. BERSON: I actually didn't get an
23 answer to the second
part of mine, which is is
24 the Corps willing to
do what Chuck has
25 suggested?
83
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2
MR. GARRETT: Let's find out what the
3 technical review
comes up with, after all the
4 concerns
ar e raised of all the agencies,
5 and they will give us
the recommendation.
6
MR. DYSART: Okay.
7
MR. SCANLON: The comment addressing that
8 specifically, I think
one of the things we
9 really need to look
at, we're talking about the
10 uncertainties, and
the second question is how
11 do you deal with
those uncertainties.
12
If we have got an uncertainty that says,
13 okay, this result is
good within this range, as
14 long as you plan and
design a system that
15 assumes that you're
dealing with that range,
16 and takes that into
consideration, the
17 uncertainty is
really not the problem.
18
It's only if you say, okay, we've got the
19 uncertainty in this
range, and we design right
20 here to the middle
of the range, then we have a
21 problem.
22
Understanding what the uncertainty is -- I
23 think this has been,
actually, a very positive
24 thing, all of this
discussion today, because I
25 think we're really
looking at -- we're fine
84
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 tuning.
3
I mean, that's what we said we needed to
4 do. We started
out with a big grid. We came
5 with a fine
grid. The fine grid introduced
6 some additional
problems, and digging into what
7 that problem was, it
turns out it pinpointed an
8 actual event that
actually took place.
9
And it said, the model said, here's a
10 problem. We
went back and looked at the
11 history, and sure
enough there was a problem
12 there.
13
I think that is very, very encouraging
14 that we're getting
to the sensitivity where we
15 can actually predict
that, because that's
16 really what we want
this model to be able to
17 do. We want it
to be able to predict events
18 and what's going to
happen.
19
We can address the consequences of those
20 events. That's
what we're trying to do with
21 all of this.
I'm very encouraged with what I'm
22 seeing. I
think we're getting to the point --
23 I'll quote Jim
Greenfield who said he's dealt
24 with TMDL issues all
over. He said, I have
25 never dealt with a
model that has been so
85
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 well-calibrated.
3
He said, it's actually driving me nuts.
4 He said, where I can
usually put things into
5 the uncertainty, he
said, you're infringing on
6 my uncertainty.
You're making it certain.
7
That is a good problem to have, when
8 trying to do the
kinds of things we're trying
9 to do with this model.
10
MR. DYSART: Joel.
11
MR. FLEMING: My question is in the same
12 area, we spoke about
relevance of error a
13 little bit before,
but we were, primarily,
14 basing that on the
amount of error associated
15 with salinity.
16
Have we looked at any error, like outgoing
17 tides, DO, if we
have a 10% change in DO,
18 that's probably a
much more substantial error
19 than the salinity
error; have we looked at any
20 of that yet?
21
MR. WATSON: In the report, I think. I
22 don't remember the
specifics, but it is in the
23 report, the error
band. And again, it's an
24 asymmetric error
about the tide. And of
25 course, that's
because the DO depends on the
86
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 salinity. So
that's -- you've got the same
3 issue, I would
say. You've got an asymmetric
4 error on the top.
5
MR. FLEMING: Do you know what kind of
6 percentage we're
looking at?
7
MR. DAVIE: It's in Chuck's report, he did
8 it not water level --
salinity and DO were the
9 two parameters.
For the first time, we can
10 actually put numbers
on that. I think that's
11 what Bob was saying.
12
MR. FLEMING: Right.
13
MR. DAVIE: You know, to actually put a
14 number on that
uncertainty, which is tough for
15 modellers to do --
16
MR. DYSART: Press.
17
MR. BROWNELL: Yes, just a comment in
18 response to Chuck's
presentation. Anyway, we
19 recently did comment
on the seven year issue
20 with a very short
comment.
21
I would say that Chuck has continued to
22 raise an issue,
which I think is very
23 important, that
marsh storage issue on the
24 outgoing tide, an
asymmetrical relationship
25 with the error is
pretty significant.
87
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2
I know that's been dealt with, it's been
3 talked about.
It's been my impression, up till
4 today, that we had
put in place a plan to
5 address that --
thoroughly that issue. I'd say
6 we absolutely will
need to make sure we
7 thoroughly address
that issue. If it takes us
8 another three to four
months of some additional
9 data, additional
discussions, and some
10 additional efforts,
to further clarify how the
11 model is working,
and make sure we increase the
12 competence level;
I'd say that would be time
13 well spent, and I
thought was already going to
14 be spent.
15
Looking at the project schedule issues,
16 the schedule with
other items related to the
17 environmental
analysis, I think anyone who has
18 looked at that
schedule -- I was looking at
19 that yesterday, the
one posted it shows, I
20 think the scheduled
progress on many of the
21 items is not nearly
quite as far long as it
22 should be.
23
There are still some things that need to
24 be done that are
probably going to take longer
25 than the project
schedule indicates. I think
88
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 all of us have got to
that point, no doubt,
3 where we are ready to
see things move ahead.
4 We don't want to hold
up, we're anxious to get
5 going.
6
But I think in the anxiousness to move
7 along, we do want to
make sure we spare no
8 effort to make sure
that we get the model to
9 its highest degree of
accuracy.
10
I think the fact that Chuck's issues still
11 lays out, even
though it's been addressed
12 before, is
important. We need to make sure we
13 do resolve
that. That's all I have to say.
14
MR. DYSART: Larry, Judy, Lucille. Larry.
15
MR. KEEGAN: Nothing.
16
MR. DYSART: Judy.
17
MS. JENNINGS: A couple of times Chuck has
18 emphasized about the
uncertainty bounds, does
19 it matter or does it
not. Is this something
20 that individual
agencies will decide?
21
Because Bob brought it up, when do you
22 decide 10% is a
pretty big deal? I mean,
23 that's just -- or
maybe it's not. I mean, will
24 the individual
agencies make comments on that
25 or, you know, that's
the basic question? Does
89
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 this matter or does
it not?
3
MR. DAVIE: It may be a part of when the
4 impacts are being
developed, and there's
5 numbers, and it's
showing an impact of .5 or
6 whatever the impact
is, then there may need to
7 be some caveat, or
error bounds, or some
8 decision made is that
just an absolute
9 difference between
the existing condition and
10 the deepening, or is
that condition plus the
11 uncertainties?
12
To my knowledge, I don't think that
13 decision has been
made yet, because --
14
MS. JENNINGS: Well, clearly not. I was
15 just wondering how,
by whom, and when. If I
16 could just
reemphasize what Press said, because
17 all these -- you
said there are 27 cells that
18 represent marsh, but
you've got 6,000 cells,
19 and the reason --
lord help me -- it sure does
20 show my age, back in
1996 it was the tidal
21 freshwater wetlands
that brought me to the
22 table.
23
So I can't help but say to the extent the
24 model can predict
what happens in the wetlands,
25 we can go out there
and stare at the channel.
90
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 We know it's going to
get solved here. We know
3 the DO is going to go
down.
4
I don't think we need a model to tell us
5 that. I always
thought the model was to
6 predict what happened
in the wetlands,
7 particularly in the
tidal pressure water.
8
MR. DAVIE: Well, there's a series of
9 models. Our
model, the one that Tetra Tech
10 developed, is the
estuary model. It's
11 primarily for the
harbor and the river areas.
12
We have to have the marshes connected to
13 it because that's a
big source of storage, but
14 we're linking our
model to a marsh secession
15 model. That
would actually be simulating the
16 marsh
dynamics. Our model doesn't do that.
17
So in essence, we're giving them a
18 boundary to say,
here's the salinity, here's
19 the tide, here's DO
which I don't think they're
20 looking at DO.
21
So our model with those cells, we're not
22 actually simulating
what's going on inside the
23 marsh. We're
using them for storage. We're
24 letting the water go
in, the salinity, and then
25 we're pulling the
water out.
91
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2
But we're not actually simulating what's
3 going on inside the
marsh. That's a separate
4 effort, but they are
connected. They are
5 linked.
6
MS. JENNINGS: I'm glad you mention that
7 because if you'll let
me say this, the marsh
8 secession will only
be as good as what you
9 give them.
10
MR. DAVIE: Correct. I agree with that.
11
MS. JENNINGS: So just to emphasize that.
12
MR. DAVIE: Good point.
13
MR. DYSART: Ed, did you have a comment on
14 Judy's raising the
issue of what were the
15 tolerances of the
agencies.
16
MR. EUDALY: Yes, partially, and a few
17 other things
too. You want me to go ahead with
18 that now?
19
MR. DYSART: Go ahead. It seems like that
20 is a response.
Lucille, hold just a moment.
21 Okay.
22
MS. COLLINS-RAHN: Yeah.
23
MR. EUDALY: I wanted to clarify a couple
24 of things.
First of all, our review was based
25 on the use of the
model for impact assessment
92
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 for wetlands, habitat
for fish, so forth.
3
We didn't really consider the extreme
4 event. That's a
different issue. It's an
5 important
issue. It's not what we based our
6 review on. Just
to clarify our position, I
7 wanted to read from
our letter, so I'll quote,
8 "based on the
information received, we would
9 support the use of
the hydrodynamic and water
10 quality models for
initial evaluation of
11 Savannah Harbor
deepening impacts.
12
If the additional sensitivity runs
13 indicate the
performance could be improved
14 significantly, then
additional model
15 calibration and
revision will be recommended,
16 before definition
impact evaluation and
17 mitigation
assessment."
18
So that's -- that's pretty much our
19 official
position. As I said before, we have
20 some concerns with,
and I will -- let me add we
21 attached the USGS
letter, which listed 16
22 specific areas of
concern.
23
Again, we anticipate those will be
24 addressed and will
be addressed in the final
25 model report.
A lot of those concerns related
93
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 to the ebb tide
velocity, tidal dynamics, and
3 that's a big issue in
terms of mitigation
4 planning, because
some of the things we're
5 talking about in
mitigation would involve
6 potential flow
changes, or channel changes, and
7 it's very important
to get those as good as we
8 can.
9
Having said that, you know, we realize
10 we're going to be
dealing with a lot of
11 uncertainty, no
matter what model. The best
12 models, there's
still going to be a lot of
13 uncertainty.
14
So we'll take that into account when we
15 make our
recommendations. We may have a range
16 of potential impacts
and a range of mitigation.
17 And one thing that
arises out of that is the
18 need for a really
strong monitoring program.
19
No matter what project is implemented, if
20 any, then we need a
good monitoring program to
21 determine really
what the impacts are, because
22 we're going to make
some best guesses here,
23 some estimates, and
they're going to be wrong.
24 We know that, we
just don't know how far wrong.
25
We're hoping they'll be pretty accurate,
94
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 but we don't know for
sure. Another thing to
3 consider is we could
-- there's a potential of
4 taking the adaptive
management approach, which
5 would be difficult
perhaps.
6
But there's a potential to deepen to a
7 certain increment,
whatever that might be, and
8 then to monitor and
make decisions based on
9 what those actual
impacts are, as to future
10 actions, further
deepening, mitigation, or
11 whatever.
12
So I wanted to kind of summarize what my
13 thinking is, and our
agency thinking is on
14 that, on all those
issues.
15
MR. DYSART: Thank you. Lucille and then
16 David Kyler, please.
17
MS. COLLINS-RAHN: I was just curious
18 hearing everything
storm surge was touched on
19 just a little bit,
but have there been studies
20 done further, can
there be, to see what the
21 storm surge effect
-- what's the storm surge
22 effect?
23
MR. WATSON: You may recall about five
24 years -- is this
ever going to end? Five years
25 ago, I did a
simulations looking at storm
95
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 surge, and it's --
the impacts are, in one
3 sense, relatively
small.
4
You're talking about changing water levels
5 by a few inches to a
foot. Joe's work, I sort
6 of trashed him a
little bit here for the
7 simplicity of the
study.
8
Again, I'm a little bit puzzled because he
9 got the numbers
pretty close. That means my
10 concerns are
overblown or else he got lucky.
11 We don't know yet.
12
I think the extreme event changes, they're
13 just likely to be
very small. Is a few million
14 dollars additional
damage small? Well, when
15 you compare it to
the fact that an event that
16 causes a 15 foot
storm surge would be a
17 multibillion dollar
event, here in the Savannah
18 area, I think it is
relatively small.
19
I'm not terribly concerned about the
20 extreme event
impact. I did a lot of runs. I
21 used three different
computer models. I used
22 my TAOS model.
I used the Corps of Engineers'
23 AbSoft model.
I used the SLOSH model.
24
They all came up with pretty close to the
25 same number.
On the one sense, you can look at
96
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 it and go 2,
$3,000,000 is a lot of money; 2,
3 3,000,000 out 4,
$5,000,000,000 event, again
4 whether people left
their trash cans out and it
5 clogs a drain can
cause that impact in an
6 extreme event.
7
So I'm not terribly worried about extreme
8 events. I'm
more worried about the less
9 extreme, the events,
and about again, I think
10 the whole asymmetric
error on the marsh cycle,
11 on the tide cycle,
is my concern.
12
Extreme event, I would even say almost
13 leave it out of the
report, because I don't
14 think it's a
significant impact. I don't think
15 that, based on how
devastating it can be after
16 a bad storm, that's
the least of our concerns.
17
MS. COLLINS-RAHN: Okay.
18
MR. DYSART: David Kyler.
19
MR. KYLER: Unfortunately, Chuck undercut
20 the significance of
what I was going to say.
21 If he's accurate,
more power to him, him and
22 all of us.
23
Maybe I'm stating the obvious here. In
24 decision theory,
when you talk about
25 probability of
events occurring, or the
97
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 accuracy of
information about events occurring,
3 the relevance -- part
of the decision of the
4 outcome and arriving
at that decision has to do
5 with the cost of that
accuracy.
6
Obviously, some things are going to be
7 more important than
others. You need more
8 accuracy in some
forms of data of the modelling
9 characteristics than
others.
10
The point I was going to make had to do
11 with storm
surge. If this is an analysis of
12 various depth, you
would have even a marginal
13 effect on storm
surge damage, that could be a
14 cause for concern
related to public costs and
15 human life and
property damage, it would
16 justify more
accuracy in modelling for some of
17 the other aspects
perhaps.
18
I also wanted to underscore what Ed Eudaly
19 said about the
extreme importance of good
20 monitoring, and go
beyond that to say before
21 this final decision
is made, I'm not going to
22 feel comfortable
unless there's very tight and
23 accountable
procedure for you using information
24 that's gathered,
after the project, to correct
25 -- if need be --
correct any adversities that
98
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 occur that were
predicted or not.
3
It's not going to be enough -- important
4 enough to get the
information. Beyond that, we
5 also have to have an
action plan that's very
6 reliable, in terms of
actions taken, based on
7 that monitoring.
8
MR. DYSART: Okay. Steven.
9
MR. DAVIE: Follow-up with what Ed was
10 saying, I guess it's
just for your information
11 for future
monitoring, there has been some
12 ongoing dialogue
between the Corps, Bill
13 Bailey, USGS, and
EPA.
14
We were involved because we were asked our
15 opinion to set up a
long-term monitoring
16 program for Savannah
Harbor. I have seen an
17 initial plan, its
draft. I think the intention
18 is to have our input
on the modelling, but also
19 to open it up and
gets lots of input, and also
20 look for funding
sources.
21
I think the idea is to have the Corps
22 pitch in, the states
pitch in, multiple
23 agencies pitch
in. It is ongoing. It's a
24 draft, but it's
further along than I expected.
25
Brian McCallan, USGS, is heading it up.
99
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 He's gotten inputs
from several folks. That
3 may be something the
SEG could look at, as a
4 whole, in the future.
5
MR. DYSART: Further comments on the
6 modelling. Judy.
7
MS. JENNINGS: Just to follow-up on what
8 Steve was saying,
clearly the monitoring is
9 very important.
My understanding is, Hope
10 brought up before,
USGS funding for what they
11 have been doing is
at risk. Now, this group
12 may have never acted
as a body before.
13
At some point, we might ask ourselves,
14 could we come to a
consensus as a lobbying
15 group for -- on that
one issue for funding for
16 the USGS monitoring
station that we're about to
17 lose.
18
It would be this group, out of a huge
19 diversity, that came
together on one point, I
20 bet we could get
just about anything we asked
21 for -- if we asked
for it together.
22
MR. DYSART: Will Berson, please.
23
MR. BERSON: I don't want to slight how
24 important monitoring
would be. It seems to me
25 monitoring is key to
addressing issues that
100
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 perhaps the model got
wrong, or -- and what
3 we're talking about
today is making sure that
4 the model gets it
right, so that the monitoring
5 is going to,
hopefully, confirm exactly what
6 the model said is
going to happen, not identify
7 what wasn't
identified or what was
8 misidentified.
9
It is true we've been here an awfully long
10 time. And it's
true I'm not getting any
11 younger at this
table, but it's also true I was
12 here the first time
around, when Chuck Watson
13 pointed out there
was a problem with the first
14 model, and basically
he was ignored.
15
So I think it would be really remiss of us
16 not to note that
he's done exactly the same
17 thing now, and we
ought to pay attention to it
18 or else we,
apparently, don't learn from the
19 past.
20
That's one thing I'm not willing to let
21 go, when we have
what seems to be a relatively
22 simple fix that he's
suggested. It's a case of
23 slowing down now to
go faster later.
24
And all the decisions that matter, about
25 mitigation and about
the project design, stem
101
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 from what this model
going to say. It matters
3 what happens in the
refuge. It matters what
4 happens in the
river. It matters what happens
5 on the storm surge.
6
Quite frankly, events have overtaken the
7 events of storm
surge, and I don't think we can
8 be so cavalier about
saying it's not terribly
9 important. I
think all know it could be
10 devastating, and how
devastating is a matter of
11 concern, if for no
other reason than federal
12 projects that have
an impact have to be
13 evaluated.
14
So I want to say here that I'm not -- who
15 said what matters
less to me than the fact we
16 ought not repeat a
mistake we can identify very
17 clearly right now,
and that Chuck has
18 underlined for us.
19
Whatever the comments are, and what the
20 sensitivity runs
are, I really think you should
21 pay attention and do
what he suggests. Then I
22 can have absolutely
no reason to say that you
23 didn't take every
opportunity to do the best
24 job that you could.
25
MR. DYSART: Further comments related to
102
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 modelling.
3
MS. JENNINGS: Just to say, especially
4 since Chuck
identified work that could be done
5 without impacting the
schedule.
6
MR. DYSART: Okay. Thanks to the Corps.
7 Does this complete
all the modelling
8 presentation?
Do you have some other material
9 that you wanted to
present.
10
MR. DAVIE: It can be.
11
MR. HOKE: There's a little more if you
12 can stand a little
more.
13
MR. WATSON: Sneaking out the door
14 comment.
15
MR. DYSART: Yes.
16
MR. WATSON: I appreciate Will's comments.
17 Being is right as
much hitting the right place
18 of the dartboard,
and sometimes, hopefully,
19 develop a track
record of being right.
20
I think the situation here is different
21 than it was with the
first model. With the
22 first go around, at
least in my opinion, there
23 were some very
clear, fatal flaws.
24
And you know, for what it's worth, it
25 seems like people
agreed after a certain point.
103
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 I think this is a
different situation. I don't
3 see any showstoppers
with Tetra Tech's work.
4
I want to be very clear about that. I
5 respect them. I
think they're trying to do a
6 good job on this, but
I do think we need to do
7 a little more due
diligence, so at the end of
8 the day we can say
we're happy and comfortable
9 with this.
10
There aren't any gotcha's out there. I
11 think that is the
distinction between the first
12 go-round and this
go-round. I appreciate the
13 kind words.
Thank you.
14
MR. DYSART: Thank you for being with us.
15
MR. WATSON: You're welcome.
16
MR. DYSART: Continue.
17
MR. HOKE: I'll try to keep this brief.
18
MR. DYSART: Hold our breath, before we
19 turn blue you'll
finish.
20
MR. HOKE: Just want to review a little
21 bit, there has been
some other work going on
22 besides discussions
about these other issues.
23
Tetra Tech has been hard at work on
24 proposed processer,
show you just a few
25 examples of
that. Don't focus on exactly what
104
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 the numbers are,
everything is still a draft.
3
It is just intended to show some of the
4 capabilities, what
you would be able to look
5 at.
6
MR. DAVIE: This goes back to the SEG
7 meeting, we talked, I
think towards the end of
8 the meeting, we
talked about the output of the
9 model.
10
Assuming we get over this hump here, on
11 the comments and the
issues talked about today,
12 one of the scope
items we've been working on
13 with the Corps is
the post processer, to be
14 able to take several
model runs, and develop
15 output that is going
to be meaningful to groups
16 like the SEG.
17
To just give you an idea of what's in
18 there, several
components. There's a component
19 dealing the habitat,
impacts or analysis,
20 deepening analysis,
TMDL analysis.
21
I talked a moment ago about the linkage to
22 the marsh secession
model, that's been named
23 M to M, model to
marsh, and then a delta
24 analysis, which is
basically you can take any
25 two scenarios and
just look at the differences.
105
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2
It could be a no point source versus a
3 point source.
It could be a three foot
4 deepening versus the
existing condition. We
5 met, and spent a lot
of time with the federal
6 and state agencies
that are going to be
7 reviewing the output,
to try and see what they
8 wanted.
9
The is list long. There's a lot of
10 different types of
outputs from tables to
11 numbers to
plots. I just wanted to show you
12 some of the things.
13
You're not going to be able to see
14 numbers, but we're
looking at different ways of
15 visualizing output.
16
It could be velocity. It could be
17 salinity. It
could be DO. It could be
18 temperature.
It could be suitable habitat
19 area, which is one
of the criteria.
20
So, there's a lot of different ways to
21 visualize the
output. The whole intention here
22 is to show types of
output, not numbers. This
23 is an example of
bottom velocity.
24
We can look at surface DO and look at how
25 -- this is not --
this is not an impact. This
106
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 is just existing
conditions. Oxygen offshore,
3 oxygen in the
channel, and oxygen up in the
4 river is just looking
at the ways to visualize
5 the model output.
6
Bottom salinity, we can look at changes
7 between two runs,
like an existing condition
8 and a channel
configuration, to visualize what
9 the delta's -- not
necessarily magnitudes, but
10 just deltas.
11
We can look at longitudinal DO to see how
12 the DO changes along
the ship channel. That
13 could be for various
scenarios such as point
14 sources. It
could be non-point source. It
15 could be channel
configuration.
16
We're also looking at these plots in
17 different
ways. We're looking at -- instead of
18 looking at a plan
view of Savannah, this is
19 actually a slice
that goes from the river
20 through the front
river, through the
21 navigational
channel, out to the boundary on
22 the right-hand side.
23
This is an average of DO. This is a one
24 day average.
You can see the area that we're
25 always concerned
about is where that
107
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 stratification occurs.
3
Just to give you some kind of perspective,
4 this is about where
Houlihan Bridge is. You're
5 coming out of the
navigational channel and
6 Houlihan Bridge is
about here. Upstream of
7 Houlihan Bridge,
around Steamboat River, it
8 gets real shallow.
9
Then we have a little hole on the front
10 river, and then
upstream going in that
11 direction. So
again here the whole idea is
12 just to show you
different ways of visualizing
13 it.
14
These are the types of output that the
15 reviewers are doing
with the model. They're
16 starting to deal
with the model in different
17 ways, plotting time
series, plotting animation.
18
They're all asking themselves, does it
19 make sense, does the
model make sense? Of
20 course, EPA right
now is looking at point
21 sources. If
you pull the point sources out,
22 are we seeing a
change on DO?
23
Again, with the salinity, same type of
24 concept, and you can
see the denser, saltier
25 water coming in the
channel. The freshwater is
108
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 in red. We're
probably going to change color
3 schemes and things
like that.
4
The other thing that we're still tweaking,
5 that we're getting
input on, is a lot of
6 habitat analysis,
that I talked about before,
7 is looking at
suitable habitat. It's not just
8 one parameter.
9
It's velocity, salinity, and DO, and
10 looking at changes
in those. There's a couple
11 of things that come
up. The gray areas are all
12 the suitable areas.
13
This is the typical thing we deal with
14 in models is all of
a sudden there is an area
15 on the south channel
that the model is saying
16 unsuitable. So
we go back in there and say
17 well, it doesn't
make sense, this one area
18 here; was it due to
velocity, was it due to DO,
19 was it due to
salinity, or are we just right on
20 the edge of the
criteria. We need to fine tune
21 that and maybe
that's not a big deal.
22
What we're hoping to do, looking at
23 different scenarios
where you would identify
24 larger water bodies,
larger areas that would be
25 unsuitable, and it
could be for differing
109
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 reasons, different
parameters.
3
I think that's all I had -- yeah, that's
4 all I had. I'm
just giving you an update on
5 where we're at.
6
I think eventually that would be
7 distributed to the
technical reviewers, and
8 that's kind of the
dialogue we're having now.
9
MR. DYSART: Any comments or reactions to
10 this material just
presented? I would like to
11 thank the Corps for
not only the modelling the
12 presentation, but
also this additional
13 information.
This is very helpful.
14
MR. DAVIE: Thank you.
15
MR. FLEMING: If I could make one comment?
16
MR. DYSART: Yes, Joel.
17
MR. FLEMING: In one of the previous
18 meetings, one of the
presentations addressed
19 historic deepening
that's taken place over the
20 last 20 years --
figures, I just don't recall.
21
I'm not even sure which parameter they
22 were looking
at. They looked at impacts from
23 previous
deepenings. I was wondering if you
24 look -- if you
looked at that, particularly,
25 for salinity and DO,
and looked at the amount
110
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 of change we had.
3
It was my impression it was going to be a
4 slight change, and
then looked, again, back to
5 error rates that are
associated with the model,
6 and how those
calculated, and then specifically
7 how they're
calculated in regards to taking
8 them from this model,
and putting them in, and
9 using those numbers
into a different model,
10 when you start
compiling error rates like that,
11 and then you do
compile the fact we do have
12 some error rate
associated with the monitors
13 themselves in the
field.
14
Have we ever done any kind of -- I hate to
15 use power analysis,
statistical analysis of the
16 errors rates
themselves to see, well, we
17 predict a .5 change
in salinity, based on
18 historical
deepenings?
19
Are we going to able to tell anything
20 statistically?
Are we going to be able to say
21 we've had a 95%
confidence in some particular
22 change seen at this
level; has that been done?
23
MR. DAVIE: Tough question. I guess there
24 was a lot in there,
because the first part of
25 that question was
about the historical
111
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 deepenings. I
know we haven't done any of that
3 work where we looked
historical deepening to
4 see what the impact
was.
5
MR. FLEMING: It might have been the
6 groundwater
analysis. I guess maybe I'm
7 thinking of
that. I know there was at least
8 one parameter given
that looked at historical
9 deepenings, and
looked at some of the impacts.
10
That goes kind of back to what Ed was
11 saying about the
monitoring. We can almost go
12 back and look at
what's happened, if we have
13 the data available.
14
MR. HOKE: We don't have a big data set
15 from before the last
deepening to compare it
16 to, I don't think.
17
MR. DAVIE: I know ATM had done some work
18 for the Port
Authority, but it's been a while,
19 where they looked at
long-term USGS records to
20 try and discern if
there was a difference from
21 the last deepening.
22
I don't remember the report. I'm not sure
23 what it said.
The big part of your question
24 was, when you are
linking the models, I think
25 you were talking
about, like if you take our
112
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2 salinity results, you
give it to the marsh
3 secession model,
you're looking at the
4 uncertainty and how
that's transferred, we've
5 been through, I guess
Paul Conrads -- we're in
6 the middle of going
through that process now,
7 where we gave him an
output of our run.
8
He's taking it to the M to M, which is
9 model to marsh to
marsh succession. We're just
10 going through that
process now. So I haven't
11 done anything to
look at how that error would
12 transfer.
13
MR. FLEMING: To some extent it just goes
14 back to when we're
able to review some of these
15 outputs. If
our error rates are going to be
16 clearly defined and
how they're actually
17 calculated.
18
MR. DAVIE: Right.
19
MR. FLEMING: Like I said, I was speaking
20 with Ed and some
other folks at the break. I
21 spend a lot of time
in field work and with
22 dissolved oxygen
meters all the time.
23
I can tell you, you can buy the most
24 expensive units, and
you'll get sometimes as
25 high as a .5 degree
--
113
1 PRESENTATION - WATSON
2
MR. DAVIE: Sure. I'm right there with
3 you.
4
MR. FLEMING: -- variance between the
5 units
themselves. So I guess that's teased
6 out, if you have
enough units over a long
7 period of time.
8
I guess in other areas it's kind of
9 equalized. I
want to make sure when it comes
10 time to review the
model, you take it for what
11 it is. Like
you were saying before, as long as
12 we know what we're
measuring and what we're
13 measuring with,
we're not using a ruler to
14 measure a mile or
vice versa.
15
MR. DAVIE: Right. I think it's a valid
16 comment.
17
MR. EUDALY: This may not exactly respond
18 to what you were
saying, but one problem is
19 that there wasn't a
lot of really good
20 monitoring data,
after the last deepening.
21
We had a lot of things confounding that,
22 closing New Cut, and
at the same time as
23 deepening, taking
the tide gate out of
24 operation, which
complicates issues. But the
25 Corps hasn't been
really as responsive as they
114
1 COMMITTEE REPORTS
2 probably should have
been, in terms of
3 monitoring.
4
I think that philosophy has changed
5 somewhat. And
that's another reason we're
6 looking for whatever
happens to come out with a
7 good monitoring
program, which I think will
8 answer a lot of
questions. It will be very
9 useful for the future
and -- but your point
10 about measurement
errors is valid also.
11 There's always a
problem there and that
12 even adds more
uncertainty.
13
MR. DYSART: Okay. The next topic on the
14 agenda is dissolved
oxygen update, the Corps.
15
MR. GARRETT: Bill Bailey said he would be
16 presenting that the
next time, the next two
17 items. He had
to take a leave. He's not here
18 to present that.
19
MR. DYSART: Thank you. How about
20 committee reports;
Bob Scanlon, acting chair of
21 the Aquifer
Committee.
22
MR. SCANLON: When did that happen? I
23 just noticed that on
the agenda. A related
24 subject --
25
MS. MOORER: I thought that was the
115
1 COMMITTEE REPORTS
2 recommendation that
this happened, so maybe.
3
MR. SCANLON: On A related issue, the
4 Georgia EPD's report
on their Sound Science
5 study is due to be
released this Friday for the
6 first draft.
7
Anybody that's interested, I've heard a
8 rumor it might not
be, but I -- it is due for
9 release on the 7th of
October. FYI. Nothing
10 else.
11
MR. DYSART: Okay. Beach Erosion, Bill
12 Farmer.
13
MR. FARMER: We have not met. We have not
14 had a reason to meet.
15
MR. DYSART: Dredging, anybody got a
16 comment from that
committee? Economics Working
17 Group, Judy.
18
MS. JENNINGS: Yes, Ben. A lot of the
19 forecasts either are
now or will be available
20 before the next SEG,
and I'll probably try and
21 pull together an
Economics Working Group
22 meeting, in
conjunction with the next SEG
23 meeting, before or
after, somewhere in there.
24
MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Fisheries
25 and Aquatic
Resources. Will Berson indicates
116
1 COMMITTEE REPORTS
2 that Joel can report
that. Probably wondering
3 what Will's not,
maybe who won the door prize,
4 but that's not what
it was about.
5
MR. FLEMING: I'll go ahead and report on
6 the Striped Bass
Committee too. Neither
7 committee has met
since the last meeting. We
8 do plan to gather.
9
Will and I are going to get together after
10 this meeting.
Whoever is interested may want
11 to join us.
I'm coming in later to this
12 process, I don't
have -- even as committee
13 chair, I don't have
e-mails of the people on
14 the committee
yet. I'm depending on Will for
15 that information.
16
We are going to we plan to have a meeting
17 in the near future,
hopefully, before the next
18 SEG meeting.
19
MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Do you
20 have any comments or
anything from anybody
21 associated with the
Interim Agenda Ad Hoc
22 Committee?
Okay. Judy.
23
MS. JENNINGS: I don't know if this is
24 where we should --
where we should talk about
25 it, I think maybe we
need to have some sort of
117
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 clarification of
agenda setting, when the
3 agenda goes out, and
that kind of thing.
4
Because I know this agenda came out late,
5 and then there was
some issues with it. If you
6 are just watching the
website, a week ago, you
7 might not have known
what we were going to do
8 today.
9
So -- and I don't know, I kind of hesitate
10 to say, oh well, let
the agenda -- let the
11 interim meeting deal
with that. I mean, the
12 agenda got out very
late. And in fact, there
13 was some discussion
of whether or not it
14 accurately reflected
what we were going to do
15 today.
16
For instance, if I had been particularly
17 interested in Chuck
Watson's presentation, I
18 wouldn't have known
from the agenda, especially
19 not a week ago, that
I should be here today.
20
MR. DYSART: Let me comment briefly on
21 that. There
has been a lot of going back and
22 forth e-mail, a lot
of different opinions. I
23 have been pushing
trying to get some
24 information, so that
I could post a meaningful
25 agenda, in a timely
manner, that could be of
118
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 use to members of SEG.
3
So I -- this is something that would be
4 helpful to, I think,
all of us. I might just
5 say I have no views
on the modelling issue
6 here.
7
Anything I have to say here has nothing to
8 do with that.
I'm a neutral facilitator. I'd
9 say there's been a
lot of correspondence, and
10 Mr. Hoke mentioned
something about discussion
11 at the interim --
and this is clarification of
12 the role.
13
That's all I'm talking about here. There
14 had been a
discussion at both the interim and
15 SEG meeting. I
think that was something that
16 kind of caught my
attention, because I think my
17 understanding is
that the purpose of the
18 Interim Ad Hoc
Agenda Committee, or what not,
19 is to do a couple of
things.
20
One is to identify items that are ripe for
21 presentation and
discussion at SEG meetings;
22 in other words, for
them to see what studies
23 were finished and
what was ready to be -- do
24 you have a comment
on this, Hope?
25
MS. MOORER: I do. In the past, that is
119
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 what goes on in the
meetings. If I'm wrong
3 tell me, Judy, but in
the past too, I think
4 we've relied on the
chair of the interim SEG
5 meeting to forward
those to you.
6
There's just been -- she has not been to
7 be able to be at the
last couple of SEG
8 meetings. There
might be a way for us to come
9 up with a back-up in
her absence, a back-up
10 plan for
communicating that to you.
11
I don't think it's complicated. I don't
12 think the minutes
got to you, in a timely
13 fashion, because she
wasn't at the meeting. I
14 think we can discuss
that. I don't think
15 there's a big deal.
16
I don't think there's a big process we
17 have to go through,
except maybe have a back-up
18 person, possibly the
person who is taking the
19 minutes if he's
there, to go ahead and
20 communicate those to
you.
21
MR. DYSART: I'll complete my sentence in
22 a moment here, but I
think it is obvious we do
23 need a process where
something gets
24 communicated to me,
without my having to plow
25 through the process
and beg somebody to get me
120
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 something at the last
minute.
3
I couldn't agree with you more. Everybody
4 here has not been at
every meeting forever, and
5 we're about to the
end of seventh year of this
6 august body.
7
But as I recall from six months ago, a
8 year, whatever, the
ad hoc committee was put
9 together, there was a
feeling there did not
10 need to be a full
SEG meeting, if there was not
11 something
significant to be presented and to
12 discuss, such as in
that a lot of studies were
13 being made, there
wasn't any new information
14 that warranted
presentation, and if there were
15 not any substantive
topics warranting
16 discussion, we
didn't need to have a meeting.
17
Save time save money, which made a great
18 deal of sense.
I think secondly the new
19 issues and
substantive things, but my
20 understanding is the
Interim Ad Hoc Agenda
21 Committee was not
viewed, by this body the SEG,
22 as a substitute for
SEG meetings, and that the
23 SEG deliberations
take place at SEG meetings
24 and they're on the
record to be shared and so
25 forth.
121
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2
I guess the model review working group, as
3 I understand for
clarification, it is not a
4 body of the
SEG. It's my understanding that
5 that was a creations
of the agencies, so
6 discussion that takes
place there, unless it is
7 communicated back to
us -- to you as members,
8 that's, you know, the
discussion of the SEG
9 takes place at SEG
meetings.
10
I just wanted to clarify that. Some
11 people might say
well, there seems to be a lot
12 of discussions going
on other places, and
13 that's fine, as long
as it gets reported
14 substantive things
here.
15
Anyway, I would invite other views if my
16 recollection is not
clear, please speak up.
17 Larry, Press.
18
MR. KEEGAN: I think in the interim
19 meetings, another
purpose that was served by
20 having those was to
provide not only just for
21 screening for the
next SEG meeting agenda, but
22 for an opportunity
to have some more discussion
23 on particular
topics, then perhaps could occur
24 in a meeting of this
size.
25
It also meets that desire as well. It's a
122
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 forum in which there
can be some more
3 substantive
discussion back and forth, question
4 and answer. I
think that's gone on during
5 interim meetings, in
addition to deciding what
6 to recommend for the
agenda.
7
MR. DYSART: I think to the extent it
8 would, obviously, be
helpful if important
9 discussion were
taking place if that were to be
10 captured in the
minutes. If they were
11 disseminated,
actually disseminated or --
12
MR. KEEGAN: I believe one of the things
13 that the group
reported out to this body was
14 that they decided,
as a group, they would not
15 try to capture
minutes and verbatim
16 proceedings, but
they would report a summary of
17 the
discussions. Isn't that what came out of
18 that early
decision-making by the interim
19 folks?
20
MR. DYSART: Morgan.
21
MR. KEEGAN: Do I recall properly?
22
MR. REES: I agree with Larry's
23 recollection.
I guess, Ben, I share your
24 concerns that the
nature of the discussion, at
25 this meeting, was
not sufficiently published
123
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 ahead of time, but it
was published.
3
And part of the reason, as Hope pointed
4 out, was a delay in
getting the minutes out.
5 Having said that, my
impression -- and I
6 participate in the
meetings by phone. I was
7 not here in person.
8
My impression was that the idea behind all
9 of that discussion
that occurred, whether it
10 was recorded or not,
was is the issue ripe for
11 discussion at the
SEG.
12
It was not a substitute for the SEG
13 discussion, but it
was a discussion of whether
14 to present the
issue, to the SEG, and was it
15 timely to do so.
16
And then the conclusion was obviously yes,
17 it was. So it
was on the agenda.
18 Unfortunately, it
might have been published
19 10 days or two weeks
sooner, but it wasn't.
20 But I think Hope's
suggestion was a good one
21 that we take care of
that kind of business,
22 make sure that delay
doesn't happen again.
23
It was definitely not a substitute for any
24 discussion that
would occur at the SEG; is that
25 a fair summary?
124
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2
MS. JENNINGS: My thought, Morgan, is that
3 I guess maybe our
conversations sometimes do
4 get pretty in detail,
to the extent possibly
5 some other SEG
members might have benefitted
6 from it. At the
same time, I'm not quite sure
7 how we can decide
what should come --
8
MR. REES: Can you say what stopped the
9 discussion now or --
anyway --
10
MS. JENNINGS: So is this a topic we need
11 to go back to the
interim committee with, and
12 maybe actually --
see, what happened was wasn't
13 it an Operating
Guidelines Committee thing?
14 How did that
go? There was one committee, we
15 moved it into
another.
16
MR. REES: There was the Communication
17 Committee which was
consolidated in the
18 Operating Guidelines
Committee. I must say, in
19 all honesty, as I
recall we assigned the
20 interim meetings to
the Operating Guidelines.
21
MR. DYSART: Correct.
22
MR. REES: I'm not sure whether that meant
23 they were Operating
Guidelines Committee
24 meetings, or there
was, technically, some other
25 box on the
organizational chart. There was
125
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 interim SEG that
happened to be managed by
3 Operating
Guidelines. I don't remember whether
4 there was a
distinction --
5
MS. JENNINGS: Right. It's changed to
6 more --
7
MR. REES: -- or whether should be.
8
MS. JENNINGS: Maybe the answer may be so
9 that people would
know, we need to get a little
10 bit better about
making the agenda for the
11 interim, rather than
me just barging in.
12
I probably didn't give the Corps a lot of
13 notice that I wanted
to talk about Chuck's
14 report.
15
They probably had to react to that
16 very quickly.
Maybe we could get better about
17 the process of
setting the agenda in the
18 interim, and getting
the minutes out, and
19 communicating the
agenda topics back to Ben.
20
MR. DYSART: Press.
21
MR. BROWNELL: Comment on the SEG, I think
22 we all agree the SEG
has been an important
23 component in the
overall project study.
24
We have been through a buoyancy period. I
25 think our agency has
not been represented in
126
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 many of the meeting
in the interim period.
3 We were in a study
mode.
4
I think everybody has been looking at
5 studies. There
has been a lot of work going in
6 the federal agency,
cooperating agency group
7 and the project
development team, and other
8 teams.
9
While all that work has been going on,
10 there hasn't been an
opportunity to bring
11 interesting topics
of interest over to the
12 broader public
representation on the SEG side.
13
At the last meeting I attended, I think,
14 we were getting
ready to get to the stage in
15 which the SEG will
probably have a much more
16 important role to
play, in connecting with the
17 public at large, and
a larger group of
18 stakeholders than
just federal and state
19 agency groups.
20
I think there's going to be a lot more
21 interesting
information to present, from this
22 time forward, and
that's why I had recommended
23 for agenda topic, or
didn't recommend -- I
24 suggested for
consideration for agenda topics
25 was to give some
presentation of the history of
127
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 the SEG, how we got
started, the history of the
3 project, look at the
milestones and look --
4 talk about the role
of the SEG, and how it was
5 originally envisioned.
6
I think Georgia Ports Authority and all
7 the other agency
partners will take a look at
8 all those things, and
prepare an opportunity
9 for the SEG, as the
stakeholder group, to be
10 more involved or
aware, as we move forward in
11 the final stages of
our Savannah Harbor
12 Expansion Project,
and other related activities
13 in the Lower
Savannah River.
14
I think it is an important forum, and
15 I would like to see
-- recommend for an agenda
16 topic. I think
others have put forward it be
17 considered that
maybe we need to come up with a
18 new process, or
rejustify the nature of the
19 process for
developing the SEG agenda.
20
That's the only thing I would say and
21 recommend we do
that. I'm not sure what the
22 answer is.
23
I'm sure the facilitator and Georgia
24 Ports Authority and
the Corps will have a good
25 idea to have a
process dealing with the agenda
128
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 henceforth in the SEG.
3
MR. DYSART: Larry. Thank you.
4
MR. KEEGAN: Two things, I think if the
5 SEG wants to have
what goes on, and wants the
6 Operating Guidelines
Committee to look at how
7 the interim SEG
meetings are developed and run
8 and reported,
whatever, I think it's important
9 the SEG develop a
specific charge for the
10 Operating Guidelines
Committee.
11
As I recall, we started earlier in this
12 game, and some of
the questions we had in the
13 first few interim
meetings were what are we
14 supposed to
do? What is it they're asking us
15 to do?
16
So I would just make a plea that any
17 charge to revise how
the interim meetings are
18 going be as specific
as we can make it.
19
Secondly, I think Press has raised a very
20 good point that also
should have some
21 consideration, when
we're talking about the
22 agenda setting.
23
I think the other part of that he just
24 brought up is the
sequence of things that
25 should go on that
result in the final SEG
129
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 meeting agenda.
3
The suggestions and recommendations from
4 the interim meeting
are one component.
5 Clearly, there are
other avenues to be
6 identified as
candidates for things for
7 discussion at a SEG
meeting, and how does that
8 decision process
work, and result in an agenda?
9 That may be worthy of
consideration.
10
MR. DYSART: Okay. I would say that --
11 not my place -- I'm
talking strictly about the
12 process, but it is
correct, as I recall, that
13 we have been in a
study mode.
14
It was generally agreed around the table
15 we did not need to
meet every month when mainly
16 the studies were
being made. That is, I think,
17 a strong feeling
there. Also, there has been
18 a continuing, strong
desire to save money, or
19 not waste money by
having meetings for which
20 there was no
meaningful agenda, or new
21 material, or
substantive topics to discuss.
22
I think that has been very clear. I think
23 the entire body, to
my recollection, understood
24 that.
25
It is certainly, as Larry indicated, it is
130
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 obviously reasonable
to have some discussion
3 about topics to
decide whether it does rise to
4 enough importance to
go on the agenda of this
5 body.
6
I think there is -- that is not to be
7 viewed as a
substitute for this discussion
8 here.
9
Now, my view, as facilitator, is that
10 example of the
modelling issue, it got put on
11 the agenda, and
there was substantive
12 discussion here on
the record.
13
Everybody got to express their views and
14 it worked out very
well. So you know, it is --
15 it was done, I
think, in a way that seemed to
16 serve the body.
17
My objective has been simply to clarify
18 something that was
seeming to cause a lot of --
19 a lot of confusion.
20
And you know, I think we all understand,
21 to the extent we can
have an agenda that
22 reflects what's
going to be covered, the nature
23 as opposed to one or
two word bullets, that
24 allows members of
the body, to determine ahead
25 of time whether they
have anything to say,
131
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 whether they want to
attend or not.
3
My interest in this has been not only that
4 I be allowed to get
out an agenda in a timely
5 manner that actually
would be useful to
6 members, but be
useful to the members. So
7 anyway, Judy, comment.
8
MS. JENNINGS: Maybe we should just remind
9 ourselves of the
schedule, which seems to be
10 very important to so
many people, and that has
11 us literally
finishing this work in less than
12 two years.
13
And so I think you have to ask yourself,
14 are bimonthly SEG
meetings going to be adequate
15 for that.
16
Press is right, we started the
17 interim, we were in
a study mode. There didn't
18 seem to be a lot of
reason for everybody to
19 travel, spend time,
and meeting space expense,
20 to get together.
21
Within that time frame, there has to be a
22 mitigation plan, and
a consensus on the
23 mitigation
plan. That's part of the
24 congressional
authorization.
25
So maybe, you know, when we created the
132
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 interim committee,
maybe we should ask
3 ourselves, I mean
have we gone beyond that and
4 tried to keep this
schedule, are the interims
5 effective? It
may be, just from the schedule,
6 apparent what needs
to come to the SEG meeting.
7
A lot of those things are clicking off. I
8 didn't mean to make a
representation on that.
9 It's just if you
stick to the schedule, it's
10 not going to be all
that hard to figure out,
11 month to month, what
might be ripe and timely
12 for discussion.
13
Today we've deferred two pretty and
14 interesting timely
articles. That's no
15 problem, it's just
that they will need to be
16 discussed sometime
somewhere.
17
MR. DYSART: David.
18
MR. KYLER: Before it slips into the dim
19 mists of my memory,
or lack of there, it might
20 be helpful to have a
schedule of foreseeable
21 agenda items for
this group on the same page as
22 the column showing
the schedule for the
23 project, so we know
the time frames within
24 which we're supposed
to produce something and
25 stay on schedule.
133
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2
I was hoping other people would savor the
3 irony of the point
that the -- as I understand
4 it, the Interim
Agenda Ad Hoc Committee was
5 assigned to what had
been the Op Guidelines
6 Committee for the
purposes providing
7 clarification and
procedure and has had the
8 opposite effect, in
some ways, at least.
9
It has sort of obfuscated the very thing
10 it was meant to
clarify.
11
So I think the reason -- as I recall, the
12 reason why it was
assigned to the committee was
13 because it was
supposed to provide, as well as
14 refinement of
agenda, and the exposition if you
15 wanted to do it at
those meeting, it provides
16 procedures for this
group to consider adopting
17 to make its time
more effective.
18
That, apparently, has been lost for
19 some reason or other
-- that thread of logic.
20
MR. DYSART: I think Morgan mentioned,
21 someone mentioned
the old Communications
22 Committee. One
of the recommendations they
23 made was that the
entire SEG should, as a
24 committee of the
whole, set the agenda for the
25 next meeting.
134
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2
Part of this, I think, was a reaction to
3 that.
Basically, you've got 40, 50, 60 people
4 sitting around,
that's not a very efficient
5 way.
6
So this made sense, and I -- there has
7 been discussion on
this. There can be some
8 clarification, and we
can see, hopefully, this
9 next cycle we can get
something that works a
10 little more
responsively. I think originally
11 we started out any
member had the privilege of
12 putting something on
the agenda.
13
Somebody could, from time to time, we
14 would have people
putting things that were not
15 ripe for discussion,
and were a very narrow
16 interest on the
agenda.
17
I think it's very appropriate that there
18 be some screening,
that they are ripe, and it
19 does rise to the
level of being of broad
20 interest to several
people, and is timely to
21 kind of help the
schedule to move forward and
22 be met.
23
I think is there a feeling there has been
24 enough discussion
that's clarification, and
25 let's look at the
next cycle, see how things
135
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 work in the next
cycle. If somebody needs to
3 do something, we can
decide to do it.
4
MS. JENNINGS: Can we just say at the next
5 interim meeting we
need to have a major agenda
6 item, clarify the
process and procedure, go
7 back probably with
the core process, the core
8 mission of the group?
9
Like Dave says, maybe look at the
10 schedule. Many
of us have a copy of it and
11 assume if it's
adhered to, when particular
12 bodies of work would
be appropriate to bring
13 before the SEG.
14
We may find things coming up more
15 frequently than
bi-monthly. I know we have
16 tried to stay away
from that.
17
MR. DYSART: Okay. What about selection
18 of Chris Schuberth's
successor? Is that
19 something you want
to do now? Is there an
20 obvious
candidate? Is there a railroad here or
21 anything?
Larry.
22
MR. KEEGAN: I suggested that item be put
23 on the agenda.
I had some e-mail
24 correspondence with
Chris.
25
I apologize I did have an opportunity to
136
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 discuss this with,
Bob. In Chris' mind, he
3 thought Bob might be
a good candidate. He
4 suggested that to
me. That's all I want to say
5 about that.
6
MR. SCANLON: I'll accept it.
7
MR. DYSART: There a consensus of great
8 comfort with this
wise recommendation?
9
MS. JENNINGS: Great gratitude.
10
MR. DYSART: The record will show everyone
11 nodded their
head. We welcome you as chairman
12 of the Aquifer
Committee.
13
Next meeting date, is there a
14 recommendation?
15
MR. BROWNELL: December 6th, it give us
16 some time to gather
together some good agenda
17 topics that are out
there.
18
MR. DYSART: Okay. You're -- the material
19 you sent me has been
already forwarded to the
20 agenda
committee. Thank you. Any other --
21 Hope.
22
MS. MOORER: Yes, I would recommend we
23 have the interim SEG
on that November 1st date,
24 go ahead, and get
that set down.
25
MR. DYSART: Okay. Is there a consensus
137
1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
2 for the December 6th
date for the next SEG
3 meeting -- I declare
a broad consensus has been
4 created.
5
Is there anything else that needs to come
6 before the
body? We thank Tetra Tech and the
7 Corps for your
presentations. We thank Chris
8 (sic) Watson, in his
absence, for his
9 presentation.
We thank y'all for being here.
10 I declare the
meeting adjoined.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
138
1
2
3
C E R T I F I C A T E
4 G E O R G I A
5 CHATHAM COUNTY
6
7 I hereby certify that
the foregoing transcript
8 was taken down, as stated in the caption, and
the
9 questions and answers thereto were reduced to
10 typewriting under my directions; that the
forgoing
11 Pages 1 through 137 represent a true and
correct
12 transcript of the evidence given upon said
hearing,
13 and I further certify that I am not of kin or
14 counsel to the parties in the case; am not
in the
15 regular employ of counsel for any of said
parties
16 nor am I in anywise interested in the result
of
17 said case.
18
19
This, the 12th day of October, 2005.
20
21
_______________________________
22
Kathleen Dore, Certified Court
23
Reporter, B-2041
24
25