1 2 3 4 5 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6 7 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 8 9 APRIL 6, 2004 10 9:00 A.M. 11 MIGHTY 8TH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 12 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 5 I N D E X 6 7 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3 8 9 GENERAL EVALUATION STUDY STATUS --------------- 8 10 COMMITTEE REPORTS ----------------------------- 10 11 GENERAL DISCUSSION ---------------------------- 14 12 13 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 52 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 (THE REPORTER: I'm appearing here today on 3 behalf of my employer, Tom Crites & Associates. My 4 office was requested by Georgia Ports Authority to 5 provide a court reporter today at 9:00 a.m. at this 6 address. 7 At the instructions of my employer, I wish to 8 disclose that, other than accepting to serve as 9 your reporter, we have not entered into any other 10 contractual agreement with any party involved in 11 this case.) 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's call the meeting of 13 the Stakeholders Evaluation Group to order. It's 14 nice to see y'all here. As usual, we're going to 15 start out by saying who we are. 16 I'm going to say that I'm Ben Dysart, the SEG 17 facilitator. I'm glad to be here. I'm going to 18 start with Bill Bailey and let him introduce 19 himself and his absent distinguished colleague. 20 MR. BAILEY: I'm Bill Bailey with the Corps of 21 Engineers, and this is Ken Derickson with the 22 Corps. 23 MR. DERICKSON: How are you doing. 24 MR. BAILEY: He's filling in for Doug Plachy, 25 who is over in Iraq right now working to restore 4 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 electricity. 3 MR. DYSART: Ken, why don't you let us hear 4 your voice, now that you have been officially 5 introduced. 6 MR. DERICKSON: Well, I'm pleased to be here 7 and I'm enjoying my education on the Savannah 8 Harbor Expansion Project. 9 I've been involved in a lot of meetings, 10 getting to meet a lot of people. A lot of you 11 folks I haven't met yet, but I'm looking forward 12 to. 13 Now that I'm kind of getting set up 14 logistically, and have gotten all my computer 15 functioning and all that, gotten through some of 16 these initial meetings, I want to get out in the 17 field and meet some of the different groups. 18 You know what I'm all about. I'm in here from 19 the New Orleans District. I'll be here for 20 probably 120 days or so. 21 I'm an ecologist by training, been involved in 22 project management for more years than I'd like to 23 say -- just say 20 plus. 24 And so I'm, you know, hoping to help move this 25 project along. I don't think you'll find there's a 5 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 lot of difference between Doug and I, in terms of 3 how we approach things as far as getting, you know, 4 getting things done, but there will be a slight 5 difference in that I am ecologist by training. 6 Doug is an engineer. That's not good or bad. 7 I've been working with engineers most of my life. 8 So I look forward to working with y'all, and before 9 long we'll be getting together. 10 MR. DYSART: We certainly are glad you're here 11 and welcome you. I predict your education will 12 continue. 13 MR. DERICKSON: I hope so. 14 MR. DYSART: I'd say in 120 days, gosh, this 15 might be the guy who could wind it all up. Okay. 16 Judy. 17 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia Sierra. 18 MR. PARSONS: Keith Parsons, Georgia 19 Department of Natural Resources. 20 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, citizen. 21 MR. STAFFORD: John Stafford, Ogeechee 22 Audubon Society. 23 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo. 24 MR. GRIFFIN: David Griffin, Georgia DOT. 25 MR. FLOCK: Allan Flock, Savannah National 6 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 Wildlife Refuge. 3 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, Savannah 4 National Wildlife Refuge. 5 MR. PRUSA: I'm Tom Prusa. I'm the new guy in 6 town. I'm going to be the new refuge manager at 7 Savannah Coastal Refuge. 8 I'm here this week house hunting with my wife. 9 She's out today. And I decided to come here today, 10 because I knew the meeting was happening, just to 11 get to see what goes on. It will be interesting to 12 continue to come to these meetings with John and 13 Allan, and we'll be learning a lot too. 14 MR. BERSON: I'm Will Berson. I'm with the 15 Georgia Conservancy. 16 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 17 Authority. 18 MS. LANDERS: Mary Landers, Savannah Morning 19 News. 20 MR. ELLIS: Bo Ellis with ATM. 21 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan with Lockwood Greene 22 Engineers. 23 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller with the Georgia 24 Ports Authority. 25 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant to the GPA. 7 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 3 Authority. 4 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Welcome, Tom. 5 MR. PRUSA: Thank you. 6 MR. DYSART: It's a pleasure to have you with 7 us. I don't have any comments. Y'all have in 8 front of you the draft agenda. I would invite you 9 to look at that and see if there are any changes 10 that you would like to make, modifications, 11 additions, anything at all. 12 Seeing no comments, I would consider that the 13 group finds this acceptable. You've all had an 14 opportunity to review the February transcript of 15 the meeting. 16 To the extent that you desire to do so, any 17 comments or any corrections that you would like to 18 put on the record from February transcript? We 19 will assume that this is a great endorsement for 20 distinguished court report capturing all the wisdom 21 that comes before the body accurately. 22 Okay. I will consider that the transcript has 23 been accepted by the body. Okay. Gets us down 24 suddenly to item five. Larry, do you have any 25 comments about the general evaluation study status. 8 1 GENERAL EVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 MR. KEEGAN: Well, a few. Thank you, Ben. I 3 posted the February and March combined status 4 report yesterday on the website, after finalizing 5 it. 6 Agency coordination, there's a meeting of the 7 executive management group. That will be tomorrow 8 at EPA in Atlanta. There's been several 9 interagency coordination meetings, groundwater 10 coordination on the 12th of last month, and water 11 quality on the 4th and 30th of last month, with 12 another water quality about the 28th of April. 13 Economic analysis is proceeding under 14 contract, Gulf Engineers, in accordance with a 15 work plan that we reviewed in the EWG. The 16 screening process for potential alternatives is 17 moving along at its own pace. Agencies are looking 18 at that information now. 19 Under the scientific analysis, oxygen -- 20 dissolved oxygen and H and S model calibration, we 21 expect to get the agency position based on their 22 review of calibration reports in tomorrow's 23 meeting. 24 They have some concerns about portions of the 25 model in a report, and we're working to try work 9 1 GENERAL EVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 our way through that and see how we can address 3 those. 4 In parallel with that effort, EPA is 5 continuing their development of a hydrodynamic 6 salinity model, dissolved oxygen model for TMDL 7 setting purposes. 8 Both of those are based on different software 9 than what we're using, but they're employing much 10 of the same data that was collected for this 11 project. 12 Putting together all the pieces for marsh 13 succession model is proceeding. We've got a piece 14 left from USGS, and that's the part that we'll take 15 a prediction from the H and S model, and correlate 16 that to a set of conditions in the marsh, go from 17 the river to someplace in the marsh. 18 Dr. Kitchens is also refining his portion 19 still, and we're hoping to have all of those pieces 20 wrapped up and ready for use in mid to late May. 21 That's somewhat dependent upon the workload of 22 the people doing the development. We'll see. 23 Aquifer investigation, that's proceeding, as 24 Card talked about here at the last meeting. I 25 don't know of any new borings or test data or 10 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 testing that has been done in the last month or so, 3 really nothing new. 4 And as you know, Ken is here now filling in 5 behind Doug while Doug is out. And that's all I 6 have unless someone has questions. 7 MR. DYSART: Questions, comments? Okay. 8 Committee reports, Chris is not here. We'll see if 9 he comes in a little later. Bill Farmer, how about 10 the Beach Erosion? 11 MR. FARMER: The committee has not met, so we 12 have nothing to report. 13 MR. DYSART: Fred. 14 MR. BEASON: Ben, we're still waiting on the 15 models to come forward with some data. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. Cruising right along to 17 Judy, Economics Working Group. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Our last meeting was late 19 January, so we haven't met since, but I probably do 20 need to talk with Morgan, and maybe Ken, and find 21 out what has happened since we met in January, and 22 when it might be a good time to get the Economic 23 Working Group back together. 24 MR. REES: Was that a question, Judy? I was 25 at a side bar going here with Larry. 11 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 MS. JENNINGS: I said, we haven't met since 3 the last meeting. 4 MR. REES: Right. 5 MS. JENNINGS: In Larry's report he said 6 progress is being made, so probably if I could get 7 with you and Ken, and if you guys could help me get 8 with Kevin Goran and decide when an appropriate 9 time might be to pull the Economic Working Group 10 together again. 11 MR. REES: All right. 12 MS. JENNINGS: I remember, from the first 13 meeting, there were points at which you said it 14 would be most logical to review with us. 15 MR. REES: Right, okay. 16 MS. JENNINGS: I'm totally out of touch since 17 January. I'm having a little trouble getting our 18 minutes posted from that meeting, but I'll 19 eventually get that done. 20 MR. DYSART: Does that mean you have control 21 of the bottleneck on that, right? 22 MS. JENNINGS: Well, here's the thing, I'm no 23 one's secretary and didn't try to be. So what I 24 promised to do, if after the meeting everybody 25 would send me their notes, I would string them 12 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 together in some way. That would be the record of 3 the meeting. 4 What I've got as, it turns out since I took no 5 notes, is five or six e-mails that are slightly, as 6 Larry pointed out, quite out of context. 7 So I'm having a little trouble creating a good 8 record. So I sent what I've got to everybody 9 yesterday. If everybody would look at that, and 10 all I can do is what I've said. 11 Let me put it that way. If there's a context 12 or qualifiers or anything else that needs to be 13 added, so that it can look like a perfect record, I 14 need help doing that. 15 MR. DYSART: Maybe you just provide what 16 people said. 17 MS. JENNINGS: Well, but it comes off looking 18 disjointed and out of context, so I don't know how 19 to get it better. I'll work on that after with 20 other peoples' help. I just don't know any other 21 way, any other thing to do to it. 22 MR. DYSART: Will, what about the Fisheries 23 and Aquatic Resources Committee? 24 MR. BERSON: No, I've just been a slug. 25 Actually, we're still waiting on model data before 13 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 we convene, and any sense of when that might be 3 would be my guiding principle on when to pull these 4 folks together. 5 MR. DYSART: Bo, MTRG. 6 MR. ELLIS: There have been no meetings of the 7 MTRG to report. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. Teri is not with us. 9 Anybody got anything from the -- 10 MS. JENNINGS: Well actually, can I go back to 11 a question on modelling? 12 MR. DYSART: Sure. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Bo, where is the model and 14 what work's being done? You said no meetings of 15 the MTRG. 16 Larry, in his GRR report indicated a good deal 17 of activity in the inner agency meetings, so is 18 that where all the conversations are happening? 19 MR. ELLIS: The water quality working group, I 20 think, Bill is coordinating, is the interagency 21 body dealing with modelling and modelling issues 22 and water quality. We're dealing with a number of 23 modelling and water quality-related issues. 24 MR. BAILEY: Basically, the final calibration 25 reports have been provided and are being reviewed 14 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 by the agencies. We hope to have answers from the 3 agencies tomorrow. 4 MR. DYSART: Anybody else have any comments or 5 questions or anything they want to say on this 6 topic. Okie doke. 7 So now we can say that Teri is not here. Does 8 anybody have anything from the Operating Guidelines 9 Committee, or things for its consideration? How 10 about the Striped Bass Committee, anything to be 11 reported there? 12 That sort of moved us right along. Anything 13 -- anything else to be discussed or put on the 14 floor for consideration or the welfare of the 15 group? Will. 16 MR. BERSON: I confess I came here waiting to 17 hear more about the model today than actually I've 18 heard. We, frankly, heard from a number of 19 resource agencies that the model is not working. 20 Calibration is, apparently, more of a problem 21 than I seem to be hearing in either reports from 22 Larry or Bo, and I just would like to know where we 23 are? 24 I mean, our sense is that the model is about 25 to not to be used. If that's in error, I'd like to 15 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 hear. 3 MR. DYSART: Comments. 4 MR. BAILEY: We'll kind of find out tomorrow. 5 I mean, the models are being reviewed. As Larry 6 said, people have expressed some concerns and we're 7 trying to work through those and we'll find out. 8 We expect to have the agency letters tomorrow when 9 we meet with them. 10 MR. BERSON: And do you expect that the 11 agencies are going to be in the main accepting of 12 the model or do you think they are going to advise 13 it's not working correctly and they can't accept 14 it? You've been meeting with them all along. 15 MR. BAILEY: Right. I'm not sure what they're 16 going to say. They have had -- have expressed 17 concerns. No model is perfect. That's probably 18 all I have to say. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Even though you can't predict 20 what's going to happen tomorrow, Bill, this is one 21 topic that I haven't tried to get that involved in, 22 because the body of knowledge is just so far beyond 23 me. 24 I realize you can't predict tomorrow, but can 25 anybody help Will and me understand what the basic 16 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 conversations are -- I mean, dumbed-down to the 3 point where I could actually get it? 4 MR. DYSART: Sounds like a question addressed 5 to whomever wishes to respond. 6 MR. DERICKSON: It's a little -- we don't want 7 to preempt the agencies and what the agencies are 8 going to say. You know, there are a lot of 9 concerns, but with the agencies right now, about 10 the vertical mixing component of the models, 11 whether it will meet their needs. 12 The last meeting, there was a lot of 13 discussion. There were some comments that were 14 forwarded from the agencies to ATM. ATM prepared 15 some responses to that. 16 They met -- we met last week. There was 17 discussion back and forth on these comments, and so 18 now what we're waiting for is, you know, the 19 concerns were there, but whether the written 20 responses and the oral responses satisfy the 21 agencies, we will have to wait to see tomorrow. 22 We don't want to second guess the agencies at 23 this point in time. But as, you know, Larry 24 pointed out, there are some issues there. So we'll 25 have to wait and see whether the agencies are 17 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 satisfied with the results of the meeting last 3 week. We should know that by tomorrow. 4 MR. DYSART: Anybody -- I might say for a 5 couple of new folks here, we have a little custom. 6 If you want to be recognized, you put that up. 7 It's not like people are queuing up in mobs here, 8 but I can recognize Bill Farmer. 9 MR. FARMER: Quite a few months the Corps 10 developed a mitigation study development indicating 11 all the different concerns that would have to be 12 addressed. 13 Is there sort of a status report or whatever 14 as to how those studies might be going, or when 15 they're scheduled, or what's happening in that 16 regard? 17 MR. BAILEY: No action has been taken on 18 those. That was a list of potential mitigation 19 actions. 20 MR. FARMER: Right. You sort of need to wait 21 for the model to get predictable or whatever and 22 react to that first? 23 MR. BAILEY: Don't have to, but just nothing's 24 been done on that yet. 25 MR. FARMER: Okay. It's still planned to 18 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 accomplish those tasks, before the project is 3 authorized? 4 MR. BAILEY: Yes. We still have to look at 5 those things and evaluate them. 6 MR. DYSART: Will. 7 MR. BERSON: I have no desire to be 8 unpleasant about this, but Savannah is a very small 9 town. And this process is even smaller. 10 It's distressing to me that we can't have open 11 and frank discussions around this table, because I 12 can appreciate that y'all don't want to speak for 13 the agencies, but I think the plain fact is that 14 the model is not performing in an acceptable 15 fashion, for a number of folks that need to sign 16 off on it. 17 Now, we can either have this discussion today 18 or we can come back and next month and have it next 19 month, but it's -- it seems strange to me that 20 we're sitting around the table and not discussing a 21 very important element that everyone knows has to 22 be addressed sooner or later. 23 If it has to be later, then that's fine, but I 24 would implore y'all to discuss what you have heard 25 from the agencies so far, and be more forthcoming 19 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 with us so that we can act like grown-ups in this 3 process. 4 MR. DYSART: Allan Flock beat John Robinette 5 to the draw. Allan. 6 MR. FLOCK: The Fish and Wildlife Services 7 representative, Ed Eudaly, who has communicated 8 some of these concerns is not here. 9 I don't think it's appropriate to characterize 10 with innuendo what his concerns are, when there's 11 meetings going on that Ken just discussed or Bill 12 -- one of the two -- without all the players here 13 to represent those concerns, 14 I don't think it's appropriate. I'm sorry, 15 Will. I'd like to know the answers too where we 16 are, but -- 17 MR. BERSON: To be quite frank, I wasn't 18 asking you. I was asking GPA and the Corps. 19 They're the ones who have been having meetings with 20 all the resource agencies. 21 MR. DYSART: John, you seem to have a 22 follow-up comment, and then go to Dave. 23 MR. ROBINETTE: Yeah. Ed's going to meet 24 tomorrow, you know, representing the service on 25 this subject and other things too. But Dr. Paul 20 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 Conrads is representing us. He works for USGS. 3 He's looked at the model. He is concerned 4 with the vertical mixing like Ken said. He's 5 offered some solutions. 6 He wants ATM and GPA to look at those 7 solutions, to make some runs to see if we could get 8 this more accurate. That's where we are right now, 9 as far as Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned. 10 Now, they have met, and I haven't talked to 11 Paul, and I haven't had an opportunity to discuss 12 it with Ed. I'm sure Ed's more up-to-date on that, 13 because I think he has met with Paul since the 14 model group met last time, but I have not had an 15 opportunity to talk to Paul. 16 The last time we had a discussion that was 17 where we were. They were working on trying to get 18 it to run a little more accurately, in answering 19 the vertical mixing questions for Paul. 20 MR. DYSART: David Schaller. 21 MR. SCHALLER: To the very best of my 22 knowledge, Will's comment is broad, sweeping 23 generalization about the model not working. 24 There have been issues raised about the 25 vertical mixing component. There isn't a soul 21 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 here who I see who has raised one of those 3 concerns. 4 So for you to ask us to describe their 5 concerns is beyond -- beyond our capability. If 6 you know more about it, please take the floor and 7 share it. 8 MR. BERSON: Well, since I'm not typically 9 invited to the interagency meetings, it's difficult 10 for me to express their concerns. 11 MR. SCHALLER: As it is for us to express 12 their concerns, other than to advise the SEG that 13 there have been concerns raised about the vertical 14 mixing component of the H and S model. 15 MS. JENNINGS: All right. Let me try this. 16 Since none of us here can talk in depth about the 17 model either, because we haven't been there or just 18 can't do it, is there a record? 19 I mean, there's so much stuff on the web page. 20 I thought that as these things happened, there 21 would be a record made so that a SEG member, 22 who is not an agency member, could have access to 23 it. It's really hard for me to have much of an 24 opinion about any of it, when all I hear is -- 25 MR. FLOCK: Rumor. 22 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 MS. JENNINGS: -- what I hear. It's hard to 3 say this concerns me or it doesn't. I think maybe 4 what Will is saying, no one wants to handicap the 5 meeting tomorrow, but you've indicated there have 6 been two or three. Is there a record of that 7 available to us? 8 MR. SCHALLER: I don't know. May I be 9 recognized? 10 MS. JENNINGS: Please. 11 MR. SCHALLER: I don't know the answer to that 12 question. Perhaps Bill or Ken can address that. 13 Please understand that we can't compel those 14 agencies to be here to describe their concerns. 15 For me, a final record has not been made on 16 this question. The discussions, the concerns 17 raised, have been preliminary in nature. 18 I think that's fair to say, and without a 19 final record having been developed, I mean, you 20 know we could hand you the paper, if you will, if 21 we had it that said this is the problem, but we 22 don't have that paper. 23 MS. JENNINGS: I guess what I was asking, does 24 anybody have it in a form that could be shared with 25 the SEG? 23 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 MR. DYSART: Ken. 3 MR. DERICKSON: Let me try to kind of explain 4 the situation, without appearing to be evasive or 5 anything. 6 You know when you sit down in these meetings 7 and you listen to these modellers talk, you know, 8 it's hard. 9 They don't agree amongst themselves on the 10 issues. They go back and forth. Modelling is a 11 very complex situation, and the particular model 12 that's having to be developed for Savannah, it 13 seems to be even more complex. 14 So there's a lot of give and take back and 15 forth amongst these folks. They are trying to sort 16 out things themselves. Yes, they're modellers and 17 they work with models. 18 A lot of these model are very specific and, 19 you know, they -- it's just very difficult to 20 really figure out where they are. I mean, they 21 just go back and forth, back and forth. 22 For somebody who is not a modeller, you sit 23 there and at the end of the day you say, well geez, 24 where are we? And that's the issue. 25 That's kind of where we are. It's up to them 24 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 now, after they have gone through all this stuff, 3 to make a final determination. As far as I know, 4 tomorrow we will have that final determination. 5 Once we have that final determination, then I 6 think we're in a better position to address things. 7 Right now, you know, honestly -- I know a little 8 bit about modelling. I've had statistical analysis 9 and all that, but these models are very complex. 10 They take a long time to get accepted. The 11 modelling people have their own language and 12 everything. I would not want to second guess them 13 at this point. 14 Let's just wait and by tomorrow we'll know. 15 And then from there, I think that we can talk 16 specifics. 17 MR. DYSART: Bill Farmer. 18 MR. FARMER: Just to give us some perspective, 19 the vertical mixing component is in question or 20 whatever; how many other components are there, and 21 are they in question, are they pretty good? 22 What's the scope of difficulty? Is it a major 23 thing or a minor thing? How important is vertical 24 mixing? I don't know. Can we get a perspective on 25 that? 25 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 MR. BAILEY: Vertical mixing is an important 3 issue. It deals with salinity, mixing of the 4 freshwater and saltwater, and then it's effect on 5 dissolved oxygen. Yeah, it is an important factor. 6 MR. FARMER: Are there other important factors 7 that are right online though or -- 8 MR. BAILEY: That was -- that was the first 9 issue that most of the modellers looked at, so they 10 didn't really -- some of them didn't look at all of 11 the model, all the aspects of it. 12 So they had questions about the vertical 13 mixing, and gave those to ATM, and ATM is giving 14 responses. 15 MR. FARMER: I guess a model is useful for 16 predicting, and you crank all that in to see if it 17 predicts the new data that you have facts on, and 18 if you're 100% accurate, you know, the prediction 19 come out to be the actual data. 20 Is the prediction a lot of off or is it a 21 little bit off? In other words, models you crank 22 in old data and see if it comes out to be more 23 recent data, using the model. 24 If it does, you have got a great model. If it 25 doesn't then you have a bad model. I'm wondering 26 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 is it real bad, a little bit bad, whatever? 3 MR. SCHALLER: If you're asking me, I know 4 less than Ken knows about modelling so -- but to 5 try to -- I don't think anybody here can 6 characterize the degree to which the level of 7 concern rises. Okay. 8 We know it's on the table. It's been 9 addressed. It will be determined tomorrow with the 10 agency letters, and then we'll have to move forward 11 from there. 12 Do we have to replace that component and -- I 13 ought to be quiet actually, because I really am a 14 lay person when it comes to modelling. I know 15 almost nothing, other than what I've heard 16 described in my presence about modelling, but I 17 don't know the coefficients, the equations used, 18 those kind of things. 19 Obviously, the whole idea of the model is to 20 be a predictive tool. One or two things that you 21 said kind of refreshed my memory of calibration. 22 My understanding of calibration is that you 23 test it against data known to see if it matches. 24 Then you can rely on it as a predictive tool for 25 future changes. And so that's where it is. 27 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 MR. DYSART: Fred had his card up, what was 3 your comment, Fred? 4 MR. BEASON: My question to Ken is as we sit 5 here listening to this, these are people that are 6 qualified to evaluate the model. 7 I'm assuming what's happening here is just 8 what we have when we have verification of other 9 reports. They're mixing their thoughts. They're 10 editing. They're giving. They're taking. 11 At the end of the day, it's a process that 12 will be worked through so that the model is 13 acceptable to the majority of the people. 14 And if it's not, it will be tweaked until it 15 is acceptable. Is that just a safe statement, and 16 we need to wait and let that occur? 17 MR. DERICKSON: I guess what we're going to 18 hear tomorrow is sort of, you know, the agencies 19 will tell us if they think that the vertical mixing 20 component of this model will work, and if not what, 21 you know, what the -- whether it's -- something can 22 be done to tweak it and fix it, or whether they 23 feel that that's not the case. 24 I don't know. We'll have to wait and see. I 25 think the other thing we all have to realize is, in 28 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 responding to Bill a little bit too, that one of 3 the difficulties with these models is they aren't 4 100% accurate. 5 And generally, they're not anywhere close to 6 being 100% accurate, just because there's so much 7 variability and so many things that happen out in 8 the environment. 9 It's very, very difficult to capture all the 10 different variables that are affecting the values. 11 So what you do, you come up with your best 12 predictive tool. 13 It gets worked through the academic community, 14 peer group review and all that. It reaches a level 15 of acceptance. The models are known to have a 16 certain error value. 17 When you apply the models, you have to 18 incorporate that and adjust for it. I think Fish 19 and Wildlife, any of the agencies will tell you 20 they have to work with these models. 21 We all know there is a fairly significant, 22 but acceptable in terms of the modelling world, 23 error to these models. So that's the other thing 24 that complicates it. 25 It makes it very difficult. If it's a matter 29 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 of this one is 100% and that one is 85, that would 3 be pretty easy. That's not the way it is. Maybe 4 this one 70, this one's 60, this one's 50. 5 Maybe they're all okay if you apply them 6 properly, so it makes very difficult to -- when you 7 listen to these folks going back and forth trying 8 to figure out where we're going to be at the end of 9 the day. 10 They will make that determination amongst 11 themselves. They have to determine what's 12 acceptable, what isn't acceptable. Then we're 13 going to have look at that and live with it. 14 So I don't know what they're going to come 15 down with. We do know they have raised concerns 16 about it. 17 Whether they find it unacceptable, whether 18 they find it acceptable with fixing, we don't know 19 that yet. 20 MR. DYSART: Keith. 21 MR. PARSONS: It's my impression from this 22 discussion that the vertical mixing component of 23 this model seems to be a cornerstone piece of the 24 model, because it seems that it's going to, 25 basically, drive these other factors that we need 30 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 to consider, basically the dissolved oxygen, 3 salinity, temperatures in the system, impacts to 4 fisheries, and all these other elements that we're 5 trying to the sort out here in the SEG. 6 I guess my question back to Bo and Larry is, 7 is this vertical mixing component a cornerstone of 8 the larger picture in the model? 9 MR. ELLIS: It's an important -- there is a 10 coefficient derived from a relationship in the 11 model. It is important among many other factors 12 and coefficients in a hydrodynamic model. 13 But yes, it is -- it is an important piece. I 14 wouldn't necessarily characterize it as a 15 cornerstone. 16 MR. PARSONS: Okay. Thank you. 17 MR. DYSART: Larry 18 MR. KEEGAN: I can't shed much light on the 19 technical discussions of modelling, but maybe I can 20 help put things in a little bit of context. 21 We had a calibration report for both H and S 22 and DO models submitted to the agencies. That 23 report is in review. There's about 10 technical 24 folks doing the review, is that about the right 25 number, you think -- 10, I think, is the number. 31 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 They have so far looked at this one piece as 3 the first thing they wanted to look at, vertical 4 mixing. We're waiting to hear, as Ken and Bill 5 have said, what their feedback is. 6 That doesn't mean that's the only thing they 7 have to look at. There's much more about the 8 calibration still under review. We don't have 9 feedback back about it yet. 10 There's still discussion that has to happen, 11 so we're in the middle of a process, and we just 12 don't have the information about outcome of the 13 process because it hasn't come out yet. 14 So, you know, we're still working through it. 15 With 10 people looking at this, it's going to take 16 us much longer than we hoped. I think that's clear 17 to me. 18 We've just got to let this thing work its way 19 through until we hear the final answers. We just 20 don't have them yet. 21 MR. DYSART: Follow-up, Keith. 22 MR. PARSONS: Yeah. In regards to the 23 vertical mixing component of the model, if it were 24 determined by the agencies that it's inadequate 25 and they propose some other vertical mixing 32 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 mathematical deal to go in there as the model, 3 replace it with some other thing, would the data 4 that's been collected to date be usable in a new 5 model or would we have to go back and collect 6 additional data? 7 MR. BAILEY: The data stands on its own. 8 MR. PARSONS: The data stands on its own, so 9 it could be plugged in, regardless of any dramatic 10 changes in the model itself? 11 MR. ELLIS: We have plenty of data and we've 12 been able to use that data and compare that data. 13 The data has not been a problem, especially in this 14 issue. 15 MR. PARSONS: Okay. Thank you. 16 MR. DYSART: Will. 17 MR. BERSON: I was just going to say I 18 appreciate that y'all can't speak about this. 19 Tomorrow, I suppose, is soon enough. 20 I imagine a lot of people around the table 21 will be wanting to read those letters, from the 22 resource agencies, to see what their thoughts are. 23 I would like to suggest that we meet next 24 month, instead of waiting another month, and I'd 25 like to suggest that the reports, from the resource 33 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 agencies, be including on that agenda. 3 MR. DYSART: Request is noted. We'll deal 4 with that when we schedule the next meeting. I 5 would just comment, I used to be a water quality 6 modeller back when I was young. 7 I appreciate the complexity. I know compared 8 to making sausage, which is supposed to be a 9 complex process, water quality modelling can, I 10 think, outstrip making sausage for complexity. So 11 I appreciate that. 12 I want to clarify one thing. Corps folks are 13 saying that there would be final determinations 14 tomorrow. I gather, from subsequent discussions, 15 that that is pertaining to the vertical mixing 16 component, not the final determination tomorrow on 17 the acceptability of the whole modelling package. 18 Is that correct? I'm just trying clarify 19 that. I mean, I'm not trying to tease anything out 20 here, you know. 21 That was a very clear statement, there would 22 be a final determination tomorrow, and the question 23 has come up about is that focusing on the vertical 24 mixing? 25 MR. DERICKSON: You want to answer that? 34 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 MR. BAILEY: What we have asked the agencies 3 for was a letter on the whole model, and have also 4 recognized that we were going to look at the model 5 in phases, and vertical mixing was the first phase 6 they were going to look at. So the answers that we 7 get tomorrow may be on the whole model and may be 8 just on the first phase. 9 MR. DYSART: So tomorrow you will know. Okay. 10 Judy Jennings. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Well, y'all may have said this 12 and I'm not sure I understand. If there is a 13 determination that the vertical mixing component -- 14 I mean, can you just plug in another one and keep 15 going? You see what I'm saying, like just changing 16 a light bulb? 17 MR. DYSART: We've been waiting for somebody 18 who could simplify this and explain it. I think 19 Judy may have. 20 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I don't change light 21 bulbs actually. Maybe that's not a very good 22 analogy. 23 MR. DYSART: How many modellers does it take 24 to change a light bulb? Larry. 25 MR. KEEGAN: Judy, your question is a good 35 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 question. It's something we're looking to figure 3 out the answer to now. 4 It turns out it's probably more difficult to 5 answer than maybe we would anticipate, but we don't 6 know the answer. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Another thought is I realize 8 all the expertise and knowledge that the agency 9 people have, but whatever their conclusion is, it's 10 actually not their job to move along with harbor 11 deepening. 12 I think this body has more interest in doing 13 that than any group of technical modellers. So is 14 there anticipation of a plan, I mean, predicated on 15 various outcomes from the agency model people? 16 MR. DYSART: To whom are you addressing that 17 question? 18 MS. JENNINGS: Anyone that venture an answer. 19 MR. DYSART: David has his card up first, so 20 he can -- 21 MR. SCHALLER: That may prove to have been a 22 mistake. The answer to that question is that that 23 is the subject of a meeting that we are planning to 24 kind of put our heads together, get these agency 25 letters in our hands. 36 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 My expectation, and this is my expectation, I 3 can't speak for the Corps, but my expectation is 4 that the agency letters will, if they disqualify 5 the vertical mixing component, they will do so with 6 appropriate justification for its inadequacy, not 7 just simply say, you know, forget the vertical 8 mixing. 9 They have a duty to say the vertical mixing 10 component, of the H and S model, won't work for 11 these reasons. You know, you used the wrong 12 coefficient, you used this, you used that, you did 13 this, you can't do that, so on and so forth. 14 There has got to be some explanation about why 15 it is being disqualified, if it is disqualified. 16 Armed with that kind of information, then I think 17 we can address the question of, can you change the 18 light bulb, can you take this component out that 19 they find inadequate, deficient, whatever they 20 find, and plug another one in, and make it 21 suitable. 22 So that question, you know, will be addressed, 23 once we know what the specific agency comments are 24 about the vertical mixing component. 25 MR. DYSART: Ken. 37 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 MR. DERICKSON: To answer your specific 3 question, most of these models have been developed 4 so that they have various things that can be 5 tweaked, okay, to fit the particular circumstances. 6 So it's conceivable, at least, that if 7 whatever tweaking was done, the agencies have a 8 problem with it, that you could go back and use the 9 same basic model platform to use some of the 10 modellers terminology and tweak it a different way. 11 Theoretically, at least, you might be able to 12 go back and just modify it and use the same 13 platform. Now, whether that's going to be the 14 recommendation or not, we don't know. 15 MR. DYSART: Judy. 16 MS. JENNINGS: I'm just curious in going 17 through the process, Keith read a long list of 18 other issues that grow from the model. 19 Do we have to go through a process with the 20 fisheries people, and all those other people who 21 say well, the model was going to be used to predict 22 this about my issue, and I get to look at it too? 23 I mean, is that part of the process? I'm not 24 advocating that it be, I'm just asking if it is? 25 MR. BAILEY: No. 38 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 MR. DYSART: Bill Bailey said no. David. 3 MR. SCHALLER: That's fine. I just want to 4 speak from where I sit. If there is a fatal 5 component to the model, the first course of action 6 will be to fix it, to repair that flaw. 7 And that's where we'll be heading, in the 8 event it's determined to be unacceptable -- the 9 vertical mixing component. How we fix it is over 10 my head. 11 MR. DYSART: Do you have any further comment, 12 Bill? I didn't mean to preempt you. When Bill 13 Bailey speaks, we want to listen. 14 MR. BAILEY: The process was we have talked 15 with the different -- we have coordinated with each 16 agency on different resources for how to use the 17 models, for how to evaluate impacts from the 18 project. 19 For fisheries and water quality, they would 20 come back, and it is dependent on the hydrodynamic 21 and salinity models that we've been developing for 22 years. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Uh-huh. 24 MR. BAILEY: In those -- those groups of 25 people have been figuring out how to use those 39 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 tools to evaluate impacts to their resources. 3 We're doing separate coordination with 4 different folks, within those same agencies, about 5 adequacy of a model. You know, is this -- how do 6 we develop a model that each agency says yes, this 7 is good enough. 8 MS. JENNINGS: So those resource people are 9 looking at it concurrently with the mathematical 10 modellers? 11 MR. BAILEY: The resource people are relying 12 on someone else, within their agency, someone with 13 modelling experience to say that the model is good 14 enough. 15 MS. JENNINGS: I think you're answering me, 16 but once you get that modeller to sign off on the 17 agency, whether or not like David said this is 18 what's wrong with it and this is, whatever they 19 say, then you've got that agency, you don't have to 20 go looking behind him at another group of 21 coordination interagency-type things? 22 MR. BAILEY: Right, uh-huh, yes. 23 MS. JENNINGS: So once that person says this 24 is what's wrong, this is how I'd like to fix it, or 25 whatever he says, then that agency has had their 40 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 say about it. 3 MR. DYSART: Will. 4 MR. BERSON: Leaving the other folks out, the 5 other resource agencies out of it for the moment, 6 does the Corps have an opinion on how the model is 7 functioning at this point? 8 MR. BAILEY: We haven't -- we actually didn't 9 review the final calibration reports. We turned 10 them over to an independent technical review, like 11 we've been talking for years here. 12 MR. BERSON: Well, technical review -- won't 13 quibble over independent. 14 MR. BAILEY: Well, I'd say we turned them over 15 to an independent technical reviewer, and we 16 haven't gotten their letter yet. I sent an e-mail 17 this morning asking for that letter. Hopefully it 18 will be here tomorrow. We were counting on it for 19 tomorrow. So -- 20 MR. BERSON: So don't know. 21 MR. BAILEY: The short answer is I don't know. 22 MR. DYSART: Further questions, comments, 23 discussion? Going once, twice. Okay. Let's look 24 at the matter of the next meeting date. Will has 25 proposed, since there's going to be a lot happening 41 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 in the next day, it seems pivotal that the group 3 meet in a month. What is the pleasure of the 4 body on that? 5 MR. GRIFFIN: I would definitely agree we 6 don't need to wait two months. It's just a little 7 too close to G8 for me. In my opinion, it would 8 either be May or July would be the best. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any other thoughts, any 10 other support for a month from now versus two or 11 three from now. Judy. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Except for the meeting 13 tomorrow, what other information, milestones are 14 there in the near term? 15 MR. DYSART: Larry or Bill? 16 MS. JENNINGS: I mean, actually, what will 17 happen after tomorrow? 18 MR. DYSART: You mean on this matter or other 19 studies? 20 MS. JENNINGS: Even if we don't know exactly, 21 procedurally what happens? I guess what I'm saying 22 is if you have your meeting tomorrow, you probably 23 don't do anything else for two more months -- you 24 see what I'm saying? 25 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 42 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 MS. JENNINGS: Will a lot happen in a month or 3 not? 4 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure if there are other 5 things that will be completed, within the next 6 month or so. Larry, you said that the marsh 7 succession -- 8 MR. KEEGAN: Well, I was just reviewing that 9 in my mind, Bill. I don't expect anything from the 10 aquifer investigations for several months, 11 probably. 12 We're thinking the ship simulation, that 13 review and all, will be over in time for like a 14 June presentation. At least that's what we have 15 been looking and hoping for. 16 I don't know where we are, frankly, where 17 we're going to be on calibration review in a month 18 or two months. The way this is going, I just don't 19 know. 20 I just don't see a lot of big milestones here 21 in the future, based on what I'm looking at right 22 now. 23 MR. DYSART: David and then Ken. 24 MR. SCHALLER: Perhaps instead of a 25 full-fledged SEG meeting in a month, we just 43 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 convene interested parties like Will and Judy, in 3 particular, and others who could be invited to 4 sit down and get copies of the agency letters, you 5 know, the lowdown on what went on? 6 MS. JENNINGS: That's a great idea. 7 MR. DYSART: Ken. 8 MR. DERICKSON: The only other thing I'd bring 9 up is we may, Larry, have the draft. We're 10 supposed to have the draft report on the world 11 fleet existing. 12 MR. KEEGAN: You are? 13 MR. DERICKSON: Yeah, so that should be coming 14 in this week. To answer your earlier question 15 about the economics, we should have that available. 16 As soon as I receive it, you know, we do whatever 17 we have to do, we could get it posted so people 18 could look at it. 19 MR. KEEGAN: Sure. 20 MR. DERICKSON: You know, there may be enough 21 time to talk about that a little bit. That's 22 potentially something else we could have on the 23 agenda. 24 MR. DYSART: Will Berson. 25 MR. BERSON: When it comes to study products, 44 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 the model is the 800 pound gorilla. Many, many 3 decisions feed off what that model says. 4 And if, not to play Carnac the Great here, but 5 I predict not all the resource agencies are going 6 to agree in their letters tomorrow. 7 Given that fact, what you decide to do under 8 those circumstances is something that the SEG 9 should discuss sooner rather than later. 10 So I would urge that the SEG meet next month. 11 I've been the first one to say let's meet in two 12 months. For several meetings now, I've never urged 13 us to meet precipitously. I really believe that a 14 private discussion, I appreciate the offer, is not 15 in order in this case. 16 I really think that this is a discussion. 17 Look, if the model is not working properly, it's an 18 item that the SEG ought to discuss and ought to 19 offer its opinion on before you moving forward. If 20 we are talking about July, I can't imagine you're 21 going to sit around your hands until July to decide 22 how to fix what is said is wrong tomorrow. So I 23 really urge that we meet on the 4th. 24 MR. DYSART: Judy. Thank you, Will. 25 MS. JENNINGS: I think I agree with Will, but 45 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 I'm going to disagree in this case about the SEG 3 meeting, because I like David's suggestion of a 4 different kind of meeting because here we are. 5 The Corps is here, and GPA is here, and Fish 6 and Wildlife is here. We've got lots of people, 7 but no one here is one of those people making 8 comments about the model. 9 That's what we all want to talk about, but 10 none of them here. We can't make them show up. If 11 they're not here today, they may not be at the next 12 SEG meeting. 13 So I'm an advocate for, you know, I love the 14 idea of just about any way to help me understand 15 more about what it is. And if we could schedule -- 16 I don't care whether we call it an SEG meeting or 17 not, but just something aimed at being 18 informational, because if the agency people aren't 19 here today, they may not be here next month or 20 July. We may never see them again. 21 MR. DYSART: Are you suggesting that at the 22 other type meetings they would or should or be 23 there? 24 MS. JENNINGS: I don't know if they would or 25 they wouldn't. Clearly, they're not here today. 46 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 MR. BERSON: They're back writing their 3 letters. 4 MS. JENNINGS: I can only say I don't see them 5 here now. I'm sure they're working with 6 constraints that I can't imagine. I don't know. 7 I'm not being critical. It is an observation. 8 It's not a critical one, but it is an irrefutable 9 one. They're not here. 10 So I think until, you know, there's some 11 finality to it, they probably have good reasons not 12 to come before the SEG, and without them would we 13 understand any more than we do right now? 14 But, in a more smaller and informal group 15 where we're not -- we love very much, but if we 16 weren't word for word, then maybe there would be an 17 informational exchange. And that's what I'm 18 looking for. 19 MR. DYSART: What is the pleasure of the body, 20 other people. 21 THE REPORTER: I want to have some surgery, 22 and it's on my arm, just to let you know. I will 23 try to work around this, but I need for you to 24 decide about a date. 25 MR. DYSART: So you were saying that you would 47 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 prefer an off-the-record meeting? 3 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I'm just trying to create 4 something that's not here today. I mean, there's 5 only so far we're going to get with this. We only 6 have so much knowledge to share with each other. 7 MR. DYSART: What about some other folks who 8 have not spoken up; opinions, preferences about a 9 regular SEG meeting next month versus the next 10 meeting, presumably July, and having the informal 11 some time soon. 12 MS. JENNINGS: We could call it any kind of 13 little committee meeting. That way we'd still feel 14 obligated to have a record of it. It would be on 15 the website. 16 Maybe we can get somebody to do a better job 17 than I have with Economic Working Group of creating 18 a record so that it would be there. And maybe -- 19 I'm not being mean about the agencies. It's just 20 they're not here. 21 MR. DYSART: Bill Farmer. 22 MR. FARMER: If I understand what's being 23 said, the model verification and acceptance 24 process is a normal one. You would expect to have 25 some concerns expressed and all that sort of thing. 48 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 So I don't think there's a catastrophe that 3 the body needs to address. I think it's just part 4 of the normal process of moving along. I'm not 5 sure that we can assist the modellers in making 6 things as good as possible. 7 So I personally don't see an urgency for us to 8 meet to help out the modelling process. I don't 9 think our meeting would speed up the process of 10 making things as acceptable as needed to be. So I 11 would see no urgency to have a separate, early SEG 12 meeting. 13 MR. DYSART: David. 14 MR. SCHALLER: I propose that the next SEG 15 meeting be July 13th. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Can we implement your 17 suggestion to -- 18 MR. SCHALLER: Absolutely, absolutely. We'll 19 share all the letters. They're all public 20 documents. 21 There's nothing to hide and we'd be happy to 22 either host one here or perhaps at the Corps. I 23 think if the turnout of today is any indication, it 24 is going to be modest, rather light. 25 So yeah, absolutely. By that time, we may be 49 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 in a position -- by that time, I mean in about a 3 month, perhaps maybe three weeks, we ought to be in 4 a position to have addressed these issues, and 5 maybe not resolved them, but certainly developed a 6 plan about how to resolve, and we can share that. 7 MS. JENNINGS: That's great. 8 MR. DYSART: Fred. 9 MR. BEASON: I second. Let's go July 13th for 10 the meeting. 11 MR. DYSART: Is there any objection to the 12 notion of the smaller meeting, focusing on the 13 agency letters and so forth, in the near future, 14 and having the next full SEG meeting on July 13th? 15 Any objection to that -- any strong objection? Any 16 objection in general? 17 Seeing -- seeing no overt objections voiced, I 18 will consider that it's the will of the body to 19 have the next SEG meeting the 13th of July, and the 20 interim meeting or what not on the modelling, as 21 discussed by David, Judy, so forth, would be 22 arranged -- yes. Hope. 23 MS. MOORER: That's what I was going to 24 mention, with the difficulty of getting in touch 25 with everyone on this SEG, can we set a tentative 50 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 date for that meeting? 3 I know it's tough to judge when we're going to 4 have a plan, move forward, what have you, if there 5 is a need; can we set a tentative date just so that 6 the notification process is a little bit easier, if 7 you don't mind. 8 MR. DYSART: Seems like a reasonable 9 suggestion. 10 MS. VAUGHN: Also make sure we have the 11 current e-mail address. 12 MS. MOORER: Unfortunately, we probably do 13 have all of these people, but all the other people 14 that we need to get, we don't have, you know, all 15 those folks that weren't in attendance that need to 16 be notified. 17 Can we just set a tentative date, maybe just 18 do it in month on the date that Will suggested, 19 maybe go ahead and set that tentatively right now? 20 We'll work on location. 21 MS. JENNINGS: I'd love May 4th. 22 MR. SCHALLER: I think it's the 3rd. We'll 23 just do it on the 3rd. 24 MR. DYSART: Would the 3rd of May be 25 acceptable for those who have been active in 51 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2 discussing this morning? 3 MS. JENNINGS: In the morning? 4 MR. DYSART: I see lots of people nodding 5 their heads and no one indicating otherwise. Okay. 6 Then let's, for information purposes, let's set the 7 3rd of May has been agreed to by this body for the 8 informal modelling informational get-together. 9 MR. MOORE: We'll work on location. We need 10 to check rooms and stuff. We'll put that on the 11 SEG website, post it on that. Is that good -- 12 okay. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Also, I think we all have our 14 own constituencies. We can pass on e-mails. 15 MR. MOORE: Yes, once we send it out. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. Anything else? Seeing no 17 indications of a desire to discuss further, call 18 the meeting concluded, and we'll see you July the 19 13th. Thank you. 20 (Concluded 10:15 a.m.) 21 22 23 24 25 52 1 2 3 4 5 C E R T I F I C A T E 6 G E O R G I A : 7 CHATHAM COUNTY: 8 I hereby certify that the foregoing 9 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 10 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 11 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 12 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 51 represent 13 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 14 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 15 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 16 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 17 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 18 anywise interested in the result of said case. 19 This, the 14th day of April, 2004. 20 21 22 ________________________ 23 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court Reporter, B-2041 24 25