3 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. It's 9:11, and we'll call 3 the meeting of the Stakeholders Evaluation Group to 4 order. The agenda should be around by now, and I'd 5 like, at this time, for everyone here to introduce 6 themselves and indicate what their affiliation is 7 or who they might be representing. Why don't we 8 start on my right. 9 MS. LEFFEK: Teri Leffek, with Fife and 10 Clydesdale Plantations. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia Sierra. 12 MR. PARSON: Keith Parsons, Georgia Department 13 of Natural Resources. 14 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, the Corps of 15 Engineers. 16 MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of Savannah 17 and also the Savannah Harbor Committee. 18 LT. COMMANDER GREENE: Larry Greene, Coast 19 Guard Marine Safety Office, Savannah. 20 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 21 Authority. 22 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for GPA. 23 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant for GPA. 24 MR. ELLIS: Bo Ellis with Applied Technology 25 and Management. 4 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. JOHNSON: Tim Johnson, citizen of Beaufort 3 County, South Carolina. 4 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 5 Authority. 6 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, the Georgia 7 Conservancy. 8 MR. KYLER: David Kyler, Center for a 9 Sustainable Coast. 10 MR. PLACHY: Doug Plachy, Corps of Engineers 11 Savannah District. 12 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, Fish and 13 Wildlife Service. 14 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 15 Service. 16 MR. PHILLIPS: John Phillips, Georgia 17 Department of Transportation. 18 MR. FISHER: George Fisher, Georgia Department 19 of Transportation. 20 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo. 21 MR. SUTLIVE: Charlie Sutlive, Savannah 22 Maritime Association. 23 MR. BROWNE: Tommy Browne, Savannah Pilots. 24 MR. MIKELL: Rob Mikell, South Carolina DHEC. 25 MR. WILL: Ted Will Georgia Department of 5 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 Natural Resources. 3 MR. DRAKE: Sam Drake, Fife and Clydesdale 4 Plantations. 5 MR. STAFFORD: John Stafford, Ogeechee 6 Audubon Society. 7 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, general public. 8 MR. DYSART: I'm Ben Dysart, SEG facilitator. 9 MR. SCHALLER: I'm David Schaller with the 10 Georgia Ports Authority. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. Welcome. I always have to 12 decide each time whether I'm going to sit next to 13 Will, to keep him in line, or whether I'm going to 14 sit across, to keep him in line, so this is across 15 from Will. 16 Moving on to item three, you have the draft 17 agenda that has been proposed, and I would like to 18 know are there any additional items you would like 19 to put on there, or anything that you would like to 20 do to consider modifying it? If not, we'll -- 21 MR. REES: Just one point, Ben, under the old 22 business on the third bullet, flow of information. 23 That appeared on the last several agendas, and that 24 was just a one time presentation which we made and 25 the SEG accepted, so we'd recommend that that be 6 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 deleted from future agendas. 3 MR. DYSART: Okay. I had the impression that 4 that -- okay. That's noted. And whenever that's 5 needed again, let us know. 6 Whenever anybody wants something put on as a 7 standing item or for couple times, please let us 8 know. I think that served a purpose. When it 9 serves another purpose, we'll bring it back up. 10 Otherwise, other than that, then I take it the 11 proposed draft agenda is acceptable to the group? 12 Okay. The transcript from the October 2002 13 meeting has been posted. Larry Keegan, any 14 comments, corrections, anything that needs to be 15 stated on the record? 16 Seeing no suggestions, we will then determine 17 that the transcript, as posted, is acceptable to 18 the group. Let's proceed with the old business. 19 Morgan, first item is how about an update from GPA? 20 MR. REES: Okay. Larry is going to present 21 that, the first part of it, then I'll have a few 22 other comments when Larry's done. 23 MR. KEEGAN: It will take a few seconds for me 24 to wake up the projector. If you want to go on to 25 one or two other ones while I'm doing that -- 7 1 AQUIFER COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. Doug, do you have anything 3 to add on, update, or anything about the Aquifer 4 Committee recommendations? 5 MR. PLACHY: We're essentially at same status 6 as we were at the last SEG, mainly because there's 7 been other priorities at the district, not 8 particularly with this project but other things 9 going on that have taken resources from this, which 10 we would have used to try to get this wrapped up. 11 My hope is that by the next SEG, we will have 12 that finalized with the district decision. I know 13 that there's been some inter-agency coordination 14 happen in regards to the aquifer. 15 I know that the folks in the district have met 16 with state and federal representatives, in regards 17 to the aquifer, but as far as having a finalized 18 plan of study, that hasn't been done yet. 19 MR. DYSART: Any questions or comments from 20 SEG members about that, questions for Doug? Ready 21 Larry? 22 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah, I think so, amazingly 23 enough. This is the same sort of format we had -- 24 we had last time. I'll post this on the website 25 just as soon as I get a chance. 8 1 GPA UPDATE 2 Reevaluation scoping meeting, project guidance 3 memorandum is in from that -- came in in December. 4 That's about 19 or 20 pages, as I recall. It's 5 attached to this. 6 You'll see it on the website so it will be 7 available to you. Lead and cooperating agency, the 8 last meeting was December. Really, we had pretty 9 limited attendance. There were just about four 10 people there, so not a whole lot got done. No 11 decisions, just looked at what things we might have 12 to work on. 13 Inter-agency coordination, really, Fisheries 14 -- where is Bill -- he might want to expand on 15 this, Fisheries is making pretty good progress on 16 coming up with a methodology for evaluating impacts 17 by species. Is that a fair thing to say, Bill? 18 MR. BAILEY: Right. 19 MR. KEEGAN: It's still not complete yet. 20 Striped Bass is essentially done. The others are 21 still developing. That's for using the eventual 22 DO and hydrodynamic and salinity model to work 23 through these methodologies. 24 Ground water, you heard from Doug already on 25 the aquifer. Water quality, that's the 9 1 GPA UPDATE 2 coordination for, in many ways, use of the DO model 3 and how are we going to use it. 4 That first meeting, just a start, no real -- 5 no real decisions or anything made at this point. 6 That top one is economics, and that's to finalize 7 how all of the economics reevaluation is going to 8 be done. 9 Hampered, I think, is the right word to say 10 about the loss of a couple of people from the 11 district and working to find the people who can do 12 that. 13 Some of you may or not know Terry Stratton 14 is gone and is now working with the division in 15 Atlanta, and Susan Durden has gone to 16 headquarters? 17 MR. PLACHY: Institute of Water Resources. 18 MR. KEEGAN: I'm sorry? 19 MR. PLACHY: Institute of Water Resources, 20 IWR. 21 MR. KEEGAN: So that's been held up, 22 finalizing that scope and all to work around that. 23 Alternative screening, we've got some preliminary 24 alternatives. 25 The intentions are to start to pick up work on 10 1 GPA UPDATE 2 that again, perhaps this afternoon if we are ready 3 and can do it. 4 Hydrodynamic and salinity model, we have the 5 agency independent technical review -- agency and 6 the independent technical review comments resolved. 7 We have some suggestions from the engineering 8 research and development center on ways to improve 9 the accuracy of the models -- three things to 10 investigate. 11 So that's going on now, that has to be done, 12 and if any of them show significant improvement, 13 then we'll have to pursue that before ERDC will 14 give their sign-off on ITR. And then all of that 15 has to happen before the district will give the 16 final federal decision. 17 We also have working -- Georgia DNR has 18 submitted some comments on the model, so we're 19 working to come to a conclusion with those. I 20 don't think you've heard anything back yet, have 21 you -- Doug or Bill? 22 MR. BAILEY: No. 23 MR. KEEGAN: Nothing came in over the holiday. 24 Dissolved oxygen model, there is a series of 25 requirements, if you will, that have been 11 1 GPA UPDATE 2 identified with EPA, who is Jim Greenfield. For 3 those of you who know him, he is basically the lead 4 guy, if you will, on the dissolved oxygen model 5 development. 6 That's pretty well been mapped out with him, 7 so we're proceeding down that path. There hasn't 8 been any real activity in December, other than 9 settling those requirements, has there, Bo? 10 MR. ELLIS: No. 11 MR. KEEGAN: So we expect that's going to pick 12 up in January and February. It's going to take 13 longer than we thought for the DO model. That will 14 go out -- don't anybody quote me on this, I want to 15 say another six to eight months, I think. That is 16 what it looks like. 17 MR. ELLIS: Right. 18 MR. KEEGAN: Marsh succession model, the last 19 time I talked with you, there was a question of how 20 do we get from the predictions the hydrodynamic and 21 salinity make for water level and salinity in the 22 river to a prediction in the marsh settling area? 23 How do make that transition? We've got a 24 methodology that's finally everybody's agreed on. 25 It will use a data mining technique, and don't 12 1 GPA UPDATE 2 anybody ask me to explain it because I can't. 3 That work is going to be done by a combination 4 of USGS and a contractor they have, as soon as we 5 get that funded. That should be the last 6 development piece to go in place to allow the marsh 7 succession model itself to be completely 8 functional. 9 The field work, the data collection work by 10 both Fish and Wildlife, Wiley Kitchens and ATM 11 has been completed late in the fall. So that data 12 and collection is done, and now it's a matter of 13 developing all these pieces and making them fit. 14 I don't have, off the top of my head, when we 15 think we'll have all of those things done and the 16 model in place. As I recall, the USGS said nine -- 17 nine -- four months, is that -- 18 MR. PLACHY: Four or six -- maybe six. 19 MR. KEEGAN: Maybe six. I have to look. It's 20 not clear how long it will take them to develop 21 that piece. Then we'll have that ready for use. 22 Fisheries, same thing I said to you earlier. 23 Nothing new on hurricane. Hydraulic modeling and 24 sedimentation where the Corps is finalizing a 25 review of all the requirements of what should be 13 1 GPA UPDATE 2 done in this area for this kind of project, to make 3 sure we haven't left something out. 4 We hope to get that finalized soon. Ships 5 simulation, in progress. Do you want to say a word 6 or two about that, Doug, where that is? 7 MR. PLACHY: The last group of pilots went to 8 the waterways experimentation station in 9 Mississippi. It was the second week of December, 10 so the actual computer simulation work has been 11 done with the pilots. 12 So they're now in the data analysis and report 13 phase, and we were to have the report by the end of 14 February, so it won't be too much longer and we'll 15 have that data. 16 MR. KEEGAN: Okay. Really, no new things here 17 on any of these items from the last time. Sediment 18 quality analysis plan, we think we have all the 19 desires back for the pieces that have to go into 20 that plan. That revision is underway, and it will 21 go back to the federal and state agencies to get a 22 final review we hope. 23 And completion date, really, has not changed. 24 It's still as you saw last time. There have been 25 some changes in the internals in that, but the end 14 1 GPA UPDATE 2 date has not changed at all. 3 We hope to have all the study work done by 4 late 2005 and the decision process early 2006. 5 That's it. Morgan -- well, does anybody have any 6 questions? We'll go through that first. 7 MR. REES: I just want to make a couple of 8 comments on ballast water. As some of you may 9 recall, this has been a lingering issue for a long 10 time, and we have stated a number of times that 11 there's a lot going on outside the context of the 12 SEG, at the national level, in what to do about 13 ballast water and ballast water exchanges, so 14 forth. 15 I just thought every once in a while, we'll 16 just let you know that we haven't forgot about the 17 issue. We continue monitor what is going on at the 18 national level. 19 There are a number of websites that include an 20 incredible amount of information on the issue. You 21 could spend weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks 22 reading various testimony from congressional 23 hearings, and analyzes done by EPA and the Coast 24 Guard. There's a big Coast Guard report on the 25 voluntary ballast water reporting, just a whole lot 15 1 GPA UPDATE 2 of stuff. I opted not to get into that. We will 3 put on the website links to the websites that we 4 think have most of the information, and there are 5 other links on those sites. 6 Anybody who wants to dig into the issue can 7 spend all the time that they want to spend digging 8 into it. The most relevant stuff though, there 9 were two bills introduced into the previous 10 congress, neither of which were acted on. 11 There were some hearings. There was a whole 12 bunch of testimony, but with the new congress 13 whatever legislation people want to promote will 14 have to be reintroduced. So we will continue to 15 monitor that and see what happens. 16 Now, the Coast Guard, and I'll defer to the 17 Coast Guard if they have different information, 18 what I found from the website is that the Coast 19 Guard is going to propose a rule for making 20 mandatory ballast water management requirement. 21 Currently, anything people do in ballast water 22 is voluntary, and that is proposed to be issued in 23 the fall of '03. I don't want to catch you 24 unaware -- 25 LT. COMMANDER GREENE: Right, I think '03. 16 1 AIR QUALITY DISCUSSION 2 MR. REES: -- and a final rule would follow in 3 the summer of '04. What's relevant about that is 4 that's going to happen before any final decisions 5 are made on this project. 6 So we're just going to continue to wait and 7 see what develops at the national level. There's 8 also going to be a proposed rule for management 9 standards for handling ballast water in the winter 10 of '03, with a final rule expected in the fall of 11 '04. 12 So that's where the issue is at the national 13 level. So we're just going to continue to monitor 14 it and see what happens, see how it applies to this 15 project. 16 Certainly, we will do whatever the national 17 rules are, with respect to this project. Any 18 questions? 19 MR. KYLER: Not a question, a comment on the 20 general study. As you might be able to sympathize 21 with, my memory at this age is not the greatest. I 22 was not involved in the very earliest meetings of 23 this group, but some recent information has been 24 forwarded to me about air quality, in the Long 25 Beach/LA port, that has led me to conclude that 17 1 AIR QUALITY DISCUSSION 2 this is an issue that definitely needs to be 3 considered in the analysis of this port expansion 4 in Savannah. 5 I can't quote the accuracy of this claim or 6 the mention of air quality that they are citing and 7 making the comparison, but in an article forwarded 8 to me from the LA Times, published I would guess 9 about three months ago, the claim was that 16 ocean 10 going vessels -- I assume these are megaships -- 11 are equivalent in air quality due to burning bunker 12 fuel and diesel fuel to 1,000,000 cars in the LA 13 basin. 14 If those kinds of comparisons have any 15 accuracy and relevance, I do think that is a factor 16 that needs to be taken into consideration in 17 evaluating the projected increase in traffic in the 18 Savannah Harbor. 19 MR. DYSART: Further comments about Larry's 20 presentation or Morgan's remarks? Judy. 21 MS. JENNINGS: Well, a lot of stuff is left to 22 come, I guess would be my comment about the 23 presentation, but what Dave is saying about air 24 quality, I think, does need to be addressed. 25 I don't know it has ever been identified as an 18 1 AIR QUALITY DISCUSSION 2 issue, but I'm quite aware of some of the material 3 he quotes. I, like Dave, can only refer back to 4 sources, but air quality is a significant issue in 5 ports that do -- GPA does a million LA/Long Beach 6 does eight. 7 So there is a factor, but it's kind of like 8 Morgan referred back to activities with the Coast 9 Guard, I'll refer back and not pick on EPA here, 10 but EPA has issued some rules, and they were out 11 for comment late last year, air pollution from the 12 class three engines that power these large 13 container ships. 14 This is an editorial comment. The regulations 15 proposed were worthless in that they -- totally 16 worthless, editorial comment here, in that they 17 only applied to new ships and American ships, which 18 is kind of like nothing. 19 So it's one of those issues that I don't think 20 it's specific to Savannah. It's an issue with any 21 harbor that does business with a class three 22 engine, but with the growth that we do have to 23 account for in the economic evaluation, I think 24 that the extrapolation of that growth leads us to 25 an issue where we probably do have to add air 19 1 AIR QUALITY DISCUSSION 2 quality to the table. 3 I don't think we're discussing that. Honest 4 to goodness, welcome to year five. That freaks me 5 out. I think we've all learned a lot in the last 6 four whole years, but the maritime industry has 7 changed a lot in four whole years, so -- 8 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 9 MR. REES: I'll just point out that all issues 10 that have been raised here, including -- although 11 air quality was not one of the issues previously 12 raised, does get included in the evaluation. As 13 Judy points out, the Environmental Protection 14 Agency is responsible for air quality standards. 15 Whatever the standards are, they are, and the 16 project must comply with them. If they don't, the 17 project can't go forward. With respect to that 18 Los Angeles/Long Beach project, as Judy pointed 19 out, they have 8,000,000 containers and Savannah 20 has 1,000,000. 21 They have a lot of other activity in the port, 22 and as everybody has kind of a notion of the Los 23 Angeles Basin, they really do have serious air 24 quality problems. What happened there to solve 25 some of the air quality is they have created the 20 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 Alameda Rail Corridor, what they call it, where 3 instead of using trucks to get the containers off 4 the port, they load them on to trains in a rail 5 corridor that goes -- don't quote me on this -- 6 somewhere around 25 miles out of the Los Angeles 7 Air Quality Basin. 8 So those kinds of issue are looked at closely. 9 EPA has to sign off, yeah, this project, whatever 10 it is, won't violate air quality standards. 11 MR. DYSART: Further comments or questions? 12 LT. COMMANDER GREENE: There's also a proposed 13 Annex 6 to MARPOL that deals with air quality. 14 MARPOL is an international convention for pollution 15 from ships that deals with, specifically, air 16 quality or the emissions from ships. 17 I don't know how close that it is to being 18 enforced, but it could certainly affect the future 19 of emissions from those vessels. 20 MR. REES: I had one other thing to report on. 21 There had been a lot of interest in this group, 22 we've had some subgroup meetings about "peer 23 review", and we've observed that there was a 24 National Academy of Sciences study to advise on the 25 Corps of Engineers "peer review process". 21 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 They did produce a report. It's available at 3 www.nas.edu, and I searched for review procedures 4 because those are the first two words of the title 5 of the report, and you can find the entire report 6 there. 7 I got some bullet points that I got from the 8 report, and I don't normally search, but my bullet 9 points are a full disclosure of what's in the 10 report, so I encourage anybody who has an interest 11 in this issue to go to the National Academy of 12 Science website and read the report. 13 I have a couple of things I can mention here. 14 There are recommendations in there, after a number 15 of pages of analysis, but the first thing that 16 jumps out is that the committee that did this 17 decided not to call it peer review, because they 18 couldn't agree on a definition of peer review. 19 They called it external independent review. 20 So we're going to try to use that term, as we 21 proceed on this issue -- external independent 22 review. 23 They made a recommendation that any review 24 panels that are established not have any decision 25 authority, that the authority rests with the -- 22 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 this is one point that I don't agree with -- they 3 said with the chief of engineers. 4 That's not correct legally. The authority 5 rests with the secretary of the army. Those of you 6 who understand government process know there is a 7 significant distinction there. 8 The review panels should not be Corps of 9 Engineers people and should not be selected by the 10 Corps, but there should be an internal review, in 11 addition to this external review, that would 12 combine the Corps of Engineers' review and external 13 reviews. 14 It recommends an administrative process, 15 several different administrative steps to manage 16 the program, as separate from the technical 17 external review. And I think that's probably in a 18 nutshell -- just scanning down -- some of these 19 bullets here. Yeah, that's essentially it in a 20 nutshell, but others may read more into it or read 21 less into it than I did. I just encourage you to 22 go to that web site and look at it. Questions? 23 MR. DYSART: Thank you, Morgan. Judy. 24 MS. JENNINGS: I'm sorry. I'm going back not 25 about peer review, but Larry's comment about 23 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 MARPOL. For instance, the United States and our 3 senate has shown no interest in ratifying Annex 6 4 of MARPOL, to my knowledge. If they did anything 5 in the last few months, I admit I'm not in touch. 6 Trent Lott didn't mention it. I don't think 7 we've done anything about it. At any rate, I'm not 8 quite sure where to leave this conversation. 9 Dave brought up an issue about air quality and 10 I heard Morgan say, we'll do what EPA needs us to 11 do. I previously expressed EPA is not doing much 12 on the topic, at least in terms of category three 13 engines. I'm just not sure -- I don't think we 14 have resolved that comment. 15 MR. DYSART: Will. 16 MR. BERSON: Morgan, I also read the report, 17 and I think one of the other salient points that 18 they make is that external review has a real part 19 in the project review process. 20 I think it really only underscores the point 21 that we've been making all along, which is set up a 22 process to do the review early and you won't be 23 back-ended on the process, and I think that's in 24 everybody's interest. 25 I urge everyone to read the report, because 24 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 there is -- I mean, it's not exactly -- it calls 3 for some changes. I think that it's worth reading 4 through to see what they say. That's all. 5 MR. DYSART: Thank you for bringing that up. 6 Morgan, any other comments on -- Ed. 7 MR. EUDALY: Morgan, if I heard you correctly, 8 the external independent review would be conducted 9 by a group not selected by the Corps? 10 MR. REES: Correct. 11 MR. EUDALY: Do they say how they would be 12 selected? 13 MR. REES: I imagine they set up 14 administrative procedures, and one of those 15 administrative procedures is -- there's an acronym 16 for it, AGPR, Administrative Group for Project 17 Review, I think is what that means. 18 They are to establish a process where these 19 recommendations would be implemented. They 20 indicated, as I recall -- Will, since you read it, 21 I'm going to ask for either confirmation or 22 correction from you -- they did not make a specific 23 recommendation on how or where that administrative 24 group would be structured, although they did say it 25 could be in the chief of engineers' office or could 25 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 be in the secretary of the army's office or 3 elsewhere. OMV, I think, was another. 4 So they left a lot of flexibility in their 5 recommendation, but the bottom line is they did 6 recommend a specific administrative group for 7 implementing -- to figure out how to implement 8 these recommendations. Fair enough? 9 MR. BERSON: I want to reread it again because 10 I came away with it -- I mean, in fairness, I don't 11 remember exactly. 12 It seems to me you're characterizing it in a 13 much more within the circle group, and the thrust 14 of the report was that we need to have people way 15 outside of the box looking at these projects. 16 Again, I want to read it again. 17 MR. REES: Let me clarify. I didn't intend to 18 characterize it as within the circle. It's very 19 clear that the recommendations are for arms length, 20 external review, not selected by the Corps, not 21 participated in by the Corps. I think I did say 22 that. 23 MR. BERSON: You did, but when you talk about 24 the secretary of the army and some other things -- 25 MR. REES: I'm sure that's what the report 26 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 says. 3 MR. BERSON: I'll reread it, but -- 4 MR. REES: It says, for example, here are some 5 places where it could reside, but they didn't make 6 a definitive recommendation on that. 7 MR. DYSART: Teri, what's the answer? 8 MS. LEFFEK: Maybe Morgan or Will can answer 9 my question, since both of you have read the 10 document. You say that the review panel to be 11 established won't have any authority? 12 MR. REES: Correct. 13 MS. LEFFEK: So it's kind of like what's the 14 point? How are any of the recommendations actually 15 adopted of the review panel? 16 MR. REES: The recommendations of the review 17 panel are to be provided to, depending on what 18 stage of the process the review occurs. If it 19 occurs while the report is still being worked on in 20 the district, the review panel recommendations 21 would be made to the district commander. 22 If they are made when the review -- when the 23 report is being reviewed by the chief of engineers, 24 then they would be given to the chief of engineers, 25 but they must be given to either the district 27 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 commander or chief of engineers, prior to any 3 decision. Then documentation made of -- here was a 4 recommendation from the review panel and here's 5 what we did about it -- very specific documentation 6 whether it was accepted or not. 7 MS. LEFFEK: There's no requirement they 8 actually be accepted -- 9 MR. REES: Correct. 10 MS. LEFFEK: -- it's just a recommendation? 11 MR. REES: Correct. 12 LT. COMMANDER GREENE: It works like public 13 review with comments on regulations in 14 administrative procedures. 15 MR. DYSART: Further comments? David. 16 MR. KYLER: On clarification. Does that mean 17 that under this administrative process the peer 18 review recommendations are considered in the same 19 phase as public comment? 20 MR. REES: It didn't go that level of detail 21 in the recommendations, and it's a good question in 22 terms of any administrative process that might be 23 set up; would that be a sequential or concurrent 24 kind of review? They didn't address that. 25 MR. KYLER: It seems pretty obvious for the 28 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 external independent review process to have much 3 value, it would have to be before public comment, 4 so the public has the advantage of having the 5 information and dwelling on it before they made 6 comments themselves. 7 MR. REES: The discussion, as I recall on that 8 point, led to this uncertainty about whether the 9 recommendations would be made to the District 10 Commander, which would mean that they would be 11 incorporated before the district produced any 12 feasibility report, for example. 13 Alternatively, it might be done after the 14 feasibility report is published and the review is 15 residing with the chief of engineers. That's 16 another process, and this report didn't -- didn't 17 specify which, although it did recommend that the 18 earlier the better. The earlier in the process the 19 better. 20 MR. KYLER: How does the distinction between 21 those alternatives just described relate to the 22 sequencing of the public comment? 23 MR. REES: The public comments -- there has 24 to be a public comment period, before the district 25 commander issues a report, just as we've already 29 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 had several public comment periods in this project. 3 Part of the EIS process and part of the Corps' 4 feasibility process is to have the public review 5 before the district commander issues a report. 6 MR. DYSART: Will. 7 MR. BERSON: I guess the sort of obvious 8 question is, after we -- I guess I'd like to make 9 this an agenda item for next meeting, we can all 10 go read the report. 11 What do we want to do? Basically, in 12 discussing peer review we've said let's wait on 13 this report and let's wait on this report. Here 14 the report comes and says, you know, even the 15 appearance of impropriety is a bad thing so 16 external review is a good thing. 17 So I guess the next question is what do we do 18 now that the report's arrived. I think that's 19 appropriate for the next agenda. 20 MR. REES: Let me respond a little bit to 21 that, if I may. There were two pieces of 22 legislation, two different pieces from the battle 23 squatter. There were two pieces of legislation in 24 the previous congress that would reform the Corps 25 of Engineers review process. 30 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 Neither piece was acted on for a lot of 3 reasons, one of which was awaiting this report from 4 the National Academy. 5 There is an expectation there will be new 6 legislation proposed, in this congress, that would 7 direct the Corps on what to do about external 8 independent review. 9 MR. BERSON: With fairness, the two people 10 who were doing that, one is dead in a plane crash 11 and the other one was defeated in the election in 12 the senate side. So I'm not real sure -- 13 MR. REES: The one was a proposal by 14 Mr. Tancredo of Colorado and he's still in place. 15 MR. BERSON: And Smith? 16 MR. REES: Smith, but he's not there. 17 Tancredo is still in place. 18 MR. BERSON: I guess what I'm saying is if 19 it's a brand new day in congress, I don't think we 20 pattern out -- nobody knows what this new congress 21 is going to do. 22 I don't know it even has an impact on what the 23 SEG ought to be thinking about period. We could 24 all die waiting for congress to act on any given 25 measures. 31 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 So I guess I'd like to put on the agenda, next 3 time around, that we consider what the report says 4 and what it means for the process. 5 MR. KYLER: I strongly second that. 6 MR. DYSART: Doug. 7 MR. PLACHY: One thing that needs to be looked 8 at is what we had already said we were going to do 9 in regards to review, because what Morgan isn't 10 stating is what we discussed at the August meeting 11 with the headquarters and ASA staff, which was -- 12 that report had already been out by that time. 13 We specifically discussed for this project 14 what should we do, and the belief was if those 15 recommendations were to be put in place that this 16 project definitely would be one that would go to 17 this board, or whatever they have, to have some 18 independent reviews assigned. 19 Then we took it a step further and said okay, 20 if that's the case, what would need to be reviewed 21 independently? 22 There were three things that were specifically 23 brought up. One was the hydrodynamic model. One 24 was the economics, and the third thing was the 25 aquifer. And so at the August meeting, and this is 32 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 all documented in the project guidance memorandum, 3 we committed that we would do independent external 4 reviews on those three, of which one has already 5 been accomplished, which is the reviews that we 6 have on the hydro model. 7 Because as you know, we've had a lot of eyes 8 other than just within the Corps looking at and 9 providing comment. My standard, I guess I would 10 say, is that we will resolve all comments that we 11 get from these reviewers. 12 We're doing that and that's part of the reason 13 why it's taking longer than we had anticipated to 14 get through the acceptance process, because we want 15 to have a resolution for every single comment. 16 On the aquifer, that one, they're looking at 17 either having a panel of maybe two to three 18 independent folks look at the aquifer study. 19 The question that we're dealing with now is 20 could we get it in place so they could look at the 21 scope before it's even executed, or would we wait 22 until the studies are done and have them look at it 23 on the back end? 24 We believe to have them look at what's planned 25 to be done before it is executed is probably the 33 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 better way to go, and then have them also on the 3 back end look and see how it came out. 4 Of course, that takes time, which is part of 5 the reason why I can't sit here and give you the 6 total answers to the aquifer. Until we have it all 7 worked out, I think it's premature. 8 They're looking at trying to identify some 9 external folks to do this, and the standard that I 10 put down, which is even stricter than the standard 11 that's coming out of that report is, and it was 12 discussed and agreed to at the meeting in August 13 was that we were going to have a external, not only 14 to the Corps, but external to the government. 15 In other words, there would be no government 16 entity as part of this external review, again to 17 give it one more level of separation from the 18 administration, in regards to the comments and 19 reviews on the project. 20 Those three key items -- the other one is the 21 economics. And again, that's kind of in its 22 infancy to try to determine who is out there that 23 would be somebody that could do reviews. 24 Of course, part of it is some of the entities 25 that do reviews, like in the academia world, they 34 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 may want to have an 18 month review time. That's 3 not something, you know, that works out for us in 4 terms of the project. 5 So we're trying to be realistic too, to try to 6 find somebody who can do it and do the review in a 7 reasonable amount of time to meet our time limits. 8 But those three areas are the ones in which we will 9 have independent external review, and one of the 10 three we've almost finished up on. 11 All of the comments have been and are 12 well-documented in terms of what the comment was, 13 and what the response was to the comment, and 14 whether or not the commenter accepted that response 15 or asked for more clarification. 16 That process goes back and forth until we get 17 to the final resolution of the person who wrote the 18 comment to say I accept the response to this 19 comment; in other words, something was changed or 20 something was modified or it was explained so the 21 commenter understood what he was commenting on to 22 begin with, et cetera, et cetera. 23 So that's the standard we put in place on the 24 project. So I guess what I'm saying is we knew 25 this thing was out there. We looked at it and said 35 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 okay, what is the worst case that could be put in 3 place for this project and let's just go ahead and 4 do it. 5 We created that in August and that guidance 6 came back down to us with the project guidance 7 memorandum. So I'm pleased with that. 8 As far as the SEG and what they would like to 9 look at, so on and so forth, you know, that's 10 purely up to the group. I wanted to make sure 11 everybody knew what we were already doing on the 12 project, that we had already planned to do a lot of 13 these things. 14 MR. DYSART: Will. 15 MR. BERSON: With the caveat that I want to 16 reread this study again, let me just say what I 17 think I heard you say, and let me express why I 18 have a problem with it. 19 At your August meeting, which was -- turned 20 out to be a very contentious, marginally public 21 affair, everyone got together and decided they 22 would have independent technical review and you 23 would pick out people to do it. 24 That is not the spirit of what this report, as 25 I read it, is talking about. If the Corps goes and 36 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 picks their independent, technical review people, 3 that's basically flies in the face of what the 4 report was trying to say. 5 If you want to do this correctly, it seems to 6 me you should have folks, probably from the SEG, 7 sitting down with you and deciding who would be the 8 technical reviewers for this. 9 Similarly, the way you just described the 10 process, the independent reviewers are going to 11 make comments and I am characterizing this. Don't 12 take this quite the way it's going to come out, but 13 then you're going to browbeat them into accepting 14 or not accepting what's going on here. 15 It has nothing to do with somebody taking a 16 step back. You've pulled them into the process. 17 You've got them going back and forth, and it 18 doesn't have anything to do with a cold read of 19 what's been decided. 20 When you have commenters going back and forth 21 like this, it's an integral process. You've 22 basically done this. It's very easy to piecemeal 23 together something that doesn't address or has 24 flaws in it as a whole. 25 I think that you're not -- the process as you 37 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 described it, unless I misheard it, doesn't really 3 fit the bill of independent technical review. I 4 shouldn't have said browbeat. 5 MR. DYSART: Bob has his up. 6 MR. SCANLON: I'd like to go ahead and defer 7 to Doug. I think he wanted to respond directly to 8 another question. 9 MR. PLACHY: Well, in regards to the 10 iteration, it's the other way around. It's not the 11 district browbeating the commenter. It's the 12 commenter browbeating whoever is producing the 13 report. 14 Larry's sitting there shaking his head. He 15 knows what they have already gone through, in 16 regards to the comment on the hydro model. Like I 17 said, my standard has been we will not go forward 18 until we resolve the comment. 19 That doesn't mean we'll force the commenter to 20 withdraw the comment or change their mind. It's to 21 force whomever is producing the product to make 22 sure it meets the standard or requirement of 23 whatever the commenter is making. 24 And it is true that part of this 25 recommendation was that a panel would be 38 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 established, and that panel is the one that would 3 identify who these external reviewers would be. 4 But what we talked about in August is that 5 this panel doesn't exist right now. We don't know 6 if and when it will be put in place, so there 7 wasn't entity to say use this entity or so on and 8 so forth. 9 That would defer back to us, so I agree there 10 could be a statement made that if we select the 11 commenter that maybe we load the deck, so on and so 12 forth. I guess I could only say, with my integrity 13 on the line, we would never do that and we haven't 14 done that, in regards to the folks we've already 15 identified for commenters. 16 As I said, of the three we intended to do, one 17 of which is done, that group was, essentially, 18 identified as people from the SEG that wanted to be 19 part of the modeling oversight process. 20 So again, I think we're on the right track, 21 but I have nothing -- no concerns at all about 22 having the SEG look at the report, and give some 23 feedback in regards to what could be done. 24 Especially, in fact I think we even asked the 25 other federal and state agencies, in regards to 39 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 these different coordinations that we're doing, 3 we're asking them who would be best to do the 4 review. 5 In other words, USGS and the state DNRs are 6 the ones, basically, giving us feedback in regards 7 to who should be the reviewer. For example, on the 8 aquifer, it's not being decided by the district. 9 It's being decided by the inter-agency 10 coordination. 11 So again, it's outside the district circle. 12 It includes a lot more other folks. I guess all I 13 can say is, when we get through the hydro process, 14 I think once the documentation is done, that's a 15 good time for someone to go back and look at we've 16 done and say, does this meet what we've been 17 talking about, or is there something more that 18 needs to be done. 19 MR. BERSON: I am not trying to impugn 20 anybody's character or apply motive to anything 21 here, but the point behind independent peer review 22 is to avoid mistakes, not to make sure that the 23 deck isn't stacked. 24 It's to make sure nothing was missed. When 25 you have people that have been integral in the 40 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 process, for example the hydrodynamic model, you 3 seem to imply because we've all these agencies 4 doing all these questions and answers to you that 5 they can't be part of a group-think that's made a 6 mistake, and they can be. 7 The point of independent technical review is 8 to take that apart, have people who were never in 9 the room when this was discussed. So again it's 10 not -- I don't think you're going to stack the 11 deck, Doug. 12 I just want another set of eyes, who have 13 not been involved in the process, to look at it. 14 That's what, in my opinion, the National Academy 15 of Science said in their report. 16 MR. KYLER: This is follow-up, maybe a little 17 different perspective on the comments Will just 18 made. As commendable as the stakeholder process is 19 for other reasons, I think that people who are in 20 the stakeholder process themselves are not external 21 to this review process. 22 We need to get serious about interpreting and 23 defining what external and independent mean in the 24 case of this peer review counterpart. I don't 25 think that any committee made up of SEG members 41 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 could be, by my definition -- interpretation, 3 eligible under those terms, external and 4 independent. 5 Because, by definition, they're stakeholders 6 and by definition having an outcome in the ultimate 7 decision makes you less independent and not 8 external. 9 MR. DYSART: Bob Scanlon. 10 MR. SCANLON: I had a question, specific 11 follow-up, which I think Doug may have addressed. 12 I want to clarify and make certain he did. 13 I was wondering who the group for the Aquifer 14 Committee was, and you stated -- is it basically 15 the same group that was together before the 16 complete group? It was the USGS, the resource 17 agency, we had folks from Georgia Southern, Rick 18 Krause was in there. Is it that same group or a 19 subset of that group? 20 MR. PLACHY: No. It's the inter-agency 21 coordination. It's those that have the regulatory 22 responsibility in regards to the aquifer. So it's 23 the State of Georgia DNR and it's the State of 24 South Carolina -- I think within DNR and DHEC. 25 MR. MIKELL: DHEC, Camille Ransom. 42 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 MR. PLACHY: Camille Ransom and USGS. Those 3 are the three agencies we're working with to put 4 the plan into place. Those are the three that have 5 to accept or be in agreement with what the outcome 6 of the process is. 7 But they're the group that's basically -- that 8 we're talking to get feedback in regards to who 9 would be the independent reviewer. It wouldn't be 10 anybody of that entity. 11 It's going to be somebody outside that's a 12 specialist in the hydrogeology et cetera of 13 aquifers, so on so forth. 14 MR. SCANLON: I can't speak for Chris 15 Schuberth, who was the chair of this committee, but 16 the Aquifer Committee, this group actually asked to 17 disband itself following the report. 18 I would think with this information, we might 19 want to rethink that. I would like to talk to 20 Chris. I'd like to put that on the agenda. That 21 would be the future of Aquifer Committee, as far as 22 reviewing this. I'll take it upon myself to raise 23 the issue with Chris. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. Bill Bailey, did you have 25 a comment? 43 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 MR. BAILEY: It's been answered. 3 MR. DYSART: I think this has been a very 4 interesting interchange. It is obviously something 5 of interest and importance to the process. As 6 usual, we've had good discussion. I'm sure it will 7 be back with us. 8 Any further comments on that? The next item 9 on the agenda is mitigation discussion continuing 10 -- continuing that. It was requested that they be 11 a continuing agenda item, to at least have the 12 opportunity to further the discussion on that. Is 13 there anybody who has any comments about that? 14 MR. KYLER: I'd be interested to hear Morgan's 15 response, or anybody's response who has their 16 finger on the pulse of Washington, about this 17 recent finding. 18 I'm not sure what form it took. I need some 19 clarification on that -- that the mitigation in the 20 case of wetlands must be within the watershed 21 affected. Are you familiar with that? 22 MR. REES: Do you have something more 23 specific? I mean, it's always been an issue about 24 whether mitigation should be in kind, should be 25 close by, should be within the watershed, or can it 44 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 be in some other place. 3 I'm not aware -- I mean, there's certainly a 4 preference. It's got to be -- the first preference 5 is it's got to be in kind and as close as possible. 6 The second preference is it can't be outside 7 the watershed. But none of that, to the best of my 8 knowledge, is required absolutely. There are some 9 preferences. If there's something recently 10 developed on that, I'm not aware of it. 11 MR. KYLER: They wrote some finding of some 12 kind. I'll try to get to you by e-mail. 13 MS. JENNINGS: David, are you talking about 14 the administration -- the stuff that came out over 15 Christmas -- literally over Christmas? 16 MR. KYLER: Yes. 17 MS. JENNINGS: There was some back-off. From 18 my quick read over Christmas, like you I need to 19 get up to speed with that a little more. The EPA 20 has a whole new thing, just during the Christmas 21 holidays, a little bit of a back-off, one acre for 22 one acre, saying sometimes a loss may be a gain, a 23 little bit more of a focus on the watershed 24 approach. Christine Todd Whitman was quoted 500 25 times, you know, plus for the environment. 45 1 PEER REVIEW DISCUSSION 2 Okay. I'm quoting Christine Todd Whitman. Is 3 that what you are talking about? 4 MR. KYLER: I believe it is. 5 MR. REES: We'll check it out. As may be a 6 gratuitous comment here, when the Clinton 7 Administration came to Washington, there was an 8 explicit effort made to adopt a watershed approach 9 to all planning, not just wetland regulation and 10 the corps of Engineers planning. 11 People tried to find a way to implement that, 12 and it just kind of ran out of steam, and nothing 13 ever happened. That was just an observation 14 because I was personally involved in it at the 15 time. 16 MR. KYLER: I'm pretty sure I saw this in a 17 New York Times' article. 18 MR. REES: If you can track it down, e-mail it 19 to me. We can talk about it, put on for next time, 20 whatever. 21 MR. DYSART: Rob Mikell. 22 MR. MIKELL: To answer your question, Morgan, 23 it's a new regal (phonetic) that came out of the 24 administration directing the Corps to do -- it came 25 out over Christmas. 46 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 It is a watershed approach, like Judy was 3 saying. It gets away from one acre mitigation for 4 one acre lost, and it's on the Corps' webpage. I 5 just looked at it the other day, the national 6 webpage. 7 It basically says mitigation is supposed to be 8 done in the watershed. If at all possible, it is 9 supposed to, rather than just try to have a bunch 10 of little tiny independent sites, just go to a 11 regional basis and try to develop it on a 12 regional format. It's on the district's web page. 13 MR. REES: Savannah district? 14 MR. MIKELL: I'm sorry. I said district. 15 Headquarters Washington. 16 MR. REES: Okay. 17 MR. MIKELL: The main regulatory page. 18 MR. DYSART: Further comments on mitigation? 19 This looks like a good time to take about -- 20 MR. REES: Let me -- I do have a comment on 21 mitigation just quick. There was a briefing. I 22 didn't note the date. Dr. Spease (phonetic), since 23 the last SEG meeting, Dr. Spease, formerly of 24 Vanderbilt University is now a private consultant, 25 made a presentation through Bill Bailey on aeration 47 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 systems, and this has been an issue we have 3 discussed a number of times in this forum. 4 There was an invitation made to SEG members. 5 Judy was there. Will was there. Forgive if 6 anybody else was there because I didn't get an 7 attendance list, but anyway, he just went through 8 some ideas on aeration systems. 9 I don't know if there's a memo for the record 10 or any formal thing on the website, but it was a 11 very interesting presentation. 12 The bottom line that I came away with was 13 that, from a technical perspective, there are a 14 number of different systems, but Dr. Spease was 15 recommending a system of injecting oxygen, as 16 opposed to air, into the water in a contained 17 facility, and then the already oxygenated water 18 injected into the receiving water is technically 19 and economically the best way to go, that a system 20 is possible to be designed to deal with the 21 circumstances in Savannah, but how much it costs 22 is, you know, we didn't get to that. So 23 technically, it's possible. Economically, it is an 24 unresolved question. Is that a fair assessment? 25 MR. BERSON: Uh-huh. 48 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 MR. DYSART: Bill Farmer. 3 MR. FARMER: The mitigation paper that the 4 Corps put out that listed, at that time, the 5 thought of mitigation work that needed to be done, 6 I thought it was excellent, quite a scholarly 7 document. 8 The question would be, what's going to happen 9 to that document? Do we try to modify it and then 10 approve it at some point, or what do we do with it? 11 MR. PLACHY: What document are you talking 12 about? 13 MR. FARMER: The list of mitigation studies or 14 concerns that was put out several months ago. 15 MR. PLACHY: Oh, that listed just some 16 concepts? 17 MR. FARMER: Right. In other words, did you 18 give it to us hoping to get feedback, and then does 19 it become a final plan? 20 MR. PLACHY: No. It was not an intention of a 21 plan. It was an intention of trying to get more, 22 essentially, feedback. 23 The intention, when we brought it up, was 24 rather than the small circle looking at ideas, 25 let's get it to the whole SEG saying, you know, 49 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 what's out there? What could be done? 3 Of course, as you remember, the Corps, why 4 don't you guys come up with a list first, so we did 5 that. Our hope was that the SEG would then look 6 those over and say, you didn't include this, or how 7 about that, and then we would have that 8 information. 9 Of course that all goes into our records, but 10 it would be drawn upon when we get to those points 11 of having, if we do have an impact of a certain 12 resource, we can look at this listing per se and 13 say, is there one of these that might work to fit 14 this type of thing? 15 As far as the document itself being finalized, 16 I mean, there was no intention to do that. It was 17 merely just to stimulate discussion on mitigation 18 issues. 19 MR. FARMER: The reason it's on our agenda is 20 to give us an opportunity to give you feedback 21 primarily -- okay. 22 MR. DYSART: And brainstorming to stimulate 23 discussion within this body also. Morgan. 24 MR. REES: We did that when you first 25 presented the list, right? 50 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 MR. PLACHY: But they wanted time to look at 3 it. When we handed it out the last meeting, but 4 the feeling of the SEG is well, they haven't had 5 time to read through these things and kind of think 6 about it. 7 As I remember it, the SEG wanted to come back 8 at the next meeting -- Teri or Judy you might 9 remember this -- at the next SEG and talk about 10 some of these things, which is why it's on the 11 agenda. 12 MR. REES: By virtue of its having been 13 presented to the SEG, it's part of the record and 14 part of the formal process at this point, but 15 understood to be a living document, as they say. 16 MR. DYSART: Will. 17 MR. BERSON: I think I asked for it. I think 18 I sort of said we look to the Corps to generate a 19 laundry list, for lack of a better term, of ideas. 20 And I appreciate it. 21 I hadn't envisioned we would adopt it 22 formally. I thought that we would just work with 23 it. 24 MR. DYSART: I think that is and was the 25 understanding. Judy. 51 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah, I have not -- I don't 3 have any comments on that list except, as everyone 4 said, it's a work in progress, it's a brainstorming 5 effort to be inclusive. 6 I think that's the real positive. To me the 7 major value of it, though, was using that list as 8 companion to the identification of impacts, and 9 it's amazing to me we're in five years and, you 10 know, other than what we wrote in our comments 11 almost five years ago, you know, I don't have an 12 impact list to match up with maybe what we could do 13 about it. 14 That was the value to me of the exploration of 15 the mitigation options, pairing it off with 16 impacts. 17 MR. DYSART: Bill Farmer. 18 MR. FARMER: It would probably be worthwhile 19 to schedule some sort of acceptance of the list so 20 far, and recognize that it is a living list that 21 can be modified in the future, but since he gave us 22 the list for use, I think we need to give him some 23 feedback as to our opinion of it, either by 24 committee or as a group or whatever. 25 MR. DYSART: Teri. 52 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 MS. LEFFEK: We've already addressed that 3 issue and we said up front it's a document that's 4 in progress. And at any meeting, people can come 5 to the table and say, I want to add this, you know, 6 here's another idea. 7 I don't know that we need to formally adopt 8 anything. It's a document that we've said is a 9 living document. We're going to continue to revise 10 it until the time we change our minds or we want to 11 formally adopt it. I don't think it needs to be 12 formally adopted. 13 MR. DYSART: Will. 14 MR. BERSON: Not to revisit the chicken or the 15 egg question again, but the issue, the discussion 16 that led to that list was how do you talk about 17 mitigation if you don't know what the impacts are, 18 and you don't know what the impacts are until the 19 model results are done. 20 I don't know how we can embrace it. It was 21 just thinker piece, as far as I can see. I think 22 we ought to treat it as such, especially until we 23 know some of the results from the ongoing work. 24 MR. DYSART: The sense of the body seems to be 25 that this is a useful document and it continues to 53 1 2 live. No further comments, let's take a 10 minute 3 break and we'll get into committee reports. 4 (Short Break) 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's call the meeting 6 back to order. One thing I would mention, to me 7 it's very interesting, I looked around the table 8 this morning as people were introducing themselves. 9 You can divide things how ever you want to. A 10 very logical way of dividing people is by 11 navigation, state, federal, environmental, public 12 interest, GPA, municipal, land interests, and 13 citizens. 14 You cluster those into government, all levels 15 of government, and combine the environmental and 16 public interest, land and citizen third group, 17 navigation and GPA, and you've basically got about 18 equal groups in those three clusters; 11, 9 and 8. 19 I think that that -- we come here. We're 20 aware there are a lot of different interests around 21 the table. I think it's nice to realize that 22 there is a good, solid balance of interests around 23 the table, and that this appears to be a continuing 24 good forum for discussion from the various sectors. 25 I think that in particular in several topics 54 1 BEACH EROSION COMMITTEE REPORT 2 and certainly the peer review or independent 3 external review discussion, I think that was 4 illustrated again this morning, that there is good 5 discussion that goes on here. 6 There is a great deal of thought that goes on 7 from meeting to meeting and meeting with and 8 challenging important issues for the success of the 9 project, how ever that might be. 10 So let's continue now and move on into the 11 committee reports. Committee reports, updates, 12 status, what's happening. How about Beach Erosion? 13 Bill Farmer. 14 MR. FARMER: All right. The Beach Erosion 15 Committee has been awaiting the publication of the 16 Beach Erosion study that the ATM and Larry Keegan 17 have been concerned with for a couple of years 18 here. 19 And I just received the study itself, so Larry 20 is publishing the study, and it may be of interest 21 that the study itself had incorporated into it peer 22 review, or as we now call it external independent 23 review. 24 The Beach Erosion study -- I'm sorry, the 25 Beach Erosion Committee was consulted and 55 1 MTRG COMMITTEE REPORT 2 participated in selecting the individuals that did 3 the peer review or external independent review; 4 namely Erik Olsen and Dr. Clark Alexander. 5 So they did review preliminary drafts of the 6 study. Their comments were incorporated into the 7 study, so the committee will meet and consider the 8 study, and bring back its recommendations to the 9 Stakeholders Evaluation Group. 10 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Any comments, 11 feedback to Bill? Okay. Next, Dredging and 12 Disposal. Fred. 13 MR. BEASON: Ben, we're waiting on the model 14 to be completed, and that should be sometime in the 15 middle to late 2003. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. Fisheries and Aquatic 17 Resources, Will. 18 MR. BERSON: Nothing to report. 19 MR. DYSART: That's an all time short record 20 for Will. Not thank you for being short, but thank 21 you for what you had to say. MTRG, Bo. 22 MR. ELLIS: I passed out a hand-out. 23 Hopefully it's gone out in both directions, two 24 pages stapled together, copied front and back. A 25 meeting was held September 18. That was prior to 56 1 MTRG COMMITTEE REPORT 2 our last meeting, but we had coordinated comments 3 and finalized our status report at that time. 4 But since we have. We received a few 5 comments, made a few changes, and posted them on 6 the MTRG website. The meeting, like I said, was 7 September 18. 8 The listed persons attended the meeting and 9 participated in the MTRG discussions. You can see 10 them there. The two agenda items, at the meeting, 11 were final comments that had been received on the 12 hydrodynamic and salinity model, approval package. 13 It was requested that those comments go into 14 to Bill Bailey and part of the Corps' review like 15 we've been discussing. They would take that and 16 document the resolution of those comments. 17 And then most of the meeting was devoted to 18 discussion of the water quality model approval 19 package that had been sent out prior to the 20 meeting. 21 There was a quite a bit of discussion. There 22 was a presentation of the complete model setup, the 23 dissolved oxygen model setup with the rates and 24 constants, the boundary concentrations, the 25 conditions, and all the various point source loads, 57 1 MTRG COMMITTEE REPORT 2 oxygen demanding substances that would be 3 introduced into the system, either natural or 4 introduced from a point source. 5 Just very quickly, the model presentation 6 showed the distribution of the oxygen demanding 7 substances, as you can see listed here. It also 8 showed a time series of DO saturation, DO 9 concentration, and DO deficit. 10 This presentation was -- at least the format 11 had been recommended and tracked by the MTRG in 12 subsequent meetings. We also looked at 13 longitudinal percentiles of the dissolved oxygen 14 concentration along the channel, and then a report 15 of the dissolved oxygen concentration air 16 statistics resulting from that model run and 17 comparison to data. 18 Bottom line of the results and the discussion, 19 of the dissolved oxygen model, was that we were 20 under-predicting the dissolved oxygen that had been 21 measured near the front entrance of the river. 22 We also were not capturing the complete range, 23 the range primarily driven by the tidal range that 24 we see with dissolved oxygen in the harbor, but as 25 far as the longitudinal plots and the system-wide 58 1 MTRG COMMITTEE REPORT 2 trends, the model was reproducing those system-wide 3 trends along the river. 4 We did capture the DO sag in the middle of the 5 harbor like the data showed. We were waiting for a 6 couple of different items, at that time, from the 7 EPA and the City of Savannah had said that they 8 would deliver some data that would help us in the 9 calibration of the model. 10 And since this meeting, there were other 11 coordination meetings, primarily with the lead and 12 cooperating agencies, with the LCA, to come up with 13 a finalization process for the dissolved oxygen 14 model. 15 Because that happened very quickly, after this 16 meeting and after the last SEG meeting, no MTRG 17 meeting has been held since this one and nothing 18 right now is scheduled. 19 We've had several months of coordination on 20 these issues, and we have incorporated the 21 recommendations, that you can read in the rest of 22 the report, into a draft plan with the LCA to 23 finalize the model. 24 The federal agencies are also discussing 25 potential model code changes. That will take a 59 1 2 little bit of time, but will very likely improve 3 the results of the model. 4 We have notified the MTRG that this is going 5 on, and that we will let them know when we have our 6 final plan and process from the LCA. And that, in 7 a nutshell, is the meeting and the activity that 8 has taken place since this meeting. 9 Any questions about the status report or the 10 status of the work right now? 11 MR. DYSART: Comments, questions? Seeing 12 none, we'll move on to Striped Bass. 13 MR. WILL: No new information. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Communications not 15 present. Economics Working Group, Judy. 16 MS. JENNINGS: We haven't met in a long time 17 because we did all those white papers. All of the 18 topics are still open. I think we can talk about 19 almost anything at any time, but the topic we 20 really would like to move and haven't so far, but 21 it doesn't mean it's not on the table is the 22 natural forum to include a variety of viewpoints 23 and presenters and participants on valuation of 24 economic resources. Dave Kyler has made some 25 contacts and some outreach in that regard. Dave, 60 1 NATURAL FORUM UPDATE 2 you want to run us up to speed on that. 3 MR. KYLER: We, essentially as a committee, 4 have been kicking around this tentative agenda for 5 a good part of a year. And I guess it was in late 6 summer we decided we needed -- it would be wise to 7 get some help from experts, who themselves may 8 become speakers, or know who we should seek as 9 speakers, and exactly what kind of topics to 10 include in this forum. 11 We came up with a list of seven people. In 12 early October, I sent them a letter describing what 13 we were trying to do and soliciting their help. 14 And frankly, I have gotten very little response to 15 that. I haven't had the time or taken the time to 16 follow-up. 17 We've pretty much decided now to set a date 18 for a local meeting, and hope to coerce many of 19 those people to attend the meeting by conference 20 call by telephone, in the case of a few up at the 21 University of Georgia in Athens, and firm up that 22 agenda, set a tentative date and begin moving 23 forward. 24 MS. JENNINGS: I would say since we started 25 talking about this, it appears more and more 61 1 NATURAL FORUM UPDATE 2 frequently in literature. I appreciate Bill 3 forwarding me the OCS has an event in March in 4 D.C. that has this as a very major topic. 5 I'm going to try to get a copy of their 6 agenda, presenters, and other thing. I'm seeing 7 the topic more and more. I might just ask Doug or 8 Bill if they have any comments from the Corps' 9 perspective. 10 MR. BAILEY: No. 11 MR. KYLER: I might add a comment. I was 12 talking to Ben about it during the break. I think 13 there's an increasingly awareness, even among those 14 who traditionally have been less environmentally 15 aware than others, about the interrelationship 16 between environmental decisions and their economic 17 implications. 18 It's my understanding, in the current 19 administration, there has been some move in the 20 Economic Development Administration, which is a 21 federal agency that issues grants and loans in 22 support of economically-developed projects. They 23 do a lot more environmental assessment on the 24 front end in the way of fiscal responsibility to 25 avoid making investments in projects which will 62 1 2 later become bogged down or even stopped because of 3 their environmental impacts. 4 So I think there's a general movement to 5 integrate the economics and environmental factors 6 in a way that's good for everyone. 7 MS. JENNINGS: I'm seeing that too. I'll add 8 that the project, as we're pursuing it, is being 9 done with no sources of funding. In fact, we 10 haven't asked for any. 11 If you have suggestions, think pro bono along 12 the way. We don't have a budget. We're not 13 looking for one. 14 MR. DYSART: Any further comments in the 15 Economics Area? Okay. Teri Leffek, Operating 16 Guidelines. 17 MS. LEFFEK: No report. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any other new business, 19 anything else that needs to be discussed? While 20 you're thinking about it, let's think about the -- 21 when you would like to meet again next? 22 There are three options laid out on page 23 three. Recommendations? When would we be 24 expecting some additional study results or major 25 material to be brought back before the group? 63 1 2 MR. FARMER: Ben, the only thing I can think 3 of is the Beach Erosion Study. The committee will 4 be reviewing the study, and then there has to be 5 some recommendation coming back to the SEG, and it 6 would most likely be a good idea to have a 7 presentation to the SEG of what's in the study, so 8 the SEG could have an informed opinion as to 9 whether it's good or bad or whatever, rather than 10 merely relying upon what the Beach Erosion 11 Committee might say. So perhaps in April, May, 12 whatever would be a good time to schedule something 13 like that. 14 MR. BERSON: How about March? 15 MR. DYSART: March is on the table. 16 MR. BERSON: Not that I don't enjoy seeing you 17 once a month, but I see you more than I see my 18 family, as a matter of fact. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Just refresh my memory, when 20 were we going to have some recommendation about the 21 aquifer study? I know you covered that, Doug. 22 MR. PLACHY: Once we do our action, it goes to 23 GPA for their action. It won't be till spring. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Would we have something in 25 March? 64 1 2 MR. PLACHY: Probably not. 3 MS. JENNINGS: What's wrong with March or 4 April? 5 MR. DYSART: Sounds like a compelling argument 6 to me. 7 MS. JENNINGS: I wasn't paying attention to 8 your time line, Larry. It was great for the 9 invitation, but I wasn't latching on to dates. 10 MR. KEEGAN: Are you asking when we're going 11 to have something done? 12 MS. JENNINGS: As covertly as I knew how to 13 put it, Larry. 14 MR. KEEGAN: Well, we should be seeing in 15 this quarter the temporal and spatial distribution 16 study being completed by both the University of 17 Georgia and South Carolina DNR, right? 18 MR. ELLIS: Right. 19 MR. KEEGAN: They're the only ones that come 20 to mind. Is that a two year effort? 21 MS. JENNINGS: When was the ship simulation 22 stuff? 23 MR. PLACHY: February March frame. 24 MR. PARSONS: Sounds like there's not going to 25 be a lot of information available until at least 65 1 2 April or May. 3 MR. DYSART: Okay. We've got April on the 4 floor. 5 MR. BEASON: The 2nd of April. 6 MR. DYSART: How does April 2nd sound to the 7 body? 8 MR. SCHALLER: Fine. 9 MR. DYSART: We have a consensus declared for 10 April this year, right, April of this year -- April 11 1st. Is there anything else anybody wants to bring 12 before the body today? 13 LT. COMMANDER GREENE: Here at 9:00? 14 MR. DYSART: Here at 9:00 o'clock, April 1st 15 at 9:00 o'clock here. 16 MR. PARSONS: Remember, that's April Fools 17 Day. 18 MR. DYSART: April Fools frivolity will start 19 after this announcement. We are meeting on the 20 1st, so the meeting is an adjourned. I thank you 21 very much for being here. 22 23 24 25 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 C E R T I F I C A T E 7 G E O R G I A : 8 CHATHAM COUNTY: 9 I hereby certify that the foregoing 10 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 11 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 12 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 13 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 65 represent 14 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 15 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 16 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 17 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 18 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 19 anywise interested in the result of said case. 20 This, the 20th day of January, 2003. 21 22 23 ________________________ 24 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court Reporter, B-2041 25 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25