1 2 3 4 5 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6 7 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 8 9 MARCH 7, 2000 10 9:00 A.M. 11 MIGHTY 8TH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 12 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 5 I N D E X 6 7 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3 8 FACILITATOR'S COMMENTS ------------------------ 7 9 AGENDA DISCUSSION ----------------------------- 9 10 RECORD HANDLING REPORTS ----------------------- 69 11 BEACH EROSION --------------------------------- 94 12 DREDGING AND DISPOSAL ------------------------- 109 13 MTRG ------------------------------------------ 123 14 STRIPED BASS ---------------------------------- 155 15 ECONOMICS ------------------------------------- 159 16 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 167 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. The unofficial clock says 3 9:10. Call the meeting of the Stakeholder's 4 Evaluation Group to order. 5 Chris Schuberth asked me what was 6 happening because I was over here sitting next to 7 him today. I told him that some people need more 8 looking after than others, and I was in that 9 category. So I'm over between Bill Farmer and 10 Chris, because I need all the help I can get. 11 Actually, when I was in the fifth grade, the 12 first day of school, the teacher had a little bitty 13 desk next to her desk. She said this is where I 14 put problems. And so sometimes when somebody would 15 become a disciplinary problem, she would say now 16 you come up here and sit by me the rest of the 17 morning. Two weeks into the school year, she 18 announced that that's where I was sitting the rest 19 of the year. 20 So anyway, Chris, Bill, and I are going to be 21 looking out for each other. I asked Bill if he 22 could be our official timer today. We've grown to 23 have high expectations with Press as our 24 timekeeper the last couple of months. All the 25 slots were filled around him. He's attracting a 4 1 2 real talent over there. 3 I asked Bill. Bill said he was going to ask 4 Dan Parrott to figure out how to get his computer 5 to be a timer, ring a bell, and everything else. 6 While the high tech fix is being developed over 7 there -- 8 MR. PARROTT: I've got my Timex. 9 MR. DYSART: The first thing we'll do is go 10 around the table and indicate who you're affiliated 11 with, and who you are representing. Let's start 12 with Chris. 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: Chris Schuberth, Chatham 14 Environmental Forum and the Tybee Beach Task Force. 15 MS. REESE: Patricia Reese, Georgia Ports. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia Sierra 17 Club. 18 MS. LEFFEK: Teri Leffeck, Fife and Clydesdale 19 Plantation. 20 MS. WENDT: Priscilla Wendt, South Carolina 21 Department of Natural Resources. 22 MR. BROWNELL: Press Brownell, U.S. Department 23 of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 24 MR. MIKELL: Rob Mikell, South Carolina DHEC. 25 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens, Georgia DNR, 5 1 2 Custom Manager. 3 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia DNR Wildlife 4 Resources. 5 MR. MERONEK: Tom Meronek, Georgia DNR 6 Wildlife Resources. 7 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo. 8 MR. COOEY: Bob Cooey, Georgia Dock Pilots and 9 Moran Tugboats. 10 MR. BROWNE: Tommy Browne, Savannah River 11 Pilots. 12 MR. WESLEY: Rick Wesley, Savannah Pilots. 13 MR. HEIFZKE: Ken Heifzke, Town of Hilton 14 Head. 15 MR. GREENWOOD: Darrell Greenwood, Nancy 16 Cathcart Sierra Club. 17 MR. ROBINETTE: Tom Robinette, Fish and 18 Wildlife Service. 19 MR. DRAKE: Sam Drake, Fish and Wildlife 20 Service. 21 MR. KING: Mitch King with Fish and Wildlife 22 Service. 23 MR. PLACHY: Doug Plachy, Corps of Engineers. 24 MR. PARROTT: Dan Parrott, Corps of Engineers. 25 MR. SCHALLER: Dave Schaller, Georgia Ports 6 1 2 Authority. 3 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant to the 4 Port. 5 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant to the 6 Port. 7 MR. DYSART: Welcome back, Larry. I don't 8 know how we've been getting along without you 9 so long. We're really glad to have you back and 10 doing so well. 11 MR. STEVENS: I'd like to know if he missed us 12 at all. 13 MR. ELLIS: Bo Ellis, Applied Technology. 14 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports. 15 MR. JUE: Harry Jue, City of Savannah. 16 MR. BAKER: Jim Baker with the Colonial Group. 17 MR. KYLER: Dave Kyler, Coastal Georgia Center 18 for Sustainable Development. 19 MR. PARSONS: Keith Parsons, Georgia 20 Department of Natural Resources, Environmental 21 Protection Division. 22 MR. MOORE: Charlie Moore, South Carolina DNR. 23 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers. 24 MR. PARKER: Walter Parker, City of Tybee 25 Island. 7 1 2 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, Tybee Island. 3 MR. DESA: Chris Desa, D-E-S-A with Jonaro, 4 J-O-N-A-R-O. 5 MS. KRUEGER: Gail Krueger, Savannah Morning 6 News. 7 MR. CALHOUN: Andy Calhoun, Colonial Group. 8 MR. SUTLIVE: Charlie Sutlive, Savannah 9 Maritime. 10 MR. PHILLIPS: John Phillips, Georgia DOT. 11 MR. WATSON: Chuck Watson, Watson Technical 12 Control, consultant. 13 MR. DYSART: New arrivers got here just in 14 time to introduce themselves. 15 MS. McINTOSH: Patty McIntosh, Georgia 16 Conservancy. 17 MR. BURSON: Will Burson, Georgia 18 Conservancy. 19 MR. DYSART: I'm Ben Dysart, Facilitator. 20 Okay. If anybody against the wall would like to 21 come up, there are several seats still available. 22 If you would prefer to have your back against the 23 wall, that's your business. 24 Okay. My comments, I'm going to contribute 25 about four minutes back to the pot today, simply 8 1 2 say that as usual we're here to try to do the 3 business of Stakeholders Evaluation Group. You're 4 aware of what the mission is. 5 And as we go through the work of the day, 6 please try to keep in mind that we do want to cover 7 the whole radar screen, we want to make sure the 8 science is being specified for the full array of 9 issues you have identified, and that we're making 10 progress suitable to you in defining what needs to 11 be done for the comprehensive suite of issues, so 12 that hopefully this body can get around to 13 determining whether they are happy with the 14 whole package that has been specified, as 15 consistent with your mission. 16 Today, I would like for you to look at the 17 agenda that Cathy just passed out. I don't believe 18 there's anything substantive in the way of changes 19 from what has been posted in two previous versions 20 on web by Larry. 21 So look at that. I think it would be useful. 22 This is something we keep trying to do, is to get 23 some idea of how you want to spend your nearly four 24 hours, as opposed to kind of pointing in a 25 direction and then sort of, kind of letting things 9 1 2 go off from there. 3 So, if you could look over this, and if 4 somebody could suggest about how much time you 5 would like to have on each major issue, that would 6 be very helpful. 7 We have people who are very interested in 8 knowing whether, if they come to a meeting a 9 certain topic actually is going to be dealt with or 10 not. 11 So I would like to see if you want to go 12 through the agenda in a fairly regular manner that 13 requires that we stick to some kind of a schedule. 14 So, look over the agenda, and let me know what your 15 thoughts are, particularly starting on page two. I 16 think the things are up front and don't really take 17 much time at all. 18 We have on section 5, old business, there's 19 a continuing request to have a status report back 20 on the search and possible action there. Item 5-2, 21 5-3, I have no idea what people want to be covered 22 there. Somebody can throw out some kind of 23 estimate. 24 Then we have the matter of all the committee 25 chairs reporting, and how you're going to deal with 10 1 2 your record keeping within your committees. That 3 could either take very, very little time or it 4 could take a long time depending on what you want 5 to do. 6 Then we get into the committee reports. Can 7 somebody tell me how you would like to block things 8 off in terms of old business, committee reports, 9 and so forth. Anybody got any guidance? Is 10 there a motion we simply proceed with the items in 11 order to and try to keep moving? 12 MR. REES: We don't have motions. 13 MR. DYSART: Is there a suggestion. Dan 14 Parrott nodded his head. 15 MR. PARROTT: I suggest we move on. 16 MR. DYSART: Is there a consensus on this 17 point? Can anyone not live with moving forward 18 with the agenda as circulated? 19 Seeing no hands or otherwise, let's proceed. 20 Okay. Do we have any action, any recommended 21 action on the -- all of backed up minutes? 22 Is there a report from the Communications 23 Committee. Is there a recommendation on items 24 four, one, two, three and four. Anybody here from 25 the Communications Committee? Has it taken any 11 1 2 action? 3 MR. REES: Not aware of any. 4 MR. DYSART: This was referred to committee 5 last October. 6 MS. JENNINGS: I don't think we met. 7 MR. DYSART: Judy Jennings, a member of 8 the committee says she doesn't think they have met. 9 Moving smartly on to item 4-5. Action on the 10 record of the February meeting. 11 It has been posted in a timely manner. 12 Everybody who wants to has had an opportunity to 13 read and examine it. Is there a recommendation 14 concerning that? Any corrections? Is there a 15 desire to approve it as posted? 16 MR. FARMER: Yes. 17 MR. DYSART: Bill Farmer says he recommends 18 that. Any objection? Approved. Page one down. 19 Old business 5-1, ballast water questions. GPA was 20 invited to comment on that. I call on Morgan Rees. 21 MR. REES: Actually, I have a draft report, 22 but it's not ready to be shared. There are some 23 loose ends. I've sent it to the Coast Guard just 24 over the weekend for their comment, since they're 25 the lead agency, so forth. I wanted to be sure we 12 1 2 got everything straight. 3 In addition, there was a meeting last week at 4 the Washington level among the Coast Guard, Fish 5 and Wildlife Service and a "representatives of the 6 shipping industry". 7 I don't know who they are, but that was the 8 news report I saw. The news report that I saw said 9 that there would be a copy of the minutes of that 10 meeting available through the Coast Guard and 11 through the National Aquatic Nuisance Task Force. 12 So I plan to acquire the minutes of that 13 meeting and incorporate them into my report. 14 There's also the American Association of Port 15 Authorities convention later this month, which I 16 will be attending. And they have, as one of the 17 panel discussions, ballast water. 18 So I will attend that panel discussion and 19 incorporate whatever I learn there into my report. 20 I will actually have a report in April. I make 21 that commitment. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. Anybody have any 23 questions? I've made a note of that. We will have 24 it on the agenda for April. Next item is the 25 status report back to this group on research of 13 1 2 possible actions concerning Fish and Wildlife, ATM 3 and GPA. Anybody got anything to comment on that? 4 That was a request, that I believe John made. 5 MR. ROBINETTE: Yeah. We had a meeting with 6 the researchers involved with the marsh study 7 proposals, and GPA, and Larry Keegan was at that 8 meeting on February the 10th. 9 We sat down and went over point of that 10 research proposal that we had presented to the SEG, 11 and clarified that. The researchers are going to 12 add an introductory paragraph to tie each of those 13 pieces together as a whole, and how that relates to 14 -- and explain how that relates to the harbor 15 deepening project. 16 And Larry, together with the GPA, has been 17 going through this looking at how all of these 18 pieces tie together into harbor deepening, and 19 discussing potential funding of that project. 20 We haven't received word the project has been 21 funded. Larry told me this morning that it should 22 be coming pretty quick. So -- right? 23 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah. I think we're -- I've got 24 tidal wetlands. We're in agreement with what has 25 to be done there. We have some details to work 14 1 2 out, a little discussion we want to do with the 3 Fish and Wildlife Service. 4 MR. PARSONS: Could you maybe just specify 5 some of the specific issues that are involved that 6 y'all are talking about in that committee? 7 MR. ROBINETTE: The points I think that Larry 8 wants to discuss is the resource utilization part 9 of that study, which involves some of the fisheries 10 stuff, fish that are coming out onto the marsh, the 11 Nekton part of that study I handed you at the last 12 meeting and migratory bird stuff, is that correct? 13 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, resource utilization, we'd 14 like to talk about some more. 15 MR. ROBINETTE: Right. 16 MR. JENNINGS: I'm not exactly sure what that 17 means, resource utilization. 18 MR. ROBINETTE: It's -- at the study sites we 19 have where we're going out and doing the plant 20 surveys, and looking at the marsh to determine, you 21 know, whether it's freshwater species, brackish, or 22 saltwater species. 23 We would like to do some, what we call 24 resource utilization surveys. Essentially, we 25 would like to go out and see what that habitat is 15 1 2 supporting; in other words, particularly for 3 migratory birds, because Savannah National Wildlife 4 Refuge was established for benefits to migratory 5 birds. 6 And that's one of the things that Fish and 7 Wildlife Service has to comment on, what are 8 the impacts going to be to migratory birds. So 9 that's one of the resource utilization things. We 10 will go out and we will look each site, what's 11 using that during spring, fall migration, what's 12 using that during the nesting season. 13 Fish and Wildlife Service is already 14 conducting a study to look at these sites and 15 determine the bird species that are nesting in 16 these different habitats. We're doing that. 17 What we're asking GPA to do is fund the 18 migration part of that for the spring and fall. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: When you say -- when you say 20 resource utilization, you're using those two words 21 as resource utilized by the natural -- by the 22 organism? 23 MR. ROBINETTE: By the wildlife. 24 MR. SCHUBERTH: Wildlife, correct. 25 MR. ROBINETTE: Fisheries community, correct. 16 1 2 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think there may have been 3 some confusing language usage. 4 MR. ROBINETTE: I'm too familiar with it, 5 sorry. 6 MR. DYSART: Jargon. Are there further 7 questions on this topic? 8 MS. JENNINGS: Is this where we're doing this 9 topic? I mean, is this topic time? 10 MR. DYSART: Apparently so. 11 MS. JENNINGS: What's left to be determined in 12 terms of the study regarding the resource 13 utilization? I'm not exactly sure the status of 14 the studies. I understand what they are. I don't 15 understand what's yet to be determined. 16 MR. ROBINETTE: What's yet to be determined 17 are for the migratory bird portion of this is 18 the spring and fall utilization by the migratory 19 birds, particularly song birds, of these marshes, 20 which is -- it can be a lot more difficult than 21 doing a breeding bird survey. 22 A lot of times you have to net these birds to 23 identify them. During the breeding bird surveys, 24 we can do it with calls. 25 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. I understand what you 17 1 2 are trying to do. What hasn't happened; you 3 haven't finalized a decision with GPA? 4 MR. ROBINETTE: We don't funding to do the 5 spring and fall migratory studies yet 6 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 7 MS. WENDT: What about the Nekton studies are 8 still up? 9 MR. ROBINETTE: That's also part of the 10 resource utilization 11 MS. WENDT: Is that still being debated 12 whether it is going to be funded or not? 13 MR. KEEGAN: Yes. 14 MR. ROBINETTE: Correct. 15 MS. WENDT: I would just like to say, on 16 behalf of the South Carolina DNR, that it seems 17 like that would be very important. Looking at the 18 ecology of these systems, and their importance to 19 the fisheries habitat, and from having read the 20 proposal, it seems to me it complements other 21 fisheries study very nicely, and does not overlap 22 with other fisheries studies that have been 23 proposed. I would hope they are funded. 24 MR. ROBINETTE: Exactly. In the meeting, we 25 met -- the Fish and Wildlife Service made those 18 1 2 points at the meeting too. That this -- that the 3 Nekton studies and bird studies were essential for 4 us to make a decision about what the impacts were 5 going to be. And the Nekton studies tied in with 6 the fisheries studies, and they were designed that 7 way. 8 So it's important for us to make a decision on 9 what impacts to the resource will happen in the 10 event of the deepening. That was made very clear, 11 I think. 12 MR. BROWNELL: I would like to lend some 13 support to that. I think the Fisheries Committee 14 did not specifically talk about the Nekton or the 15 fisheries aspects of the studies proposed by the 16 Fish and Wildlife Service. 17 They're definitely in line with the other 18 fisheries studies that have been proposed. Those 19 are definitely essential components to our ability 20 to develop an information base that will provide 21 decision-making in the broader public interest. 22 MR. DYSART: David, Mitch, then Patty. 23 MR. SCHALLER: I just -- since we're talking 24 jargon, I want to bring clarification to the table. 25 We're not debating the issues with Fish and 19 1 2 Wildlife. We're consulting with them to make sure 3 that the projects, the studies, all fit within the 4 framework that we had discussion about the last 5 time we spoke of the deepening project, 6 specifically as Larry mentioned, we're not troubled 7 deeply by these issues. 8 We're working with Fish and Wildlife, 9 consulting with them. I think we're going to, you 10 know, find resolution to those issues, once we've 11 got all the I's crossed and all the T's; is that 12 fair, John? Is that fair, Mitch? 13 MR. ROBINETTE: Yes. 14 MR. DYSART: David. 15 MR. KYLER: I was wondering how well you 16 review something if your eyes are crossed? 17 MR. DYSART: That's humor. 18 MR. SCHALLER: No, we cross the I's and dot 19 the T's. 20 MR. DYSART: Mitch King. 21 MR. KING: Just a bit of clarification. The 22 SEG has -- have they, this is a question follow-up 23 sort of comment -- the SEG has approved the Fish 24 and Wildlife Service proposal and forwarded that 25 to GPA? Did we do that in a previous meeting? Has 20 1 2 that been done officially? 3 MR. DRAKE: Sam Drake, Fish and Wildlife. We 4 were given the green light to work outside the 5 committee with ATM and Georgia Ports, give Georgia 6 Ports an opportunity to ground truth the need of 7 the project. Once Larry Keegan came back to this 8 part of the world, he was assigned that task to 9 meet with us, got the researchers in. 10 They explained and justified the components of 11 the project, the amount of money it would take, the 12 amount of time it would take, and all that 13 information now has been put in a format. Like 14 John said, maybe one or two small items of 15 explaining, one or two paragraphs is missing from 16 that Larry wants clarification on. 17 Then I guess it goes to GPA. Then they'll 18 make a decision to write the checks or not. Some 19 of the studies are time sensitive. Those have been 20 identified to Larry and GPA on the ones that need 21 to start this spring; otherwise you're looking at 22 next year before you start, if you miss a cycle. 23 It could throw you off three, four months delay on 24 getting results. 25 MR. KING: I guess my follow-up, is it 21 1 2 appropriate, at this point in time, to get the 3 SEG's either rejection or approval or support of 4 these proposals, so we can get on with the time 5 sensitive ones or not. I really just don't -- 6 MR. DYSART: Has this information -- is this 7 -- has this been made available to the SEG or can 8 it be circulated for examination before approval? 9 MR. KING: That's all I'm asking. 10 MR. DYSART: Patty. 11 MS. McINTOSH: What is the Nekton study, how 12 do you spell it? 13 MR. ROBINETTE: A Nekton study is looking at 14 the fish that come out onto the marsh itself. 15 Wiley Kitchens at the University of Florida is 16 doing the marsh studies. He's done this several 17 times before. 18 But he puts a net at the entrance from the 19 channels, from the creek channels, onto the marsh 20 surface itself. He captures anything that's 21 coming, flooding out into the marsh, fish, 22 invertebrates, whatever it is. And he will look at 23 those 10 different sites to determine what species 24 are using what site. 25 MS. McINTOSH: Thank you. 22 1 2 MR. ROBINETTE: Nekton, the catch phrase is 3 nekton which means anything that's coming through 4 anything that's flowing with that water coming in 5 there. 6 So the question about the SEG, we made 7 available twice, in two meetings, copies of the 8 studies. Everybody in the SEG had a chance to look 9 these over. I think we did agree that the -- at 10 that time, probably two meetings back, that the SEG 11 did approve the proposals and support funding for 12 those proposals. I believe that's been done. 13 MR. DYSART: Approval or recommendation can be 14 considered -- 15 MR. ROBINETTE: Recommendation, whatever. 16 MR. DYSART: -- and forwarded to GPA for their 17 review. 18 MR. ROBINETTE: Is that right, didn't we do 19 that? 20 MR. KING: This is more of a presentation of 21 that review then, it's not really asking the board 22 to do something. We've already approved the 23 studies. 24 MR. DYSART: That's my understanding. 25 MR. ROBINETTE: Is that right, David? Did SEG 23 1 2 support it. 3 MR. SCHALLER: That's about as close to being 4 right as I think I can articulate it. If you'll 5 indulge me, I'll try to go one step further. 6 I believe that the SEG endorsed the idea of 7 Fish and Wildlife Service working directly with 8 Port Authority to undertake the studies, and review 9 with you the recommendations that we are making for 10 these various studies, as they relate to the 11 deepening project. We're not confused about the 12 sentiment, if you will, about the SEG. 13 MR. ROBINETTE: Correct. 14 MR. SCHALLER: We're working with you to 15 resolve all these things, cross the I's and dot all 16 the T's -- we'll stay with that. And once we 17 resolve all those issues, we'll make a SEG web 18 posting and let everybody know. 19 MR. KING: Thank you. 20 MR. DYSART: Trip. 21 MR. TOLLISON: How much are these going to 22 cost, do we have a figure? 23 MR. ROBINETTE: 575,000. 24 MR. DYSART: Total per year or -- 25 MR. ROBINETTE: That's for the Fish and 24 1 2 Wildlife Service portion of this for our folks 3 at the University of Florida, and for the Fish and 4 Wildlife Service itself to conduct these studies 5 because we are -- our folks at the refuge are 6 involved with the research. 7 We're doing the burning of the marsh. We've 8 already spent $50,000 to get Wiley Kitchens up here 9 and get started, so forth and so on. This will 10 support our efforts too. 11 MR. DYSART: Total then? 12 MR. ROBINETTE: Total, yes. 13 MR. DYSART: Any further comments or 14 discussion on this item? Seeing no cards up, we'll 15 move on to item 5-3. This was requested a couple 16 of months ago by Teri Leffek, discussion of any 17 other active studies related to the SEG mission 18 that SEG might or might not be aware of. 19 In other words, I guess, I interpreted that as 20 is there anything else going on that is related to 21 accomplishing the scientific mission of the SEG? 22 Does anyone have anything to -- 23 MR. WATSON: Chuck Watson. I asked for about 24 15, 20 minutes at the next meeting to present the 25 results of several studies that I've been working 25 1 2 on. Just real quickly, I've been working several 3 projects with the Florida Division of Emergency 4 Management, several insurance departments, the 5 Weather Channel. 6 We're doing medium resolution for 30 to 90 7 meter computational grids of storm hazard runs or 8 virtually the entire East Coast, looking at things 9 like harbor projects and dredging, the effects on 10 extreme events like Nor'easters and hurricanes. 11 The reason for that is to try to do historical 12 validation on some of the older runs. For 13 instance, the Weather Channel is doing the storm of 14 the century. 15 We were doing the 1938 storm that hit Long 16 Island, the '35 Keys storm. Obviously, there have 17 been a lot of changes in the natural and developed 18 environment since then. We're accurately 19 simulating. We need to figure what the impacts of 20 different changes are to make sure we accurately 21 model. 22 The Savannah area was included, partly because 23 I live here and am interested in the area, but also 24 because Hurricane Hugo was one of our test storms. 25 We submitted a number of papers to various 26 1 2 journals. Given the stage of deliberations of the 3 SEG, we might be interesting. If the group would 4 like to hear that again, we'd be happy to present 5 the results of the studies, as they affect the 6 harbor deepening project next month. 7 MR. DYSART: Are there other items relating to 8 item 5-3. Patty. 9 MS. McINTOSH: I'm not sure if this is the 10 right place to bring this up, but it seems to fit. 11 As part of the Georgia EPD's Sound Science 12 Initiative of saltwater intrusion into the Florida 13 Aquifer, the U.S. Geological Survey has identified 14 harbor deepening as a possible problem in that 15 study. 16 They have identified some concerns. I just 17 wondered if GPA is working with USGS on that 18 modeling work, or EPD as part of the ground water 19 study. 20 MR. DYSART: Chris. 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: I'm have interested and I 22 comment because about a year and a half ago, I had 23 raised the question about the arch, the structural 24 arch that lies offshore that brings the miocene 25 aquifer closer to the surface. 27 1 2 I had hypothetically raised the question, if 3 there's an absolute maximum limit to which the 4 harbor could be deepened, and used the analogy that 5 knowing the answer, is there, for example, a solid 6 bedrock. 7 Basically the answer to that is no, but the 8 aquifer is there. It largely was dismissed. Being 9 relatively inexperienced at this process, didn't 10 pursue it any further. 11 I'm glad to hear that a federal agency, the 12 USGS is now raising that question, as to whether or 13 not with continued deepening, and the presence of 14 this structural arch, the aquifer could be 15 comprised. I would like to hear Patty say a little 16 bit more about the specifics of the concerns of 17 the USGS. 18 MS. McINTOSH: What I have heard expressed 19 there is concern deepening could cut into the 20 confining layers of clay and sand. That could 21 possibly cause that interface between saltwater -- 22 from the aquifer -- I mean the pure water from the 23 aquifer and saltwater. 24 MR. DYSART: Larry Keegan. 25 MR. KEEGAN: We were very concerned about that 28 1 2 very thing when we did the tier one feasibility 3 study. We worked with USGS personnel and 4 Dr. Henry from Skidaway, and did a very extensive 5 evaluation of the Florida Aquifer, and were we 6 going to impinge upon it in any way. It's in the 7 engineering appendix. There's a whole section that 8 deals with it. 9 I think we were able to conclude with a good 10 deal of independent verification, this deepening up 11 to 48 feet will not endanger the aquifer. 12 MR. DYSART: Dan. 13 MR. PARROTT: Slight correction, 50 feet plus 14 over depth. We actually looked at minus 56 feet, 15 looking the Floridian Aquifer, the upper Brunswick 16 Aquifer, it's closer coordinated with USGS in the 17 feasibility study. 18 MR. DYSART: Could we introduce anybody coming 19 in since the last time? 20 MR. BREWTON: Ben Brewton, Coastal 21 Environmental Organization. 22 MR. DYSART: Who else? 23 MR. HANZALIK: James Hanzalik, United States 24 Coast Guard, H-A-N-Z-A-L-I-K. 25 MR. DYSART: I want to make sure the record 29 1 2 shows he came in. Trip Tollison came in -- you got 3 him. Ben Brewton, 4 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. I was at the meeting 5 Patty referred to, and the USGS indicated that the 6 two things that I understood, one was that the 7 Corps of Engineers had done some work on this, and 8 that there was somebody with the Corps of Engineers 9 continuing to do some more work on this, because 10 there was some reference to the fact that some 11 early indication was maybe it was a problem, but 12 they were looking at it more deeply. 13 So I guess I would pose the question, is the 14 Corps of Engineers, or any part of the Corps of 15 Engineers looking at that issue, or did they -- and 16 are they looking at it further? 17 MR. PARROTT: At this point in time, as far as 18 my knowledge, there's no additional studies being 19 conducted on the upper Florida Aquifer, other than 20 what's completed in the tier one feasible study. 21 MR. BREWTON: Is that done by the Corps or 22 by GPA? 23 MR. PARROTT: Done by the Corps. As far as 24 work done by GPA, Cardwell Smith's work completed 25 a very exhaustive -- in fact, we went back and 30 1 2 extended the scope of study related to additional 3 issues, not only the Florida Aquifer but the 4 Upper Brunswick Aquifer, and even some of the old 5 stream beds, a very exhaustive study, and working 6 closely USGS got the approvals in coordination with 7 them. 8 To my knowledge, there are no additional 9 studies going on in the Savannah Harbor to look at 10 aquifer issues. 11 MR. BREWTON: Seems like what we might should 12 do then, I guess, is take another look -- 13 MR. PARROTT: That was IN the tier one EIS 14 engineering appendix of the feasible study. 15 MR. BREWTON: Maybe somehow or another we need 16 to get that to these guys at USGS and ask them if 17 they were referring to something beyond that. If 18 they have concerns that go beyond that, I don't 19 know what the best manner to do that would be. 20 MR. PARROTT: Direct them to the person at 21 USGS that was on the team. 22 MR. BREWTON: Who was that? 23 MR. PARROTT: I don't know. I'm talking off 24 my head. I can ask Cardwell Smith. Dr. Henry was 25 one independent consultant we hired. 31 1 2 MR. BREWTON: Could you possibly send that to 3 me, and I'll see if we can get these folks to the 4 folks at USGS who made the presentation last week? 5 MR. PARROTT: USGS out of Atlanta, so I 6 attended several meetings myself. I'll get you the 7 information about who was on the team on USGS, and 8 documentation support. 9 MR. BREWTON: Thanks. 10 MR. DYSART: Harry, then Chris. 11 MR. JUE: I think there needs to probably be 12 some clarification. I've read the tier one EIS 13 on additional deepening and the effect. 14 As a member of the Sound Science Committee 15 also, it's also been determined by the experts in 16 the Chatham County area the solifluction of the 17 miocene may be charging the Florida Aquifer in this 18 area. 19 If you look at the confining layers as 20 compared in Chatham County and Glynn County or 21 Camden County, miocene is very extensive in the 22 Glynn County areas, and up in Chatham County it's 23 very shallow. And there are confining layers as 24 far as shallow sands and miocene that may have 25 an impact on the Florida Aquifer. 32 1 2 So, you know, the question is, are you going 3 to take another layer of the cake off, and so all 4 your doing is -- is your confining layer is getting 5 thinner. That's the only concern we have, is that 6 -- I don't know if you are considering the Upper 7 Brunswick Aquifer as you're talking about miocene 8 and shallow sands, but I think that's one of my 9 major concerns is whether or not that 10 coordination between the experts on the Sound 11 Science and what you have done as far as tier one 12 EIS have identified whether or not that is the 13 conduit that could possibly flow into the Upper 14 Florida Aquifer. 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: Let me add to what Harry has 16 said, and that is that it is known that there are 17 preglacial channels that have subsequently been 18 naturally filled in by sediment that go down into 19 the aquifer that seem not to negatively impact any 20 exchange of the water. 21 But I know also, and I go again to Bo Ellis' 22 comment several months ago about inconsequential 23 is while Jim Henry and Card Smith basically sign 24 off on this, privately, I know there's some 25 concern. I think what Harry has just said 33 1 2 validates the complexity of the taking another 3 layer off. 4 MR. DYSART: Dan, then Mitch. 5 MR. PARROTT: I think I propose maybe we get 6 Card Smith to do a presentation at a future SEG 7 meeting, to review the studies that were done, to 8 demonstrate the level of coordination, the borings 9 that were done, looking at the preglacial stream 10 beds -- 11 MR. SCHUBERTH: Channels. 12 MR. PARROTT: -- channels, and talk about 13 answers to your questions. He can give you 14 specifics to it. I'm not sure about next month. 15 I'll go back to see if Card -- see if he can 16 attend, such as he did in November, to demonstrate 17 what the Corps did. 18 MR. DYSART: Dan, why don't you take the lead 19 on that and advise me of anything that needs to go 20 on the agenda. 21 MR. KING: I think that's a good 22 recommendation. I think we should bring this 23 discussion to sort of a closure. I think, keeping 24 in mind, what we're supposed to be doing as the SEG 25 is identifying particular areas of concern, and 34 1 2 Patty brought this up again with new information, 3 a new presentation that was given. 4 I think this emphasizes the importance of this 5 issue to GPA as they're developing tier two EIS 6 knowing there's going to be questions, upon 7 questions, upon questions about this one. 8 When it comes to the analysis, I think that's 9 really about as far as we can go. We really 10 shouldn't be trying to analyze specifically what 11 they're doing, but this presentation that could 12 come up next month would be a great one to have 13 just to continue to move us in that direction. 14 Let's just move on. 15 MR. DYSART: I think that's proper. This 16 body's focus is recommending and identifying 17 scientific needs. That would be appropriate. 18 We'll listen to hear from Dan. Okay. I see no 19 further cards up. We'll proceed to 20 MR. KING: Before we get off that -- 21 MR. DYSART: Mitch King. 22 MR. KING: -- let me throw my card back up, 23 somewhat related to this topic. I've been sort of 24 scratching my head over the last couple of months 25 because we've touched on quite a few scientific 35 1 2 studies that are being recommended now by the SEG. 3 I'm glad that the SEG is -- has stepped 4 forward and really started identifying the studies, 5 pushing those off on GPA saying we ought to do this 6 one, that one. 7 And this afternoon or later today, I wonder if 8 it's not time for us to sort of start bringing 9 together the scope of the studies, so that we see 10 them all in one place. 11 The reason I ask this is because when I see 12 the sort of flow chart of how the SEG was supposed 13 to work in the feasibility study, it said six 14 months from the date that was all approved, but 15 that's not realistic. 16 But it actually said that there was going to 17 be a point in time where all of the studies that 18 were going to be incorporated into the tier two 19 analysis, and all the additional stuff, was going 20 to be identified in one lump sum. 21 We were all going to be able to say here it 22 is. This is going to be done. These are going to 23 be funded by GPA. These are going to be put into 24 the final document. Is there anything else? It 25 was sort of a point in time where we could say, we 36 1 2 think this is good as an SEG as a whole, as 3 individual agencies, or representatives of 4 organizations we represent. 5 And it's real important to me, as a 6 representative of the Fish and Wildlife Service, 7 and a representative of the Secretary of the 8 Interior, because that's one of those points in 9 time where the Secretary of the Interior says, this 10 is good enough. This will be a complete study. 11 And then the second point in time, of course, 12 is after those studies come back, and whether or 13 not the impacts are acceptable. But we need to 14 have that point in time -- seems like we're sort of 15 dribbling into these scientific studies a little 16 bit here, a little bit there. 17 I've not seen a point in time that SEG's going 18 to say, okay. This is the package GPA. GPA go 19 forth and do these. When you come back, we'll then 20 analyze the impacts. 21 I'm wondering if we are getting close to that 22 time, or we still think we're quite a few months 23 away -- should we be thinking about summarizing and 24 putting all these things together? 25 MR. DYSART: Press Brownell has thoughts along 37 1 2 those lines. 3 MR. BROWNELL: Mitch, you basically spoke to 4 what I was intending to say. I'd like to add a 5 couple of things to what's well spoken. Obviously, 6 the SEG was established primarily to identify 7 information that may be needed by all the different 8 interests that are involved in the port development 9 project to make decisions. 10 And one of the key things, of course, is 11 identifying studies, identifying that package of 12 studies Mitch mentioned. I think it's important 13 for the SEG. 14 I'd just like to suggest this, and see if 15 other members of the SEG agree, or some of them 16 agree that maybe at the next meeting, we should 17 take stock of all these various environmental 18 studies that have been identified, have been 19 completely or partially accomplished, take a look 20 at the costs that have been put forward so far, 21 take a look at the individual studies that have 22 been presented, just so the SEG could maintain a 23 continuous view of the development of the whole 24 study process, so we can all be as educated as we 25 need to be in order to make recommendations to 38 1 2 Georgia Ports. 3 Maybe at the next meeting, maybe we should 4 take stock. Someone who can summarize all the 5 studies, all the environmental studies that have 6 been done, some of the results that have been 7 brought forward so far, so we can all have a good 8 feeling of where we are at in this process, and 9 what costs are associated so far. 10 I think to be able to evaluate the individual 11 study proposals, we really need to have that 12 refresher background information. Anyone have any 13 comments on this from SEG? 14 MR. DYSART: David and then Chris. 15 MR. SCHALLER: We'd like to echo Mitch's 16 remarks and Press' remarks about that very thing. 17 We would make an appeal to the SEG to identify the 18 studies that need to be done, as quickly as we can. 19 It serves no one well to have the studies kind 20 of dribble in, and this issue of framework that 21 we've discussed with Fish and Wildlife, and with 22 Georgia DNR; the big picture has to be, if you 23 will, consulted with as we identify the pieces of 24 the studies that need to go in to that. 25 So the sooner the better. I would point out 39 1 2 these two little pieces of information, all of the 3 studies that have been approved, or are underway, 4 are in the appendix to the Operating Guidelines. 5 They were in the report, kind of a progress 6 report, if you will, I believe that Morgan 7 delivered at our last meeting. But on top of that, 8 we'd be happy to do -- to make a framework 9 presentation that encompasses all of these studies, 10 as they fit into the larger puzzle, probably at the 11 May meeting. 12 We'll make our best effort to put it on the 13 April agenda. I'd be reluctant to make a promise 14 to do so, given all the other work involved. We'll 15 be happy to do that, and we'll do it as soon as 16 we're able to do that. 17 MR. DYSART: Chris. 18 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think Mitch's, and 19 everyone's, and Dave's comments are well made. I 20 think we need to remind ourselves, however, that in 21 the initial stages of SEG when we were, what I 22 might call engaged in a search and destroy mission. 23 A lot of ideas have been put forward, 24 including the aquifer question, including other 25 questions that were basically, at that time a year 40 1 2 ago when we had that -- I somewhat sarcastically 3 referred to as the "big 5" that were originally put 4 forward by the ports. We've come a long way, come 5 a very long way since that very first meeting up in 6 Garden City at the city hall, wherever it was. 7 So these projects that were discussed then and 8 were kind of put aside are now coming back because 9 there's some validity in it. So while we need to 10 bring some kind of closure to study, and studies 11 coming forward in dribs and drabs, the proverbial 12 bad penny that keeps coming to the surface because 13 we haven't really removed the tarnish from that 14 penny. 15 MR. DYSART: Patty, can you top that eloquence 16 and scientific merit? 17 MR. SCHUBERTH: Oh dear. 18 MS. McINTOSH: I like the idea of having kind 19 of a status report on where we are with the 20 studies. I want to make sure it includes proposed 21 studies, and it's not a closed book. It's not 22 considered all of the studies that are going to be 23 done. 24 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 25 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. I listened to Chris 41 1 2 Schuberth, and I wonder sometimes why he's a 3 professor of geology rather than English or 4 philosophy. After that eloquent statement, I do 5 want to embellish just a little bit. 6 I've thought about a couple of things I've 7 heard, and everything I've heard I think are very 8 positive ideas. But I want to concur with what 9 Patty just said, and suggest that perhaps the word 10 closure is not exactly the right word for this 11 exercise. 12 I think it is important for us to put all this 13 together. We have a good start in the efforts of 14 Bill Farmer, Morgan, and some of them in sort of 15 the matrix issues and committees. 16 One the questions that has arisen there is how 17 broad is the scope of each of these studies in 18 each of the committee's consideration? 19 I think it is important to do what Mitch 20 suggested, and Dave has concurred with, to come in 21 and put all that together, and let us see it all 22 in one place; not just the name of the study, but 23 sort of a bulleted list of the scope of each study, 24 and how far along we are, and what's been 25 completed, what's in progress, and what's still 42 1 2 proposed. 3 I also agree very much with what Chris said, 4 there's been a lot of things mentioned in passing 5 that we said, well, maybe we'll get to that later, 6 or look at that in light of some other study at 7 some future point. 8 Most of all, I guess what I would like to say 9 is, this is a project and study dealing with the 10 public resources and public benefits. And it's not 11 a contract between the two of us individually, or 12 two private companies where we sit down and say, 13 I'll build that building for X amount of dollars, 14 we'll do this and that. When you finish your 15 contract, maybe you each left out something. 16 Somebody has to eat a door we forgot to specify in 17 the bit. 18 This is something, we're dealing with impacts 19 on valuable public -- some cases, many cases, most 20 cases, valuable, irreplaceable natural resources. 21 So with due respect and understanding of the 22 need to wrap this up, so to speak, to get it 23 defined and to move ahead as much as possible. I 24 don't argue against that concept at all. 25 But we do have to keep an open mind if an 43 1 2 important environmental impact is identified, 3 whether it is today, tomorrow, the day before the 4 dredges are ready to start digging; we have to 5 commit ourselves that's going to be addressed. 6 I think GPA has done that. So I just want to 7 offer that bit of philosophy, as much as anything 8 else as we're looking at that. 9 MR. DYSART: David Schaller. 10 MR. SCHALLER: I want to go back to something 11 Chris mentioned. Chris, you talked about when we 12 started this process, and we identified the "big 13 5", and we left some things behind. 14 I'm not aware of anything that we have left 15 behind, or anything that has not been addressed as 16 it's been raised by anybody; not just the SEG 17 membership, but anyone who has raised an issue, it 18 has not been left behind. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: I agree. I agree. The only 20 -- I might have been too sweeping in that, but I do 21 know that I personally had expressed a concern 22 about the aquifer issue. And in your mind, in the 23 port's mind it wasn't left behind because it was 24 adequately addressed in the statement. 25 And it was basically written off in terms of 44 1 2 having no adverse impact on the aquifer, but that, 3 to the best of my knowledge talking privately, is 4 not a unanimous opinion. 5 And I'm glad to see that the USGS has raised 6 some concerns. So I mean, this is something that 7 had been addressed, was adequately addressed, but 8 is now coming back in light of other 9 interpretations perhaps. 10 MR. DYSART: Bill Farmer. 11 MR. FARMER: Beach Erosion Committee briefly 12 touched on this at our last meeting. Larry Keegan 13 indicated that the Georgia Ports Authority has a 14 plan to bring this altogether. 15 Let me try to refresh what we were talking 16 about. We were trying to predict the closure of 17 all these studies. Each study is going to have 18 its own output, including a mitigation plan for 19 that particular area. 20 And it may be possible that one study 21 mitigation might impact adversely on another 22 study's mitigation. There might be some overlap 23 and certain effects there. 24 Larry explained the port authority already 25 predicted this and has a plan to bring it 45 1 2 altogether. Maybe Larry could explain that a bit 3 again. 4 MR. KEEGAN: Okay. Excuse me. Be happy to. 5 What I was relaying to Bill -- this is the Beach 6 Erosion Committee you're talking about? 7 MR. FARMER: Yes. 8 MR. KEEGAN: What we have to do, what we're 9 required to do by Corps guidelines is put together 10 an environmental quality framework. You've heard 11 that term I'm sure. 12 That literally turns out to be a matrix that 13 contains the resources that we have to deal with, 14 and how we're going to deal with it, and how we're 15 going to measure the effects. 16 We're still trying to assemble that. That's 17 where the desire to get the things that have to be 18 addressed identified as soon as we can, in the 19 scope of what the detail has to be -- has to 20 included and identified so we can fit those into 21 that framework. 22 And what Bill was saying is exactly correct. 23 Once we think we have our hands around all of the 24 resources that we have to be concerned about, we 25 have to then go predict, as best we can based on 46 1 2 the tools we're building now, what we think will 3 happen. 4 My opinion is that we will face a cross 5 dependency where we have an effect on one 6 particular resource, maybe negative; on another one 7 it may be positive. We don't know the details yet, 8 but I think we foresee we're going to be working, 9 if you will, from sort of a matrix of effects. 10 How do we balance how much impact or effect on 11 this resource is okay for that resource, that sort 12 of thing? It's going to be very complex. It's 13 certainly not going to be something, I think, that 14 can be boiled down to a very simple sort of 15 approach. 16 It's going to take a lot of thought and effort 17 to deal with that. That's what we anticipate 18 having to do. 19 MR. FARMER: Yes. 20 MR. KEEGAN: That was what we talked about 21 before. 22 MR. KING: I -- good discussion we've just had 23 here. I think I fully agree with those that are 24 concerned about the completeness, whether or not a 25 presentation by GPA will be complete. I guess I 47 1 2 would question that. 3 Maybe what we ought to be thinking about doing 4 is having someone put the time into going back and 5 looking at all the things that have surfaced over 6 the life of the SEG, and working with GPA on that 7 presentation that occurs to make sure it is what 8 SEG thought was important, and not necessarily what 9 GPA took away from that. 10 There may be some tarnished pennies laying 11 around that may need to be revisited for whatever 12 reasons. 13 Certainly, it is not a point of closure. I'm 14 not suggesting we come in in May, look this all 15 over and say, okay folks. We're done. Remember, 16 there are two places SEG has input on this project. 17 One is to make sure that the tier two EIS is 18 the best and most inclusive EIS it can be from an 19 environmental and economic standpoint. And that's 20 what we're doing right now. 21 We're trying to layout these studies and say, 22 okay, you go do these studies. We can't really 23 think of anything else. There may be something 24 that pops up. We can't think of anything else 25 right now that needs to be looked at carefully. 48 1 2 Then keep in mind, the other big point is when 3 these studies are completed, we have to then decide 4 whether or not the environmental impacts that are 5 being identified in the tier two EIS are 6 acceptable, and make recommendations based on 7 that. 8 It doesn't mean we're buying off on it. It 9 just says acceptable. Hopefully, we're going to be 10 able to identify everything now, so there won't be 11 a lot of I don't knows. 12 I think it's a good idea to have this 13 presentation at -- David talked about the May 14 meeting. 15 The only thing I would add, maybe somebody 16 like Chris, that has the institutional knowledge, 17 can sort of be there as well with them as they 18 develop that, so that he reminds us that we have a 19 aquifer issue we need to deal with, and that was 20 brought up. 21 I know from what I've heard over the past 22 three, four months from the Fish and Wildlife 23 aspect of this, we've identified a lot of things 24 recently that have, at least maybe been addressed, 25 maybe not been addressed yet, but need to be 49 1 2 addressed in some respect. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Ben --. 4 MR. DYSART: Judy, last comment, then we'll 5 move on. 6 MS. JENNINGS: I think it's highly consistent, 7 and possibly a symptom of maturation of our process 8 here, that we're looking at pulling things 9 together. 10 I have a problem, though, tasking GPA to do it 11 and bring it back. That's a little consistent. It 12 might be setting everybody up for failure. So I 13 suggest some other -- definitely let's proceed with 14 summarizing, coalescing, trying to put it before 15 the body -- the scope of work we've identified to 16 date. 17 But if we could offer some other mechanism 18 other than tasking GPA to go away and bring it 19 back, I think it's a great idea, and I think it's a 20 sign of maturation we are working toward the 21 mission we assembled to do. 22 MR. DYSART: Do you have an idea on an 23 alternative approach? 24 MS. JENNINGS: Obviously, the GPA is willing 25 to put some time into it. Sierra -- I'll be happy 50 1 2 to show up anytime somebody else is to get 3 together. Fish and Wildlife would have something 4 to contribute, whoever wants to contribute. What 5 I'm after is bringing back the scope of work and 6 the validity of the group. 7 MR. SCHUBERTH: Let me just add here, I do 8 want to compliment personally, David Schaller and 9 GPA for bringing us -- to allow us come to this 10 point. Judy, nicely said, level of maturation. 11 I think that's very important. Basically, 12 David, I was sort of saying that before when we 13 first got started. There was a lot of dust. It 14 has settled. We've moved forward. 15 It has really been a constructive process. I 16 think we all are appreciative of the fact y'all are 17 listening, which is the important half of the 18 discussion. 19 MR. DYSART: I think this is has been a very 20 productive and constructive half hour discussion. 21 And this is the kind of thing that you hope will 22 happen in the course of a meeting, along with 23 everything else. 24 Before we move on to the next item, I would 25 say there seem to be two paradigms that have been 51 1 2 laid out here. I focus on these sharply to just 3 stimulate your own thought. 4 You've got a paradigm of an option or idea or 5 continuing to work in progress that can go on, 6 essentially, forever, and that's not acceptable in 7 the real world. 8 There's another paradigm that says, lock 9 things down, close your mind, so forth. That, of 10 course, isn't acceptable either. I think the 11 mission, as I understand it, you know, is as 12 several people including Mitch and others have 13 said, basically, paint the radar screen, and 14 identifying the studies that are needed, best 15 estimate of things that are needed, and to be able 16 to act in accordance with the mission real time, as 17 opposed to just going on and on and on. 18 The question I would ask, rhetorical question 19 is, the SEG needs to have some idea in its mind of 20 when it would like to act, and actually be in a 21 position to report to the agency decision makers, 22 including the Secretary of the Interior. 23 As Mitch properly pointed out, there are a 24 couple of opportunities. One is saying here is 25 what we believe constitutes the types of studies 52 1 2 that would identify things, and identify mitigation 3 measures, determine what can and can't be. Then 4 the second one, are the results acceptable. 5 So I think that as we move on from month to 6 month to month, sometime hopefully in the near 7 future, there needs to be a consensus, a real 8 consensus within this body, of sometime on a 9 calendar when you are going be able to say, here's 10 something we think we can go thumbs up, thumbs down 11 on it, as opposed to just pushing forward 12 continuously forever. So think about that. Next 13 item -- 14 MS. JENNINGS: Wait. 15 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens, DNR. I'm not 16 sure, Ben, if I understood something you just said 17 concerned me a little. You said that the SEG was 18 going to report back to the Secretary of the 19 Interior. Did I hear that right? 20 MR. DYSART: It is my understanding, from 21 having the mission a number of times, that this 22 body is to form a consensus as to the studies that 23 are required to identify the impacts, and potential 24 mitigation, and so forth. Is that basically it? 25 Sam says no. 53 1 2 MR. STEVENS: I'm a little concerned. I'm not 3 sure the SEG reports back to anybody other than 4 GPA. 5 MR. DYSART: The SEG develops a consensus as 6 to whether the piece of paper, where it goes, you 7 may very well be correct. The SEG develops a 8 consensus of whether something -- this set of 9 recommended studies, we believe this will do the 10 job. 11 Then they are conducted, and SEG makes a 12 second determination that Mitch was referring to 13 about the level of acceptable impacts and so forth. 14 MR. KING: I'll give a quick go at it in 15 trying to clear this up. The way I'm looking at it 16 from the Interior Department's viewpoint, the SEG 17 is a forum. 18 I don't know that there is a need to recommend 19 something. If everyone feels so comfortable they 20 could actually write something up, that would be 21 great to use in the decision-making process by the 22 Secretary of the Interior, the two states that are 23 involved, the EPA, those people identified in the 24 legislation. 25 From my standpoint, I use this as a forum. I 54 1 2 say the SEG did all this, recommended all these 3 studies. And then the Fish and Wildlife Service 4 will make our recommendation, not the Secretary 5 of the Interior. 6 I understand what you are saying, Stuart. It 7 didn't bother me the way Ben phrased it. I agree, 8 it was a little different that the way I would have 9 said it. That's okay. 10 One thing I wanted to suggest, in closing this 11 particular topic, Judy made a very good point about 12 wanting this to be a SEG summary and not GPA 13 summary. I first thought about maybe a small 14 committee of this group getting together and 15 putting this together. 16 And then Sam suggested, why not the chairs, of 17 committees that you already have, actually spending 18 some time over the next two months, and in May, 19 giving a presentation saying these are all the 20 studies. 21 This is sort of a real summary of everything 22 we talked about and recommended, not necessarily 23 just the ones GPA has said yea to, but the ones 24 that have come up and surfaced in discussions. 25 Bring it altogether. Throw out what needs to be 55 1 2 thrown out. Bring it altogether and say this is 3 final. 4 MR. DYSART: I'm going to call on David -- 5 just a moment. I think this is something that 6 could be thought about. We could revisit it next 7 month. I think, as I recall from the mission 8 statement flow diagrams, somebody was supposed to 9 -- this body was supposed to determine and report 10 somehow that it had either reached a consensus on 11 the studies that were necessary, or that it could 12 not reach a consensus. 13 I mean, this body was supposed to be making 14 some kind of determination of whether it could or 15 could not reach consensus. By what definition of 16 consensus -- 17 MR. SCHALLER: Ben has his card up. 18 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 19 MR. BREWTON: In an effort to try to leave the 20 section so we do move on with some sort action 21 plan to move forward, I'd like to suggest a couple 22 of things. One, just due to this somewhat varying 23 interpretation about we're what actually supposed 24 as a product, if there is a product of the SEG, I 25 wanted to ask Morgan, perhaps, if he thought the 56 1 2 Operating Guidelines Committee could give those 3 limited issues and interpretations a review, maybe 4 give a report at the next meeting about sort of 5 consolidating what it does look like we're supposed 6 to do, and according to what Ben Dysart mentioned, 7 you mentioned, see sort of a restatement of that 8 mission that Judy stated for the group again. 9 MR. DYSART: I would -- my comment, what I've 10 been referring to is the three page mission 11 statement. It is not something I made up. I would 12 urge the mission statement we've been passing out 13 from month to month be part of what we look at. 14 MR. BREWTON: I'm not disagreeing with that at 15 all. It sounds like we're hearing people say a 16 little bit different things. Maybe we need a 17 refresher somehow or other to understand what it is 18 we're going to do. 19 I've heard report, no report, consensus to the 20 Secretary of the Interior directly or 21 indirectly. Rather than just -- 22 MR. DYSART: I will bring a mission statement 23 and we'll hand out again next month. 24 MR. DYSART: David. 25 MR. BREWTON: I haven't finished. 57 1 2 MR. DYSART: Go ahead, sir. 3 MR. BREWTON: One other item in the effort 4 about how to bring this together, in regard to 5 report who is doing what, what studies there are, 6 trying to package those up somehow or other; 7 Mitch's suggestion is a good one. 8 The other thing, I'd like to remind us is 9 that since September we do have that verbatim 10 transcript. We do have summaries prior to that 11 time. 12 Somehow or another, if we could apportion out 13 the task of going back and reviewing each of those, 14 just making a list of the items mentioned in there, 15 that should provide a pretty good record of topics 16 mentioned. 17 There was some issues in a few of the minutes 18 prior to September, and our Communications 19 Committee has not made much progress on that. We 20 worked on it and then moved on to some other more 21 pressing issues, and have not gotten back to that. 22 We can certainly put a priority on that. 23 I would like to see us today, rather than say 24 we'll talk about next month and leave this 25 discussion -- it's been a good while -- with some 58 1 2 action planned about who is going to get together 3 when to do this. We've thrown out a lot of good 4 ideas. It's kind of hanging right now. 5 MR. DYSART: David Kyler. 6 MR. KYLER: I don't want to muddy the waters, 7 but isn't it kind of philosophical, I need to 8 remind people about this. I think there's a 9 tendency to assume research is definitive, is 10 always definitive. There will be findings that are 11 indisputable or conclusive. 12 I think some of the comments made, including 13 those of Ben Brewton and some of the GPA people, 14 the complexity of this realm of investigation is 15 extreme, and some of the findings are going to, at 16 the most, be probabilistic and leaving a degree of 17 uncertainty, in some case perhaps an unacceptable 18 degree of uncertainty. 19 We have to look at the findings with those in 20 mind. Those of us most concerned about protecting 21 these resources, especially those that are 22 irreplaceable, need to take these findings in that 23 light, and reach conclusions based upon the 24 knowledge the findings are not certain. 25 MR. DYSART: David Schaller. 59 1 2 MR. SCHALLER: I would just simply observe 3 that in this process, that we're all engaged in and 4 that all of us are devoting lots of time and energy 5 to, it's very, very comprehensive. 6 It is very dynamic, you know. I think it 7 might be fair to say that events are taking over 8 the written word, if you will, with respect to the 9 subject of six months, and this has to happen, or 10 we need a report. 11 I think we're making real progress. We're 12 identifying the issues. Many studies have begun. 13 Some studies are yet to be undertaken. Once they 14 all are undertaken and done, if you will, that too 15 doesn't close the book. 16 Then we've got well, what about, and what if, 17 and did you consider, and is this right. So this 18 is very dynamic. I think we're moving along just 19 fine. 20 MR. DYSART: Trip. 21 MR. TOLLISON: My suggested plan of action, we 22 not sit around and review the mission. Yet at the 23 next meeting or the one in May, I think it would be 24 great to have a comprehensive review for 30 minutes 25 of where we are, what studies are out there, what 60 1 2 studies have been proposed, and go from there. 3 I think it's a great idea. If you want to, at 4 the next meeting, circulate another copy of the 5 congressional language, whatever the mission 6 statement is, but I think it's a waste of time to 7 review what we're supposed to be doing. 8 We all should know that. It's also a great 9 idea to have a review of whatever was done for the 10 past year. I think that's the best way to -- I 11 think that's the best plan of action, at least 12 that's my opinion. 13 MR. DYSART: Priscilla and Judy. 14 MS. WENDT: I'd sort of like to agree with 15 that. I think we distributed the congressional 16 language that describes how this body was supposed 17 to operate. That could clarify a lot of things. 18 I think the time line's in there. Mitch made 19 reference to the six months time line that's 20 already been exceeded. I think there were reports 21 that were supposed to have been given to the 22 Secretary of the Army, I believe. 23 But I think a lot of that can be clarified by 24 looking at that original language. It's like 25 two, three pages out of the EIS. I think May would 61 1 2 be a good time to review and summarize the projects 3 that have been conducted, as well as the ones that 4 have been proposed to see where we are, and 5 identify data gaps, what haven't we addressed, what 6 framework -- the matrix that Bill Farmer came up 7 with has not addressed, do those things need to 8 be addressed through scientific study, or can they 9 be addressed some other way? 10 I'd like the opportunity to hear Morgan's 11 presentation on ballast water, before we make any 12 decision whether that issue needs to be considered 13 further or not. 14 MR. DYSART: Judy. 15 MS. JENNINGS: The mission statement is not 16 a matter of debate. It might have been two years 17 ago. It's a matter of reviewing what's on paper. 18 If we want a review of where we are, the GPA 19 has a good bit already written down, in terms of 20 an action plan. Can't we just say March, April, 21 May, schedule a meeting or two and review what GPA 22 has, put some input into it, bring it back. It's a 23 simple thing. 24 MR. DYSART: Charlie and Morgan. 25 MR. MOORE: Very quickly, I take Mitch's 62 1 2 suggestion and ask the committee chairs to 3 summarize where we are at at the next meeting. 4 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 5 MR. REES: I just want to make an offer on 6 what it is we're supposed to do here. There are 7 just a few very discrete documents that address 8 what we're supposed to do here. 9 I just keep them. There's only about five or 10 six pages, a couple of pages out of the tier one 11 EIS, the congressional language, the language 12 in the report of chief of engineers. I'd be glad 13 -- I keep the same little folder -- to make 14 that available for everybody to look at. 15 I would offer my interpretation of any reports 16 that are due. Reports are not due unless we find 17 we can't reach consensus. I think that's when 18 reports are due. 19 If we do reach a consensus, if this group is 20 getting along, I don't think anybody is looking for 21 a report, but that's my recollection of what's in 22 there. I'll distribute it to anybody that wants 23 it. Let me know 24 MR. KEEGAN: I can post it. 25 MR. REES: Larry can post it. 63 1 2 MR. DYSART: Is the mission posted along with 3 everything else that's posted? I mean, if it 4 isn't, seems like that would almost be a legitimate 5 thing to post. 6 MR. SCHALLER: Ben, to my knowledge, no one 7 is calling in question the mission issue. Let's 8 move on. 9 MR. REES: We'll post the relevant documents. 10 People can look at it. If you have any questions, 11 we can talk about them some other time. 12 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 13 MR. BREWTON: I don't think there's a lot of 14 debate or any debate about the mission. It's 15 just simply a question of what product we are or 16 aren't supposed to deliver. I thought we needed 17 some review on that. 18 I would concur we don't need to try to rehash 19 something that's already done, but I would like to 20 second or third Mitch's and Charlie's suggestion, 21 that somehow or other, we make an assignment to 22 somebody here, leave this with an action plan about 23 how and when something is going to come back to 24 have this discussion report to enumerate the issues 25 out there, or studies 64 1 2 MR. DYSART: Dodi. 3 MS. GAY: Dodi Gay, Chamber of Commerce. When 4 you refer to the word posting, are you referring to 5 the website? 6 MR. KYLER: Yes. 7 MS. GAY: Referring to posting, we can put the 8 summaries of findings and our progress on that as 9 well. 10 MR. DYSART: I see no more cards up. Would 11 you like a five minute break now? Let's take a 12 five minute break. 13 (Short Break) 14 MR. DYSART: It's 10:41. The SEG meeting is 15 now reconvened. I'd like to finalize the matter of 16 the action plan. There have been a half dozen 17 people who have proposed action plans for 18 proceeding with reporting back on the scientific 19 studies that have been specified and are being 20 conducted. 21 I would like to now to ask is there consensus 22 within the body of what kind of action plan you 23 would like to have, so that we may wind up this 24 portion of the agenda and move forward? Question 25 mark. 65 1 2 We have had a number of people, repeating 3 for those not in the room, we have had lots of 4 people suggesting different action plans. We've 5 had a number of people concurring with Mitch's 6 proposed action plan. We've had Charlie's action 7 plan. Charlie may have been concurring with Mitch. 8 We have had people saying, let's have GPA do 9 it. Let's come back in two months. Let's have a 10 big report, no report. Let's move on. Charlie 11 properly commented that we have not closed this. 12 I would like to ask, what is the will of this 13 body; what would you like in the way of an action 14 plan? Somebody requested that there had to be 15 an action plan, so let's have an action plan. Sam. 16 MR. DRAKE: Okay. I did kind of mention to 17 Mitch it would be a good opportunity to get the 18 committee chairpersons to identify the studies that 19 are underway, as well as any that may have fallen 20 through the gap. 21 If I understand the procedure correctly, the 22 only scope of work identified right now on the 23 website are the ones that have been funded. 24 The unfunded ones are not there yet, for 25 people to have access to yet. If the committee 66 1 2 chairpersons could come back, and it doesn't have 3 to be a long presentation, but just refer to the 4 ones that are already on the website and the ones 5 that may not have been funded. 6 Then, I think, for the March vegetation -- the 7 refuge studies, I think we'll probably have John 8 Robinette do that, since there's not an actual 9 committee that one falls under. Maybe that would 10 cover it enough to get the discussion rolling at 11 the April or May meeting. 12 I think everybody probably said it would be 13 best to have that two months out, probably the May 14 meeting. I kind of recommend we defer it to the 15 committee chairpersons. 16 MR. DYSART: Bill Bailey. 17 MR. BAILEY: The Corps is willing to host a 18 meeting, call a meeting of the committee 19 chairpersons to move this along. 20 MR. DYSART: Is there anybody -- Charlie. 21 MR. MOORE: I would like to maybe make a 22 suggestion. Instead of having every committee 23 chairman make a presentation back to this 24 committee, for the sake of time, they could boil it 25 down to when they meet with GPA, Morgan, whatever, 67 1 2 they would sort of volunteer to make a 3 presentation, but in conjunction with the committee 4 chairman -- one person make the presentation and do 5 it very quickly. 6 MR. DYSART: Is there anybody who can't live 7 with that. Ben Brewton. 8 MR. BREWTON: No. I can live with that. I 9 would just like to add to it a little bit. I think 10 Bill Bailey, that's a great suggestion. If the 11 Corps would coordinate that, I think, in addition 12 to the committee chairman, the GPA should be 13 included there, because they are doing some studies 14 that may have come from places other than a single 15 committee. 16 And if we could meet and then consolidate all 17 that information, it could be presented back here. 18 I think that would be an excellent plan. I would 19 like to add that we include GPA, specifically, in 20 that meeting of committee chairmen and the Corps as 21 well, because of the studies they're doing. 22 MR. STEVENS: Just -- I agree. I think it's a 23 great idea. Would you let us know when the meeting 24 is convening in case others want to go. I'd kind 25 of like to attend that, if the Corps organizes 68 1 2 that. 3 MR. DYSART: Okay. Seeing no more cards up, 4 is there anybody who can't live what has now been 5 put on the table, including modification of all -- 6 notification of all SEG members as to when this 7 group would be meeting to prepare the summary? 8 Seeing no one who can't live with it, we'll 9 declare we'll make an affirmative statement 10 consensus has been reached and move on. 11 MR. TOLLISON: The May meeting is when they'll 12 present? 13 MR. DYSART: That is what Sam was saying, that 14 was in the wording of Sam's suggestion. 15 MR. TOLLISON: Which month? 16 MR. DYSART: He was saying in May. 17 MR. TOLLISON: May, okay. 18 MR. DRAKE: Depends on how much time we'll 19 need. 20 MR. DYSART: Bill Bailey did say, on the 21 record, he would host and coordinate the meeting. 22 He would host the meeting he said. Are there 23 further -- Dan Parrott. 24 MR. PARROTT: I need to get a hold of 25 Mr. Card Smith. He is out of town. If during the 69 1 2 next SEG meeting he's willing to do a presentation 3 on the aquifer studies performed -- May 2nd SEG 4 meeting it can be added to the agenda, or request 5 it be added to the agenda. 6 MR. DYSART: Thank you very much. Okay. 7 We'll proceed now with item 5-4, reporting of how 8 you're going to handle your records, and keeping up 9 with everything that you want to keep up with. 10 That was directed that the committee chairs 11 report back plans for record keeping. So I would 12 call on you in the usual alphabetical order. Beach 13 Erosion. 14 MR. FARMER: Beach Erosion has so far and will 15 continue putting out minutes of all its meetings. 16 These minutes are given to Larry, who does post 17 them on the website. So that basically is our 18 record keeping process. 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. Communications Committee. 20 MR. BREWTON: We are -- we have posted all of 21 our reports and minutes, so forth, on the website, 22 and distributed to whoever has asked. 23 I think there is one question that probably 24 needs to be answered beyond just committee member 25 minutes, as we go around. If some of the 70 1 2 committees such as Beach Erosion Committee and 3 others, who have received communications, or 4 reports, or documentation for consultants, or 5 scientists, and other data and so forth; how would 6 records be kept of that sort of data, and those 7 sort of reports, in addition to just the minutes of 8 the meetings? 9 MR. FARMER: Those reports -- 10 MR. DYSART: Would this be a general, a 11 general question you're raising, or do you want to 12 direct that specifically to Bill? 13 MR. BREWTON: That is a general question, but 14 I guess since I posed it after Bill spoke, he 15 should have an opportunity to address it. 16 MR. FARMER: All right. Well, the minutes and 17 what comes to the SEG is supposed to be the 18 synthesis of whatever activity the committees do. 19 Some of the things the committees do is 20 gathered in reports, learn things, study things; it 21 all should come back in a synthesized report and 22 recommendation. 23 Those supporting documents are basically kept. 24 If someone suggests that we bring them forward and 25 give them to GPA, they keep them, that's fine, but 71 1 2 again, they aren't destroyed. The meeting minutes 3 and recommendations are the net result of all 4 research study and discussions. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. What about the proposal 6 for the Communications Committee? 7 MR. BREWTON: Okay. Communication Committee, 8 as I said, our reports, and minutes, and so forth, 9 have all been made available, and will continue to 10 be. 11 Because of the nature of our committee, we are 12 now really receiving reports or submittals from 13 outside consultants or scientists, whatever. I 14 don't guess we would have anything of that nature. 15 MR. DYSART: How about Dredging and Disposal? 16 MR. BEASON: We're going to follow the same 17 basic format Bill's put together there. We will 18 keep and maintain a record book of all the topics 19 and discussions, but we'll deliver a bulleted form 20 highlighting what we recommend. 21 MR. DYSART: Are there questions about the 22 Dredging Committee? 23 MR. SCHUBERTH: Not specifically -- 24 specifically of the Dredging Committee. I realize 25 y'all take for granted the alphabets, and I know 72 1 2 many of the, but I don't know all of them. When 3 these minutes are put together, if initially the 4 entire language could be stated, and then in 5 parentheses the alphabets then therefore follow it. 6 I plead ignorance, not knowing all the 7 alphabet combinations that come up on the minutes. 8 That would be a big help. 9 MR. DYSART: Judy, Economics Working Group. 10 MR. TOLLISON: She's not here. 11 MR. DYSART: We'll come back to her. How 12 about the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 13 Committee? 14 MR. BAILEY: We also agreed to continue our 15 -- what we've been doing, producing minutes 16 which is a summary of our discussions. Studies 17 that are submitted to the committee for 18 consideration are distributed to the committee 19 members. I keep a file copy. 20 MR. DYSART: Bo, how about the MTRG? 21 MR. ELLIS: MTRG really settled on very early 22 on, and we discussed, I think, a meeting back on 23 whether we should continue to do this, but we have 24 been putting out status reports of our 25 deliberations. 73 1 2 And you typically get a status report at the 3 SEG meeting. We also have established an MTRG web 4 page, where we post our status reports, and 5 products that are being reviewed. 6 In the early stages of the MTRG, it was task 7 statements, and now in a document that is put out 8 for review for the MTRG, that document will be 9 posted on the web page for those reviewers to 10 download. 11 All of our reporting is synthesized, 12 though, like most of the other committees, in our 13 status reports back to the SEG. 14 MR. DYSART: Operating Guidelines, Morgan. 15 MR. WENDT: Can I ask question, the MTRG's web 16 page, can you access that through the SEG web page. 17 MR. ELLIS: No, I don't think so, Priscilla. 18 MS. WENDT: Can you give me the website? 19 MR. ELLIS: I've given it out a couple of 20 times. I don't have it with me. 21 MS. WENDT: Could you e-mail it to me? 22 MR. BREWTON: Could we put a link on the SEG 23 web page? 24 MR. SCHALLER: No. We can get it e-mailed or 25 even posted in one of your reports. 74 1 2 MR. ELLIS: We can post a status report. 3 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 4 MR. REES: Operating Guidelines Committee has 5 no explicit decision about how to keep records. By 6 practice, we have provided essentially the same 7 thing as other committees, reports coordinated with 8 everybody, and it shows the conclusion of the 9 meeting. 10 MR. DYSART: Striped Bass Committee, Tom. 11 MR. MERONEK: We keep minutes, and they're 12 posted, usually posted on the website after they're 13 finalized by the committee. And we highlight -- we 14 decided we will highlight critical items, and any 15 copies of proposals could be obtained from myself, 16 and probably any other documentation anyone would 17 like, including reports from the back river 18 restoration project, if anyone was interested in 19 those reports. 20 MR. DYSART: Judy. 21 MS. JENNINGS: Yes. 22 MR. DYSART: You have a little report on the 23 procedure that you have used to keep records on the 24 Economics Working Group. 25 MS. JENNINGS: That's a real simple system. I 75 1 2 post a summary of our meeting after every meeting. 3 Is that what we're after here? 4 MR. DYSART: Are there questions about the 5 committee chair's procedures for record keeping? 6 Ben Brewton. 7 MR. BREWTON: Yeah. Since these reports came 8 about, somewhat because of much recommendation in 9 the Communications Committee several meetings ago, 10 the group approved, I appreciate everybody bringing 11 that information in. I'd like to sort of 12 rearticulate probably what the real question is. 13 We each developed some systems, and we have 14 the website now, and these reports are being posted 15 and distributed here. 16 But the real question, I suppose now that 17 that's being done regularly, is the component 18 materials that go into making up recommendations or 19 synthesizing decisions from the committees; that 20 is, the raw data, the reports from consultants or 21 proposals, or other things that are submitted. 22 That's just about what everyone has said, we 23 keep this in the file. I'm just articulating the 24 question, not making a judgment, that's for the 25 group to make; is that adequate, or would you like 76 1 2 some permanent home for those things, at some 3 point, to be transferred to GPA for including with 4 the project file; that is, does the SEG feel like 5 we need to maintain the records and materials that 6 go into those decisions? 7 Are you content just with the report, and the 8 decision itself in summary form. And that's 9 really, I think, probably the real question that 10 needs to be answered by the SEG, to state their 11 desires or give their blessing one way or the 12 other. 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. Is there a view around the 14 table whether you want, as a body, to retain the 15 synthesized reports as contained in the 16 recommendation of committees, or whether you want 17 all the details carried forward? What is the will 18 and preference around the table? Trip. 19 MR. TOLLISON: I think reports are just fine. 20 I don't think a central clearinghouse of all the 21 notes -- I think each committee chairman should be 22 held responsible. 23 MR. DYSART: Are there any other views? 24 MR. BREWTON: Let me clarify. I wasn't 25 suggesting a central clearinghouse. The question 77 1 2 is whether the documents should be maintained by 3 GPA, as far as a permanent project record? 4 MR. DYSART: I'll ask again, what is the view 5 of this body? 6 MS. JENNINGS: If posted to the website, does 7 that effectively make it a part of the record? 8 MR. SCHALLER: I didn't hear what Judy said. 9 MS. JENNINGS: If it is posted to the website, 10 isn't it officially part of the record? 11 MR. BREWTON: I think what we're talking about 12 are documents that are not posted -- 13 MR. TOLLISON: Documents that are not included 14 in the minutes. 15 MR. BREWTON: In other words, if a committee 16 receives two, three reports, and a variety of data, 17 and then makes a decision, and posts it to the 18 website in their meeting summary what that 19 decision was; the question is whether we want those 20 supporting materials, or materials considered 21 retained somewhere in a file? 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. I think the question has 23 been put before the body. Do you, as a body here, 24 want all the supporting documentation permanently 25 retained in a central file? Is there interest in 78 1 2 that? Patty. 3 MS. McINTOSH: I would ask, because there are 4 state and federal funds involved, is there not 5 a responsibility to the public to have documents 6 centralized somewhere, a library somewhere, where 7 the public can access them, or at the very least, a 8 listing of them at a site where they can find them? 9 I guess I'm asking that question, is there a 10 responsibility by GPA to need to do that for public 11 records? 12 MR. DYSART: That's one question. I think 13 another question is, is there interest in it on the 14 part of this body? 15 MS. McINTOSH: I mean, that would -- the 16 interest, I think, would in part be based on the 17 answer to that question. 18 MR. KING: Is there any reason not to make 19 sure that information some way or another gets 20 transported to GPA, to be held in a major vault 21 downstairs? 22 MR. BREWTON: It already exists. It wouldn't 23 have to create anything, just send copies. 24 MR. DYSART: David. 25 MR. SCHALLER: Speaking on behalf of the port, 79 1 2 we would be happy to make a file cabinet available 3 to put materials that are sent to us, but we can't 4 be held accountable for things that don't get 5 there. 6 I mean, we'd be a repository, make it 7 available to the public. But the way I see it, 8 these are by and large, I think without exception 9 maybe one in terms of committee chairmanship, 10 citizen volunteers, who may not accept the burden 11 of collecting every document and transmitting it to 12 GPA. 13 I don't know. I can tell what we'd be happy 14 to do, and that is make a file cabinet available, 15 without being accountable for what's in it. We 16 don't know if we get it or don't get it. 17 MR. DYSART: Dodi. 18 MS. GAY: By most of the notes being from 19 committees, being voluntarily submitted to GPA 20 for their minutes and offering to the website, any 21 public library, anyone can access the website and 22 solve the problem. 23 MS. McINTOSH: Not all websites. 24 MS. GAY: The committee notes, unless it comes 25 up with a specific finding, or recommendation, or 80 1 2 worthwhile need to submit them as part of the 3 record, it's accomplished. 4 MR. DYSART: Tom. 5 MR. MERONEK: I'm getting confused on what 6 we're talking about. If it's an official proposal 7 to a committee, and it's a committee recommending 8 an official proposal, receiving an official report, 9 then it will be posted on the website. 10 If you're just talking about documentation the 11 committee is looking at, and then decides not to 12 use for anything; what's the purpose of keeping 13 that on file? 14 If it is decided by the committee that this is 15 not beneficial, I'm having a hard time 16 understanding why that should be filed and 17 documented. 18 MR. DYSART: As I recall, the question that 19 was put on the floor was is this body interested in 20 all of the materials that the committees look at, 21 retain all paper, all records? Ben Brewton. 22 MR. BREWTON: I have a suggestion. I think 23 Dave's made a generous offer with reasonable 24 caveats on it. Since we're talking about the 25 information that already exists, and what is 81 1 2 submitted to committee members; if GPA makes that 3 available, could simply notify the committee 4 chairman who to send that to, or who to copy on 5 that material at GPA that would be the receiver of 6 that information, could we ask all committee chairs 7 to include that person on whatever they circulate 8 to committee members? 9 Seems like that would be adding one more name 10 to list that would copied on the e-mails, attached 11 files, whatever. Send it to GPA, and it's not 12 asking for anybody to create any new information or 13 any reports. 14 That would be just my suggestion. Dave made 15 that generous offer. If we could ask the committee 16 chairman to include whatever they circulate to 17 committee members, include the GPA receiver of 18 information. 19 They will throw it in the file cabinet. Then 20 we'll have a permanent record. There won't be any 21 question about it. 22 MR. DYSART: Sounds like action plan. 23 MR. BURSON: Excuse me, Will Burson. I don't 24 want to derail the action plan. I did want to make 25 one suggestion. It seems to me, this is my first 82 1 2 meeting, so I'm reluctant to speak. 3 You are in the process of discussing several 4 research initiatives. They speak not only to this 5 action, the deepening action, but to the future 6 health of estuary. 7 It seems to me you might want to consider a 8 policy where you put all of the results of various 9 studies, either done for the deepening project or 10 that are accumulated pursuant to, into a file in 11 the Savannah Public Library, for example, where it 12 would be available to anybody as a periodical would 13 be. 14 They can actually, not only be available to 15 the public without burdening GPA, but also be, at 16 least, available for the next round of decision 17 making or other concerns affecting the port or 18 estuary. 19 MR. DYSART: I think we've sort of eased into 20 an action plan. Is there anybody who can't live 21 with the action plan that is now on the floor, 22 which is, as I recall, all the committee chairs 23 will copy GPA on everything they send out to 24 members, and that David, GPA, will have a file 25 cabinet to put things in? David. 83 1 2 MR. SCHALLER: That's sounding to me like a 3 redundancy. Everything that the committee chairs 4 do with respect to action in the body comes to the 5 bottom. So it's already going to get in the 6 record, our friendly court reporter, and people are 7 going to see it. 8 It's going to be posted on the website, I 9 believe, and Ben, you'll straighten me out I'm sure 10 if I'm wrong, Ben is talking about items that don't 11 make it to the SEG floor, that somebody sends a 12 communication to Bill Farmer and says yackety yack. 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. 14 MR. SCHALLER: Bill raises that with his 15 committee, or doesn't raise that with his 16 committee, I don't know what he does, but he's 17 making a judgment or the committee is. They may 18 choose to put it in the trash. 19 Those are items, I think, Ben Brewton is 20 talking about. If you do what Ben is asking us to 21 do, Bill would no longer be favored with 22 independent judgment about that piece of paper he 23 got. He'd have to send it to GPA, and it would go 24 in this file, is that correct? 25 MR. BREWTON: When you speak about that piece 84 1 2 of paper, what I was referring to are any reports, 3 data, materials received that go into the 4 deliberations and decisions by the committee; in 5 other words, the type of materials that we all 6 circulate among the committee members for 7 consideration, before the committee makes a 8 decision on something. 9 If we solicit three people to provide scopes 10 of work for a particular study, and then the 11 committee decides on one of those synthesis, that 12 obviously is reported to SEG. 13 The raw data, or the multiple originals 14 submissions right now, we have no policy or 15 procedure about where that goes. If that's what 16 you are talking, yes. You're right. That would 17 right now go in the trash perhaps, or somebody 18 would retain it in their file. 19 One committee chairman might retain it for a 20 month. One might retain it three years. At some 21 point in the future, nobody will know where any of 22 that is. 23 It just seems to me, the information exists. 24 It is being distributed among the committee 25 members. I guess I'm not talking about every note 85 1 2 they get that says what time they're going to meet 3 on Thursday, but the information and materials that 4 come in as part of deliberations and decision 5 making. 6 If those are things that are being distributed 7 to other committee members, reviewed and so forth, 8 include GPA. You put it in the file cabinet. It's 9 there. You've got a permanent record of all 10 things, items, data that were submitted. 11 MR. DYSART: David. 12 MR. SCHALLER: I am not a committee chair. I 13 would defer to those who are committee chairs about 14 that burden, to keep track of those documents and 15 send them GPA. 16 MR. DYSART: What are the thoughts of the 17 committee chairs who would be affected? Tom. 18 MR. MERONEK: I don't think it's a burden. I 19 think if we are going to go that extreme, why do we 20 have committees? If we have to look at everything, 21 everybody wants to see everything, why do we want 22 to trust our committee to look at a proposal, and 23 judge whether or not it is applicable? It's just a 24 question. 25 MS. JENNINGS: I think we have to trust the 86 1 2 work of the committee to realize what's relevant 3 and what a less involved person might want to see. 4 So far, with the Economics Group, fairly 5 short summaries have been adequate to reflect what 6 we've done. I can see a point in time when the 7 economic analysis has been updated, where there 8 might be more to record, but still, I think it 9 should be the consensus of the people at the 10 economic table, because that's all I can speak to 11 as to what should be maintained as records. It's 12 true, some stuff is going to hit my trash pile. 13 MR. DYSART: What about Beach Erosion? Bill, 14 what's your view? 15 MR. FARMER: I made the observation by looking 16 at the matrix that the Georgia Ports Authority is 17 on every committee. 18 So therefore, they automatically already have 19 copies of things that are discussed in every 20 committee. So perhaps that would be satisfactory, 21 as far as record keeping. 22 MR. DYSART: What is the preference of the 23 Communications Committee chair? How comprehensive 24 should this be? 25 MR. BREWTON: Well, I think, somebody said 87 1 2 earlier about a public project, public interest on 3 all sides, if it doesn't create a burden on anyone 4 and the information is there, I guess my philosophy 5 is why not make it available, or why not have it 6 available? 7 Maybe no one will ever look at it. Maybe 8 someone will at some point in time. In order to 9 document that we have been careful, we have been 10 careful, and fair, and honest, and as thorough 11 as possible in our deliberations; the point is 12 simply not to create additional work, but just to 13 include GPA or this GPA receiver as one more person 14 on the lists being copied anyway. I guess I would 15 say why not. I don't see anything that creates 16 any more trouble. 17 MR. DYSART: What is the view of the Dredging 18 and Disposal Committee chair? 19 MR. BEASON: We'll maintain records and 20 post them. As we identify, we'll make whatever 21 notes are available -- available to the Georgia 22 Port Authority. 23 If they want to keep it, that's fine. Under 24 the reduction of paperwork act, you can take 25 that as bullish, but if you want it, you can have 88 1 2 it. 3 MR. DYSART: We've heard from economics. What 4 about Fisheries and Aquatic Resources? What is the 5 chair's preference? How comprehensive do you want 6 to be; put it in a repository and keep it, GPA be 7 responsible for -- 8 MR. BAILEY: I guess this system that Ben had 9 proposed wouldn't be the easiest one for me, but 10 I'd rather just make a copy of all the files, at 11 some point in time, and give it to you to stick in 12 your file. 13 MR. DYSART: What about MTRG? 14 MR. ELLIS: Like I said earlier, most of our 15 working products are posted on the MTRG website, 16 and are downloaded electronically. Most of the 17 comments are sent to each other electronically. 18 It's not necessarily one keeper of that. 19 Our plan is to have our deliberations, you 20 know, post whatever we need to do, the working 21 products on that website, get comments, and then 22 finalize them in a report back to SEG. 23 Some of the those data reports are going to 24 be huge. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't recommend making 25 copies of every -- every draft submittal we put on 89 1 2 there. At some point, we will have a final data 3 report that will be sent to everybody or posted 4 -- certainly sent to GPA. 5 MR. DYSART: What about Operating Guidelines? 6 Morgan. 7 MR. REES: We have not addressed this issue in 8 the committee. Seems to me I'm sympathetic as to 9 what Tom said. 10 We've established committees to meet, 11 function, advise the SEG. And to the extent that 12 any of our committee's deliberations -- the extent 13 to which the committee wants to make certain 14 information available -- the committees can decide 15 to do that. 16 If there are others who have information that 17 the committee does not include, then they're 18 perfectly allowable within the existing process we 19 have to bring that to the SEG. If there are -- I 20 can't imagine this happening. 21 Say somebody submits a report and says, I'd 22 like this to be attached to the committee report. 23 I can't imagine the committee saying no. I just 24 can't imagine it. If for weird reason the 25 committee says no, that individual can, under our 90 1 2 current procedures, get that included in the -- I 3 think you can post it. 4 MR. KEEGAN: Sure. 5 MR. REES: There's a process to have that 6 posted. I don't know there's a way for relevant 7 information to be left out. 8 MR. DYSART: We've heard from all the 9 committee chairs. Mitch, you and Trip have 10 anything to add? 11 MR. KING: Yeah. I feel like we're in sort of 12 a rut here. We need to get out of it. I'd like to 13 make two recommendations. One, I heard the 14 committee chairs trust the committees to do their 15 work. 16 I'd like to say let's do that. Let's not ask 17 them to do more, other than urge them to make sure 18 in their summary reports, if there is something 19 brought up that's disregarded by the committee, it 20 is at least noted it was brought up. 21 If someone wants to send what was brought up, 22 fine. If they want to send it to this repository 23 of GPA, that's fine too. 24 Second point, if you don't go with that, we've 25 spent enough time on this this month. Let's 91 1 2 consider setting this aside, chewing on it for a 3 month, putting 20 minutes on it next month to bring 4 it to a conclusion. 5 MR. TOLLISON: Well said by Mr. King. 6 MR. DYSART: I think what I hear is trust the 7 committees, trust the chairs. Anybody around the 8 table that can't live with that? Ben Brewton is 9 recognized. 10 MR. BREWTON: It's not that I can't live with 11 that at all. I'd like the opportunity to comment 12 on what Mitch said. 13 I agree pretty much with what Mitch said. If 14 the group is happy with that, I certainly don't 15 have any problems with it. I think we should 16 consider that we have a widely varying degree of 17 detail in the committee reports. 18 Some of them are just four or five lines, each 19 of the bulleted things. Other people are bringing 20 in very complete reports with copies, various 21 attachments, and reports, and data. 22 I would just suggest maybe we work -- work 23 toward having fairly complete reports, maybe a 24 bulleted summary. 25 If there are relevant items, maybe include 92 1 2 them here, or give them to Larry to put them on the 3 website, and that would probably handle that, 4 within the judgment of the committees and chairs, 5 if they made an effort to consider providing that 6 data and material. 7 MR. DYSART: I hear a virtual consensus to 8 trust the judgment of the committees and chairs. 9 Is there any further discussion, any objection to 10 that? 11 If not, I make an affirmative statement that 12 a consensus has been reached for the record. Okay. 13 Item 5-5. Morgan Rees, update activities taking 14 place outside the SEG. 15 MR. REES: There is a lot going on in the 16 project, and we've been working very hard, spent a 17 lot of time since the last SEG trying to sort 18 through what the schedule is, when certain things 19 are going to be done, what specifically is going 20 on. 21 We're not ready to make a presentation. We're 22 working towards that. I think David said earlier, 23 when the question came up on the framework on SEG 24 studies, so forth, we were looking to, perhaps, a 25 couple of months from now making pretty 93 1 2 comprehensive presentation of where we are in the 3 project, what other things are going on, what 4 things are relevant to the SEG, and maybe things 5 that aren't relevant to the SEG. 6 We would plan to do that, essentially, an 7 update of a presentation, but in a different way 8 from what we did last April, maybe was it -- 9 anyway, you may recall that we made -- we had a 10 slide show. 11 It was a fairly comprehensive presentation of 12 the schedule, all that sort of thing, all the 13 different tasks that have been assigned. It was 14 maybe more technical at that time than it should 15 have been. 16 We would plan to make a presentation perhaps 17 within two months is our target on where we are in 18 the whole process, not just with the SEG. 19 MR. DYSART: Seeing no cards up, Patricia 20 Reese asked can she do the next item in probably 30 21 seconds instead of three minutes. Pat 22 MS. REESE: I had briefly mentioned this at 23 the last meeting. We would like to offer tours of 24 the GPA Savannah facility for the SEG membership, 25 and I'd like to give you the dates, two dates I've 94 1 2 selected. Both of them would be half day tours. 3 One will be Thursday, April 20th from 12:30 to 4 4:30. The second one will take place on Monday, 5 April 24th from 8:30 to 12:30. 6 A light lunch will be provided on both of 7 those days. I want to stress the dress should be 8 very casual. 9 If you would like to attend one of those 10 tours, please let me know. I will follow-up with 11 note to all of you giving you my telephone number, 12 e-mail address, and fax number. In order to 13 reserve the necessary transportation and sufficient 14 lunches for everybody, please contact me of your 15 interest no later than Wednesday, April 12th. All 16 of this will be in the note I send to you this 17 week. Thank you. 18 MR. DYSART: It's now 11:21 and we're going to 19 start the committee reports. Without objection, 20 I'd like to call on Bill Farmer, Beach Erosion 21 Committee report. 22 MR. FARMER: A written report has been 23 distributed. If anyone has not gotten one, there's 24 a few extra ones here. Let me briefly give an 25 overview of it. 95 1 2 The committee wants to recommend to the GPA 3 that two comprehensive benefit cost studies be 4 accomplished. One having to do with expansion 5 project for the beneficial use of dredge materials, 6 and the second having to do with the beneficial use 7 of maintenance dredging throughout the project 8 life. 9 After the committee reviewed the drafts of 10 these proposals, we decided we would submit those 11 drafts to the SEG. And then in paragraph three of 12 the committee report is the substance of what I 13 would like to report to you. 14 Both studies are going to look at all the 15 benefits and all the costs, associated with reusing 16 the dredge materials. And the thought was that 17 perhaps some of the agencies, or people represented 18 here, would like to have some of their particular 19 benefits and some of their particular costs also 20 included in the study. 21 We're asking each person here to read the 22 proposed studies that are attached to the minutes, 23 and to determine if they would like to make any 24 changes to those study drafts, and also to request 25 specific benefits, and specific costs they are 96 1 2 interested in having included and reviewed. 3 Now, the final output of these studies would 4 be sort of a cafeteria style listing of benefits 5 and a cafeteria sort of listing of costs. So those 6 who have specific restrictions would be able to 7 pick out the benefits they're interested in, and 8 pick out the cost they're interested in, and go to 9 their agency heads and do whatever action is 10 decided by them. 11 For instance, Congressman Kingston might want 12 to include all the benefits and all the costs 13 before he might go to congress to ask for funding 14 to do something. 15 It will be formatted in such a way that all 16 the data will be usable, by whoever needs to 17 use it. In the summary, again, what we're asking 18 is to have each entity represented here to read the 19 proposed study outline, the draft, and then to 20 inform me what other materials, or what other 21 considerations, or what other concerns they might 22 like to have included, or reviewed, or considered, 23 in the benefit cost study. 24 There's two of them. The objective would be 25 at the next meeting in April, that you would be 97 1 2 presented the recommendation for these two studies 3 to be accomplished, and they would be more 4 refined, and more polished than at the current 5 status. 6 Then you would consider such studies and 7 forward them to the GPA, if you so desire. End of 8 report. 9 MR. DYSART: Any comments, discussion? Trip. 10 MR. TOLLISON: Bill, I got your letter. Did 11 you get my response? 12 MR. FARMER: Yes. 13 MR. TOLLISON: We start energy and water 14 hearings in April. We will be looking into the 15 letter you sent, attached with the language y'all 16 created. 17 Secondly, have your people -- I can't remember 18 if the letter stated how much this plan would cost 19 or how much you're asking for. 20 MR. FARMER: Yes, it does. 21 MR. TOLLISON: 100,000. 22 MR. FARMER: 500,000. The letter he's 23 referring to is from the City specifically, not 24 the Beach Erosion Committee. 25 MR. TOLLISON: Right. 98 1 2 MR. FARMER: It relates to these things. 3 MR. TOLLISON: The Corps, I know, is dealing 4 with another issue similar on St. Simons, but I 5 know that you do a preliminary study, and I think 6 that the Corps can do that out of their own budget 7 and decide whether or not the sand can be used, you 8 know, there's a certain criteria, 75% of such and 9 such, 25% fine. Is that -- 10 MR. PARROTT: For operation maintenance 11 materials? 12 MR. TOLLISON: Right. Can the sand be used 13 on the beach on Tybee Island? 14 MR. PARROTT: We will do an assessment of our 15 dredging to see if it can be suitable for use for 16 on shore, near shore, or offshore placement, yes. 17 MR. TOLLISON: So the quality of the sand has 18 already been determined, it can meet quality 19 requirements? 20 MR. PARROTT: No. I think the opposite. I 21 think right now is -- the criteria is it's too 22 silty for on beach placement. That's where it 23 stood with the expansion. Is that right, Bill, 24 overall? 25 MR. BAILEY: With the '93 project? 99 1 2 MR. PARROTT: Yes. The expansion project we 3 did looked at near shore placement on Tybee of 4 material and found it to be too silty. 5 MR. TOLLISON: So this study will further 6 provide more knowledge whether or not the sand can 7 be used. 8 The question is, can the sand be used on the 9 beach; is that the first thing that needs to be 10 addressed? 11 MR. PARROTT: You're talking about operational 12 maintenance sand or expansion sand? 13 MR. TOLLISON: Expansion sand. I know it's 14 two completely different things. 15 MR. PARROTT: We're looking into operation 16 maintenance material, what's the best placement 17 environmentally. Placement right now, it's shipped 18 offshore. We're looking at near shore or even side 19 cast placement, doing an environmental clearance 20 for that. 21 We're looking at that. My experience is the 22 materials are very silty and would not be a good 23 candidate for on top of beach sand, based on the 24 '93/'94 experience. There we tried to put the 25 sand, the deepening material on the beach, and it 100 1 2 ended up being very silty. 3 MR. TOLLISON: Bill, we can talk about this a 4 little bit instead taking up time. 5 MR. FARMER: To elaborate a little further, 6 during the tier one EIS, there was a few samples 7 taken out of the channel. Those samples indicated 8 there was a good amount of beach compatible 9 material in the channel, but the plan, during the 10 engineering phase, is to do an extensive mapping 11 channel, and find out where it is, what it is, what 12 part could be used, what could not be used. 13 MR. PARROTT: If it is a lot of sand in one 14 area, it maybe would make sense to put it on the 15 beach. But if it's thin layers of silt that's 16 embedded, that means you add the silt quality to 17 the top. 18 Our experience last time, '94, was putting it 19 in the near shore area, sort of mix it out and 20 separate it. So it may be a different type of 21 placement would be the best way to do it, get 22 the material back in the system. 23 MR. FARMER: So regardless, just to summarize, 24 the benefit cost study that is being proposed next 25 time would analyze all that, and try to figure out 101 1 2 the benefits, and costs of doing it one way or the 3 other. 4 MR. PARROTT: Larry, we talked about 5 commitments and feasibility. Let Larry talk about 6 that. 7 MR. DYSART: Larry. 8 MR. KEEGAN: We committed in our phase one 9 work that we would evaluate the beneficial usage of 10 dredge material, during the engineering work in 11 tier two. We're required to do that by the Corps. 12 That is not a cross benefit study, per se. 13 It is an evaluation of can we -- is the material 14 quality adequate, and there's some decision making 15 that has to go on by environmental agencies. 16 Then can we do that, and do it without adding 17 cost to the project. That's the obligation we have 18 to do and we're committed to do it. 19 MR. PARROTT: We went through the same process 20 in the 1994 deepening, because of the time 21 constraints, we needed a pipeline dredge out there. 22 We used a pipeline dredge to put the material near 23 shore. A similar analysis will be done. 24 MR. FARMER: So what these benefit cost 25 studies would do out there would be to expand 102 1 2 slightly the planned scope -- 3 MR. KEEGAN: Absolutely. 4 MR. FARMER: -- Larry indicated would be done 5 anyway, to look at all the possible benefits and 6 all the possible costs, and have it, again, in a 7 cafeteria format. So anyone could pick out the 8 benefits and costs they're particularly interested 9 in. 10 MR. PARROTT: Talking about recreation 11 benefits? 12 MR. FARMER: Yes. Just as an overview, the 13 harbor deepening project has benefit cost ratio of 14 roughly 3 to 1. 15 The beach nourishment project, digging its own 16 hole, throws the sand up on the beach has a cost 17 benefit ratio of 10 to 1. 18 The thought was on how to combine these 19 things, and perhaps the overall cost benefit ratio 20 might be 3.5 to 1, something like that. 21 That might solicit enough interest in congress 22 to make it happen, and make the Corps do things, 23 and GPA do things so society would be better off, 24 you know. 25 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 103 1 2 MR. TOLLISON: I'm done. 3 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens, just a quick 4 comment. I'm not sure Trip was here to hear this 5 at the last meeting. We did have a report. There 6 was a commitment by GPA, they're going to do those 7 studies, sand silt ratio question, and whether we 8 can alter that ratio, depending on where the sand 9 might go; whether it be near shore beach or up in 10 the upper beach placement of material. 11 That's something we've already got a 12 commitment that will be valuable for this project 13 and other projects we might do on the coastline. 14 MR. TOLLISON: Under current law, what is the 15 current ratio now? 16 MR. STEVENS: It's not a law, it's just a 17 guide that agencies use, 75% or more sand before 18 it can go into a beach placement. That is just a 19 rule of thumb the agencies came up with. 20 We would like to see some studies about what 21 that ratio might could change to. They committed 22 to do that. 23 I appreciate Larry's comment, I like what the 24 Beach Erosion Committee put together. I think it's 25 certainly valuable to go forward and do studies 104 1 2 about the placement of material near the beaches. 3 I don't want to lose sight of the fact there 4 is a lot of material dredged, other than out in the 5 outer bar area, you know, throughout the harbor. 6 We need to be looking at the beneficial use 7 of that material wherever it is dredged, and 8 breaking that paradigm, what can we really use the 9 material for. 10 Some of the other ports around the nation have 11 done some pretty innovative things with dredge 12 material. I think we need to look at all those 13 aspects. 14 MR. TOLLISON: The $500,000 cost, the City is 15 responsible -- is this 100% government, 100% 16 federal cost share, is it 25% cost share to the 17 City, to do this study. 18 MR. FARMER: We believe that the Corps of 19 Engineers would be the appropriate agency to do the 20 benefit cost study having to the with the O and M 21 material. 22 I got the estimate from them, as to the 23 ball park requirement, and the thinking was that it 24 would be in the neighborhood of $500,000 to do it, 25 and Congressman Kingston was asked to get all of 105 1 2 it. 3 MR. TOLLISON: No contribution from the City, 4 because I think I attended a meeting where the 5 Beach Task Force agreed to $100,000 -- do you 6 remember that meeting where we agreed, then you 7 were going to present that to the city council for 8 $100,000. Is that completely not related to this? 9 MR. FARMER: Related, but not the same thing, 10 different study. 11 MR. TOLLISON: Too many studies. 12 MR. DYSART: David. 13 MR. KYLER: Let me ask a question that comes 14 from confusion on my part, which I hope is shared 15 by someone else so I'm not out here feeling like an 16 idiot by myself. 17 I understand there are costs and benefits 18 associated with the so called beneficial use of 19 sand, both expansion and maintenance, but I'm 20 uncertain as to where the costs associated with 21 past and projected project activities would have on 22 the need for renourishment, in the first place. 23 Where does that come in to assessment or benefit? 24 MR. FARMER: It wouldn't have to. It's all 25 futuristic, you know, the future project of beach 106 1 2 renourishment, and the future project of harbor 3 deepening, and maintenance of the channel after 4 that initial deepening. 5 It's not looking at the past at all. It's 6 looking at the future. The only way the past is 7 looked at is to get some cost factors, as far as 8 what prior dredgings cost. 9 MR. KYLER: For the sake of simplicity and 10 brevity, forget about that. Do these studies 11 you're talking about look at how the projected 12 deepening will increase the need for renourishment, 13 in addition to providing material for it? 14 MR. FARMER: That would be one of the costs, 15 yes. That's the kind of thinking we're asking each 16 one of you to come up with, so we can put those 17 kind of thoughts in the words that are already 18 here. 19 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 20 MR. BREWTON: I just wanted to thank Bill 21 Farmer for the effort he made to incorporate some 22 of the concerns that were articulated last month, 23 when he first brought this concept up about 24 description of studies. 25 I think Bill's already responded and 107 1 2 incorporated some of those concerns in modifying 3 the language a little bit, and Bill's shown us he 4 will be responsive. 5 Dave, I would encourage you and others that 6 have additional things that need to be incorporated 7 in this, take him seriously on his offer. 8 Bill, I just wanted to thank you for 9 addressing those concerns we raised last month and 10 revising that description. 11 MR. FARMER: It was one of our more brilliant 12 meetings, Ben. We couldn't ignore it. 13 MR. DYSART: Further comments? 14 MR. PARKER: I have a question. I'd like to 15 address this to Stuart; shouldn't somewhere in this 16 study grain size come in to play? 17 MR. STEVENS: Yes, sir. We talked about that 18 with Bo Ellis. That is one of the things that 19 needs to be considered, the value of the material, 20 where it can go, and the beneficial use of that. 21 MR. DYSART: Dodi. 22 MS. GAY: Also, in the study just because I 23 don't know enough about it, is it also being 24 considered to mixing the silt to bring it up to 25 quality, and also offset the cost of moving it, if 108 1 2 it is not usable on the beach, to offset that cost 3 moving it offshore -- those are kind of two 4 different questions. 5 I don't know if that's possible, if you can 6 upgrade sand to make it usable on the beach -- 7 excuse me -- silt. 8 MR. DYSART: If that was a question directed 9 to Bill, he couldn't hear you. Would you repeat 10 it? 11 MS. GAY: It was probably more towards that 12 end, the guys with all the data. The materials 13 being removed in the harbor deepening, the silt is 14 not quality to be beach sand, can it not be mixed 15 to bring it to quality, and also thereby avoid the 16 cost of moving silt that's not usable offshore? 17 MR. FARMER: Right before at the break, Stuart 18 Stevens was showing me a new set of words that has 19 a method of separating silt from sand. You have 20 silt come out one pipe and sand come out the other 21 pipe. 22 I think that's what you are talking about. If 23 the material not good, is there an economical way 24 to make it good, so to speak. So that may be part 25 of this study. What is the name of that, Stuart? 109 1 2 MR. STEVENS: Hydrocycloned, it's a new 3 technology that the Jacksonville District Corps is 4 experimenting with. In fact, they're using it only 5 on a small scale. That separates sand from silts 6 and clay. 7 And there was a gentleman that gave a paper at 8 the shore and beach meeting last month that 9 described this process. It is available on the 10 web, if anybody wanted to look at the technology. 11 MR. TOLLISON: Jacksonville is the only area 12 doing it? 13 MR. STEVENS: They developed the technology. 14 I don't know is anybody else involved or not. 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: What is that web address? 16 MR. STEVENS: It's the Jacksonville District 17 Corps of Engineers. You can look at the South 18 Atlantic Division to get to them -- to get to their 19 web page. 20 MR. DYSART: How about a report from the 21 Dredging and Disposal Committee? Fred. 22 MR. BEASON: The Dredging and Disposal 23 Committee met. We reviewed the Georgia Port 24 Authority expansion program, as a building black on 25 top of the '96 Corps of Engineers long-term 110 1 2 management strategy for dredge material placement 3 in the Savannah Harbor. 4 We concluded that the GPA program has 5 determined that they will replace every cubic yard 6 of the disposal capacity that's used in the new 7 works section, for a project down to minus 48 feet 8 with an additional yard of space. 9 So there will be no negative impact on the 10 LTMS open disposal sites for future maintenance 11 material placement. 12 The program did look at the existing open 13 disposal sites that are available, and the SOLS 14 (phonetic) Division of the Corps of Engineers 15 determined that all but three of the disposal 16 sites, 1N, 1S and 2A have a very long life, because 17 the materials can be stacked up 100 plus feet, and 18 they can be dredged into. 19 There is a cost associated with it, but that's 20 just the cost of doing work. So there is an 21 extended life out there for the future maintenance 22 in the harbor, that the new project at minus 48 23 feet will have a very negligible impact on the 24 annual maintenance dredging in the harbor. 25 History shows the maintenance in the harbor is 111 1 2 around 7,250,000 cubic yards annually. The new 3 project will increase it more or less 60 to 80,000 4 cubic yards, best guess. 5 The study did look at the creation of new 6 upper harbor upland disposal sites. That condition 7 is needed prior to the proposed expansion. The 8 parties that are involved in that function are 9 looking at that, and the decision as to whether 10 that can or can't or will or won't be developed is 11 outside of the scope of the need for the expansion, 12 and what they're looking at. 13 The committee did review and will ask for the 14 MTRG Committee to talk with us. Our concern is 15 future development in the harbor will have impacts 16 on the environmental sections. 17 Can the model, that's being developed by Bo 18 and his team, be added to take into consideration 19 future developments, and can it then be used to 20 predict what those impacts may or may not be? 21 We discussed when is there enough, how do you 22 determine is there enough expansion in the harbor, 23 and I think the understanding I have is that a lot 24 of environmental groups are looking at a -- I'm 25 going to use an acronym that may not be right, a 112 1 2 total maximum daily impact on the environment. 3 And unfortunately, the trend seems to be, if 4 there's 20% use left, or some number out there, 5 it's a matter first come first serve, as far as 6 requesting expansions in various eco sections. 7 When that's been consumed, that will be the 8 maximum. We feel, at this point, we need to 9 research what are some alternate uses of disposed 10 material. And we will work with the other 11 committees to try to look at that and make a 12 presentation. 13 There is one correction on the document I 14 handed out, and we will post this, but in item two 15 in the third bullet that should say that the 16 placement of dredged maintenance material should be 17 open disposal sites as the most environmentally 18 acceptable method. 19 MR. DYSART: Are there questions, discussions, 20 comments? Ben. 21 MR. BREWTON: Two questions, Fred. One, could 22 you repeat exactly how that full third bullet 23 should read. 24 MR. BEASON: That third bullet will come back 25 and say the LTMS concluded agitation dredging in 113 1 2 berths is the least expensive. Placement of 3 maintenance material in confined upland disposal 4 sites is the environment -- is the least 5 environmentally damaging alternate for berth 6 operators. 7 If you read the summary from the LTMS, those 8 two are opposed to each other, but the summary 9 consensus of the LTMS was, at this stage of 10 information, agitation dredging for maintenance 11 work only is de minimus in the 7,250,000 yards of 12 material removed annually, and that it is the 13 accepted method today, not to say it won't change 14 somewhere down the road. 15 MR. BREWTON: Is your committee looking at, or 16 is this already something the GPA has looked at 17 somewhere, if the deeper channel will result in a 18 larger annual volume, on the O and M side I guess, 19 the numbers beyond the actual initials. 20 MR. BEASON: The answer is on the O and M 21 side, the best guess projections at minus 48 feet 22 there will be an increase of about 60,000 yards 23 annually, which is de minimus relative to the 24 7,250,000 yards that's being removed annually now. 25 Ben, the history shows that over the past 114 1 2 several years when improvements have been made in 3 the harbor, the shoaling patterns have changed and 4 relocated in the harbor, but the volumes of the 5 maintenance material to be removed annually has not 6 appreciably changed. 7 There is some concerns that the shoaling 8 patterns with this new project will change, but 9 they don't anticipate an increased volume. 10 MR. BREWTON: Okay. Thank you, Fred. 11 MR. DYSART: Any further comments? 12 MS. WENDT: I have a question about the 13 developing deep water port in Jasper County that 14 apparently came up. As far as I know, that's not 15 being considered as a serious alternate to Daniel 16 Island, I mean -- 17 MR. MIKELL: Rob Mikell. It is an alternative 18 in the EIS. It was one of the initial alternatives 19 that is in the EIS. They would have to consider 20 sites in different locations, and different 21 combinations of port facilities. 22 As I told the committee yesterday, there has 23 been some interest from South Carolina politicians, 24 and other groups, that are opposed to the Daniel 25 Island expansion to look at alternatives, and this 115 1 2 is one of the alternatives they proposed to look 3 at. I think it is an alternate that will receive 4 more consideration as that EIS is reviewed. 5 MS. WENDT: Is this land owned by Jasper 6 County? 7 MR. MIKELL: No. It's owned by Georgia DOT. 8 MS. WENDT: Is it an active spoil disposal 9 site? 10 MR. MIKELL: Yes, spoil disposal site 11 presently. 12 MR. BURSON: With respect to your estimate of 13 the impact of deepening the harbor on the O and M, 14 in some past informative reading, there was 15 discussion about the actual design of deepening, 16 in that very steep slopes could lead to more of an 17 O and M requirement. I was curious if you took 18 that into account, the actual design, in your 19 estimate of additional O and M needs. 20 MR. PARROTT: One of the things about harbor 21 deepening is we extended slopes downward not to 22 increase or change the slopes. That's one of the 23 aspects. 24 The main aspect of the 60,000 cubic yards 25 is the extension of the bar channel further out 116 1 2 in deep water reflecting a six foot deepening 3 in the channel. That's the main -- 60,000 cubic 4 yards difference. There's no change in the slopes 5 of the channel with the expansion project. 6 MR. DYSART: I see no further cards. Thank 7 you. How about a report from the Fisheries and 8 Aquatic Resources. 9 MR. BAILEY: Fisheries Committee did not have 10 a meeting. We had some e-mail going back and forth 11 talking about the record keeping and reached 12 agreement on that. We also had an e-mail going 13 back and forth about a mission statement, and have 14 not reached agreement on that. 15 MR. DYSART: Discussion or comment. Seeing 16 none, thank you. 17 MR. KING: Can I ask a question? 18 MR. DYSART: Sure, Mitch. 19 MR. KING: I think last time there was a study 20 that was recommended by that committee dealing with 21 the estuarine aquatic, Press. 22 What was the status of that? Have we left 23 that? That's a study that's a recommendation to 24 GPA, and has GPA made a decision on that? Do you 25 want to talk -- 117 1 2 MR. BROWNELL: I don't follow your train of 3 thought. I think I missed what was said earlier. 4 MR. KING: He was saying there wasn't a 5 meeting of the Aquatic Committee. I was asking 6 about that issue, that study that came up. I think 7 it was like about an $800,000 study proposed last 8 month. 9 I think it was the recommendation of this 10 committee or SEG to GPA. I'm not quite sure about 11 that though. Have we moved to GPA and has GPA 12 said, yeah, we're going to do that. Do we know -- 13 do you know where that is? 14 MR. BROWNELL: I think there were two 15 fisheries studies, essentially, that were 16 identified. 17 MR. KING: Yeah. There was a striped bass 18 study. 19 MR. BROWNELL: There were two additions 20 fishery studies identified and approved by the SEG 21 and forwarded on. 22 MR. KING: I guess my question is, has GPA 23 made a decision on those? Are those still sort of 24 hanging undecided at this point in time? 25 MR. DYSART: Morgan Rees, comment on that. 118 1 2 MR. REES: You may recall, maybe it didn't 3 come up, recommendations made from the Fisheries 4 Committee at the last meeting had not matured, if 5 you will, in committee, in that the committee 6 hadn't come to closure, at least, with respect to 7 the GPA's participation in the committee 8 activities. 9 The recommendations that were made to the GPA 10 had not been provided to GPA in advance of the last 11 SEG meeting. 12 So we have -- we would hope that when 13 committees do make recommendations, that they make 14 them based on input from everybody on the 15 committee, and that didn't happen. We hope to 16 avoid that happening again. 17 Nevertheless, we've looked at it. We had a 18 number of questions when we looked at the report. 19 We listed the questions. We've furnished them back 20 to the committee. 21 We've asked for a meeting of the committee 22 with GPA, to try to help us understand how the 23 recommendations fit into the framework, what are 24 evaluation criteria, a couple of other questions 25 that would help us understand the context of 119 1 2 the recommendations. 3 We've provided those, actually to the 4 committee chair. I don't know if they've been 5 passed along to the committee at large or not. 6 We've asked to meet with them as soon as we can, so 7 we can get this resolved. 8 I guess the bottom line is the recommendation 9 is the thing. We've not had a chance to completely 10 review it. What we've done is raised some 11 questions. Hopefully, we'll work with the 12 Fisheries Committee and work through all that 13 stuff. 14 MR. KING: I've still got mine up. I don't 15 know that I've heard an answer yet that's 16 satisfactory. I remember this discussion a little 17 bit. 18 There's a lot of things go on between now and 19 then. There was a discussion about whether or not 20 this was the recommendation of the Fisheries and 21 Aquatic Resources Committee. And I think, at 22 least, my recollection again, it may be wrong. 23 Y'all can correct me. 24 My recollection was that we decided yes, it 25 was an official recommendation of that committee, 120 1 2 and then I thought we went ahead and said, yes, it 3 was an official recommendation of SEG to be passed 4 on to GPA. 5 And it's -- I guess you've had it. It's been 6 a month. Sounds like you've made some 7 recommendations. Any report on those, Bill or 8 Press, on their comments. 9 MR. BAILEY: I got a request for a meeting. I 10 responded when would be convenient. I've not heard 11 a response to that. Before energizing my 12 committee, I wanted to make sure what days they 13 would be available. 14 MR. REES: We can work on that. I hadn't seen 15 the question about when can you meet. Apparently, 16 it came yesterday. So we'll work with you and do 17 that as soon as we can. 18 MR. BROWNELL: I'd like to add to what you 19 said, Mitch. Yes, my recollection is we did have 20 an official recommendation by the committee. And 21 it was my understanding, I might have missed 22 something, but I thought Georgia Ports Authority 23 had an opportunity to review that prior to us 24 making the revisions we made first, and then coming 25 up with a final. 121 1 2 But at any rate, there are time sensitive 3 issues related to those studies, I think, that need 4 to be addressed. They are important studies, at 5 least, from our agency's viewpoint. 6 We look forward to meeting with Georgia Ports 7 Authority, and the rest of the committee, as soon 8 as possible to try to resolve the remaining issues. 9 MR. KING: But significant delays could mean 10 another year in the process trying to get results 11 of those reports. I think -- I guess I'm not 12 pleased that it's gone on another month. I was 13 hoping we would be able to say that was on its 14 way, or decided it needed to be significantly 15 modified or something. 16 That is an important one from the Fish and 17 Wildlife's standpoint as well, in trying to assess 18 the impact to this project to those resources. 19 MR. BROWNELL: We did have an official 20 recommendation by the SEG to adopt those studies. 21 I think that's clear. 22 MR. KING: Is that the understanding of this 23 group, that the SEG did make a recommendation last 24 month on those studies? 25 MS. JENNINGS: Yes. 122 1 2 MS. LEFFEK: Yes. 3 MR. KING: So it is not a question of whether 4 the SEG supports it, it's just a question of 5 whether or not GPA is going to do it, is that 6 right? 7 MR. BROWNELL: They're taking another look to 8 see how exactly to implement the studies, some 9 minor technical issue is our interpretation. 10 MR. KING: Again, that laying dead for a month 11 is hurting. 12 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 13 MR. REES: I don't want to be argumentative, 14 Mitch. I think we're getting along very well. 15 We're coming very close to closure. 16 I don't want people to think it's laying dead 17 for a month. It took us a good bit of review and 18 effort to try to understand what the 19 recommendations were, and to come up with, in good 20 faith, relevant questions to help us understand 21 where we're going with the study. 22 I guess I would ask for a different 23 characterization of what has happened since last 24 month. 25 MR. KING: Okay. 123 1 2 MR. DYSART: Is there further discussion? 3 Seeing no cards, Bo how about the MTRG report? 4 MR. ELLIS: I submitted a status report, 5 passed around copies, should be one page two-sided 6 copy. We met last week on March 1st in Atlanta at 7 the EPA office. 8 The goals of the meeting are stated here 9 in the status report coordination with the 10 wastewater characterization data collection effort, 11 review tidal amplitude presentation for the SEG, to 12 determine the appropriate level of grid resolution, 13 and to begin presentation and review of the 1999 in 14 string data collection effort. 15 You'll see the list of the people who either 16 provided input, or participated in person at the 17 meeting, and we had a general discussion on each 18 one of these four items. 19 And two of them, we had general discussion on 20 those items without any recommendations, and two of 21 them we had recommendations associated with the 22 discussion. 23 So that's how it is presented here in the 24 status report. The first two items on the 25 wastewater characterization, we heard a 124 1 2 presentation from the Harbor Committee on an 3 ongoing study that they are performing which 4 parallels and complements the data collection 5 efforts that GPA is undertaking in the harbor. 6 This is ongoing work, and is being done by the 7 Harbor Committee with the Corps of Engineers. And 8 there will be a future report provided to us. But 9 they did basically just show what kind of 10 information they would be reporting, and we had a 11 general discussion about it. No recommendations is 12 associated with that point. 13 The other thing we did was, on behalf GPA, ATM 14 presented the format for some of the data that we 15 will be presenting in our upcoming data report, and 16 discussed how it should look, and the period of 17 time that should be captured on figures, and some 18 of the preliminary data figures that have been 19 produced that will be included in a complete data 20 report. 21 There are no recommendations given at this 22 time. The MTRG recommendations, we decided we 23 would be coming -- after the complete data report 24 has been posted to the group, and we've had a 25 chance to circulate it and discuss it with the 125 1 2 other issues that we addressed in the MTRG, we did 3 formulate some recommendations, and they are 4 presented on the second page here. 5 MS. McINTOSH: Were there copies of that, they 6 didn't make it around here. 7 MR. ELLIS: Anybody else need a copy? Okay. 8 On the second page, on the backside of the report 9 there were several issues that we covered at the 10 meeting, and had specific recommendations from the 11 MTRG. 12 Under tidal amplitude, you may recall the SEG 13 asked MTRG to basically educate the SEG on the 14 issue of tidal amplitude, and water level rise in 15 the harbor. 16 A presentation was made to MTRG and the 17 MTRG reviewed it, actually had a good discussion 18 and made some recommendations. For the most part 19 the information was in the body of the 20 presentation, but they felt like it would be 21 helpful to have graphical illustrations of some of 22 these concepts, which are difficult to explain, and 23 would be easily -- more easily understood if there 24 was a graph, or some kind of illustration depicting 25 that particular factor. 126 1 2 That was one of the recommendations. The 3 other was to have a specific section of the 4 presentation devoted to identifying what aspects of 5 the impacts of water level in the harbor the model 6 can and cannot address. 7 We discuss limitations and abilities of the 8 model, which issues fell in which category, and 9 the other recommendation was to separate out 10 subsidence. 11 If you remember, when this was brought up to 12 the SEG, there were three primary issues. One was 13 tidal amplitude, one was sea level rise, and one 14 was land subsidence to looking at flooding in the 15 harbor. 16 The MTRG recommended subsidence really wasn't 17 an effect to water level, even though it could be 18 happening and could have an effect to flooding. 19 Under grid resolution, basically this is 20 discussing a practical aspect of model development. 21 It's how finally do chop up your model area into 22 grids. We have to -- we deal with the harbor by 23 chopping it into grids, both vertically, 11 layers 24 and horizontally. 25 And we talked about the practical aspect of 127 1 2 being able to model this to run model applications 3 in a reasonable amount of time, and it's good for 4 the modelers to know what type of run times with 5 the most up-to-date computer technology to expect. 6 The first bullet, we agreed that a 90 day 7 scenario for model runs would be appropriate 8 for most of the model runs, and it should be 9 accomplished -- the goal would be 14 to 16 hours. 10 MR. BAILEY: That was the goal, not a specific 11 recommendation? 12 MR. ELLIS: That's right. It was a 13 recommendation to try to reach the goal. It wasn't 14 necessarily a criteria. Utilize the overall 15 hydrodynamic model to develop the forcing for the 16 water quality model, then cut the grid at I-95 and 17 Ft. Pulaski, Ft. Pulaski to run the water quality 18 model. 19 The water quality model rides on top of the 20 hydrodynamic and salinity model. The currents and 21 water levels, the hydrodynamics are driven by a 22 boundary that's fairly well set offshore, and well 23 upstream of any tidal influence in the harbor, way 24 up, way up the river. 25 What you need in the water quality model to 128 1 2 look at DO, and those aspects of water quality, is 3 the hydrodynamics in the central portion of the 4 harbor. And we looked at basically when we get to 5 those model applications, pulling in the boundary 6 for that particular model. 7 And the other goal recommendation was to try 8 to course in the grid to keep the run times for 9 the water quality model, which is bulkier, more 10 sophisticated model to run to a reasonable amount 11 of time. 12 The other thing we did, we did discuss the 13 mission statement. The MTRG recommended revision 14 of the mission statement, to basically add to what 15 was already there. 16 The MTRG included in an earlier recommendation 17 that was already given to the SEG, and is pretty 18 much captured the last two sentence in here, so we 19 added to existing mission statement. If you want 20 to read the last two sentence under mission 21 statement. 22 The MTRG should continue review of the model 23 development tasks, providing guidance to GPA and 24 reporting to the SEG through model calibration. 25 The MTRG should meet on a regular basis to allow 129 1 2 interim review of the model development and data 3 analysis. 4 MR. BREWTON: Clarification, Bo. When you say 5 reporting to the SEG through model calibration, 6 you're saying the model calibration would be the 7 method of reporting, or through that time period. 8 MR. ELLIS: Through that time period. 9 MR. BREWTON: I would suggest you add through 10 the time of model calibration, something there, 11 leading to model calibration -- suggestion. 12 MR. ELLIS: Okay. 13 MR. PARSONS: Keith Parsons, Georgia DNR. 14 Under the grid resolution, this further coarsen 15 the grid resolution to expedite water quality model 16 application runs, would coarsening the grid have a 17 tendency to obscure the potential water quality, 18 which could occur in the harbor at given points? 19 MR. ELLIS: That's not an easy answer. I 20 could take that to the MTRG, that question. It 21 could and it couldn't, but coarsening the grid, 22 coarsening the grid will reduce the computer time, 23 but certainly you don't want to sacrifice what you 24 are trying to do with the model. 25 MR. PARSONS: Okay. 130 1 2 MR. ELLIS: If you have a specific question, I 3 can take it back. There's no easy answer to that 4 question. 5 MR. PARSONS: Okay. 6 MR. DYSART: Ben Brewton. 7 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. Several questions. 8 One is very similar to what Keith asked. I guess 9 -- I guess it prompts several questions in my mind. 10 One, what is the significance of shortening the 11 computer run time from 14 hours, say, instead of 24 12 hours? 13 What's the downside of having the model -- if 14 you took the 24 hours to run as opposed to 14 hours 15 or 16 hours? 16 MR. ELLIS: Practical application of being 17 able to run different simulations. 18 MR. BREWTON: It just struck me, if you are 19 into that much time, you're into more than a single 20 day anyway. I doubt someone is going to start 21 the model and sit right there for 16 hours. 22 Obviously 24 hours, you could come back the 23 same time the next day. But if the answer to the 24 question about whether it would affect water 25 quality applications that Keith asked about, if we 131 1 2 don't know, it's a complicated question, it may or 3 may not, seems like you would want to error on the 4 side of accuracy rather than run time. 5 So this idea of expediting, so forth, we all 6 want to do things as fast as possible, but it does 7 strike me as something that I'm sure it is being 8 carefully considered. I don't mean to imply that. 9 My inclination is you need to be as careful and 10 accurate as possible, whatever time it takes is 11 whatever time it takes. 12 The two questions I have on the tidal 13 amplitude presentation, is this a presentation that 14 you will coming back and making to us, or to the 15 group, or is this the presentation? 16 MR. ELLIS: No, this is not presentation. 17 MR. BREWTON: Okay. The issue of subsidence, 18 you say it would be separated out. You would still 19 look at it and report on that? 20 MR. ELLIS: In the presentation. 21 MR. BREWTON: Yeah. 22 MR. REES: My understanding is that one of the 23 things we've had some difficulty with over the time 24 we've been meeting, when Bo talks as the chairman 25 of the MTRG, there's not always a clear distinction 132 1 2 whether he's talking for GPA or MTRG. 3 Bo's making a presentation of the MTRG. I 4 think the question you had was the same one I had 5 when I saw the report. No matter what the MTRG 6 says about the subsidence, doesn't relieve the GPA 7 of the responsibility of looking at that issue in 8 the tier two process, and finding out what the 9 impacts are on any flooding, as a result of that 10 element of subsidence, in addition to what the MTRG 11 is doing. 12 MR. BREWTON: Exactly. 13 MR. REES: If that's a reasonably 14 clarification, the MTRG folks are modelers. What 15 they said is that subsidence doesn't affect the 16 model. It does affect impacts of the project, and 17 those would be looked at and fully evaluated. 18 MR. BREWTON: That's exactly what I was going 19 to ask. Let me ask this, is there a possibility 20 some initial look can be done by GPA, or Lockwood 21 Greene, whoever is going look at that, present it 22 concurrently with the information Bo is going to 23 give us, since the two things -- 24 MR. REES: I don't think we will know the 25 answers needed to respond to that question until 133 1 2 the model runs. They're going to construct the 3 model. It will show what changes are in the water 4 level. 5 We have to come back after to know what 6 the changes are in the water level, and superimpose 7 the changes in subsidence and see what the impact's 8 going to be. 9 MR. BREWTON: Whatever is most sensible, I 10 think, clearly just that that will definitely be 11 looked at and included. 12 This may have been answered. I apologize. I 13 had to step out of the room for a minute. On the 14 in stream data, that information was not available 15 in february as initially thought. That would 16 be available about when, do you think? 17 MR. ELLIS: Should be sometime this month. 18 MR. BREWTON: Y'all will post that report, 19 circulate it, whatever. 20 MR. ELLIS: The intention is to post it. The 21 MTRG will provide comments, discuss it, and then 22 send through a status report or recommendations 23 back to SEG. 24 MR. BREWTON: That would come likely in April 25 -- you're not sure? 134 1 2 MR. ELLIS: Don't know. It's a big report. 3 MR. BREWTON: You'll post it, circulate it 4 through the usual channels. If I wanted to be able 5 to look at that early, in order to get any 6 questions we might have, if we can do that. 7 MR. ELLIS: Sure. 8 MR. BREWTON: Thank you. 9 MR. DYSART: David. 10 MR. KYLER: To what extent will the model 11 answer the question about the raise, and if not, 12 what provisions can be made to further examine 13 this? 14 This has to do with the flow conditions in the 15 river both in terms of storm events which are 16 episodic, as well as over time as the hydrology is 17 affected by alteration of upland areas, increasing 18 impervious surfaces, and otherwise compromising 19 water retaining functions of wetlands. 20 Can that, at all, be reflected in this 21 modeling; and if not, what else can be done about 22 that? 23 MR. ELLIS: That, again, is not a simple 24 question. That will be addressed in the 25 presentation. That will -- some light will be 135 1 2 shed on that question. 3 MR. DYSART: John then Stuart. 4 MR. ROBINETTE: Yes. Bo, under grid 5 resolution, number two point here, using the 6 hydrodynamic models to develop forcing for the 7 water quality model, then cut the grid at I-95 and 8 Ft. Pulaski, does that mean that the water 9 quality model results will stop at I-95? 10 MR. ELLIS: The water quality model. 11 MR. ROBINETTE: Yes. 12 MR. ELLIS: Yes. 13 MR. ROBINETTE: What about the question of 14 chloride for the City of Savannah? 15 MR. ELLIS: That will be a separate model. 16 MR. ROBINETTE: That will answer Harry's 17 questions. 18 MR. ELLIS: Right. 19 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 20 MR. STEVENS: Stuart Stevens, DNR. My 21 comments are with respect to grid and the 22 coarseness of the grid, and I believe we've got 23 some real good experts on MTRG, there's no question 24 about that. 25 I believe everybody signature in the SEG is 136 1 2 going to be depending very heavily on the model 3 that you develop, to make some predictions about 4 potential impacts of the project. 5 I'm real concerned that we will end up with a 6 product that is not coarse enough. The only way 7 you'll know that is if you run the model at a very 8 fine scale, and compare that to what you get at a 9 coarse scale. 10 I think even if it costs 10 additional hours, 11 that's a small price to pay, compared to what we're 12 all putting into this and other studies that are 13 done. 14 I don't know if we're in a position to say, 15 MTRG, we don't like the recommendations or how 16 you handled that. It concerns me we may be 17 creating a problem for ourselves by not getting 18 fine enough with runs you're going to do with the 19 model. 20 MR. DYSART: Chris. 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: Let me say up front, I'm not 22 a modeler. I don't understand anything about the 23 process of modeling. In my very simplistic mind, I 24 see this as a vehicle to get information. 25 Can I assume, can the SEG sitting here assume, 137 1 2 that the vehicle that's providing this data is not 3 a Ford Pinto, that this a state of the art up 4 front, and there's nothing more -- there's not a 5 better iteration of that model out there, so 6 whatever information we get back, Stuart is 7 commenting, and others are commenting, is that's 8 it, guys. The moon is not made out of green 9 cheese. 10 MR. ELLIS: I can't answer for the MTRG. I 11 have my opinion, and of course I'm a consultant for 12 GPA putting this model together. We're shooting 13 very, very high. 14 This effort is almost unparalleled in work 15 that's being done in similar, typical estuaries. 16 That's my opinion. 17 There's work similar to this done in the 18 Chesapeake. I think we're -- we've learned a lot 19 from what they have done. I don't know what else 20 to say. 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: Well, that's fine. As long as 22 it's on the record, just so in the future as this 23 unfolds and these presentations are being made, 24 that we can base our decisions, whatever they are 25 to be, on the best that's there. 138 1 2 I mean, Stuart complimented the colleagues 3 that are involved with this work, that they are the 4 best of the best. I just want to make sure they 5 are providing the best of the best in terms of the 6 modeling. 7 MR. ELLIS: We will be -- ATM will be running 8 the model at different grid sizes. That's part of 9 our scope of work, and looking at how it matches up 10 with our calibration. 11 So part of our calibration is to chop it up 12 more finely, into more fine grids and more coarse 13 grids to see how it compares with model 14 calibration. 15 We, ATM for GPA, are looking for a very 16 accurate model, very defensible. There are more 17 practical aspects. I think people would like to 18 see this be a usable tool, practical tool. You 19 want to deal with that up front in the design of 20 the model. It's typically what a modeler would 21 decide up front, what to shoot for. 22 MR. JUE: I'm not a modeler either, but it 23 distresses me to say I look at two names on here, 24 on this MTRG group, Jim Greenfield working for EPA, 25 and roy Burke, III for Georgia EPD, both considered 139 1 2 probably the lead modelers in their agency, I hear 3 resource agencies here questioning it. 4 It seems like there should be coordination or 5 conversation with these folks. We are supposedly 6 building a state of the art model, the best that is 7 available. 8 I don't know whether or not it is the best 9 that can be made, but it is the best that is 10 available, the best that we can have to answer some 11 of the questions based on good science, rather than 12 some textbook knowledge, or what available data 13 that's sitting out there. 14 You know, I listen to whether or not this is a 15 good model. I think what convinced me was looking 16 at the regulatory side, and looking at one of the 17 pipes on the river is that I have both EPA and EPD 18 telling us, and I speak for the municipality now, 19 we are spending some money in order to help develop 20 this model through the harbor committee. 21 These two folks can tell me, Harry, this is 22 the best we're going to have, probably on this East 23 Coast, you either are going to have to spend some 24 money to help develop it, or we're going to have 25 use what's available. 140 1 2 So maybe, you know, I know Bo speaks as chair 3 of the MTRG. I guess these MTRG guys elected Bo 4 and he speaks for the committee. 5 If there's any questions, maybe we ought to 6 have Greenfield or Burke stand right in here and 7 tell us what are we buying for our money. Then 8 we can end this discussion, whether or not the data 9 is good, or how to evaluate the data, or should I 10 read the mounds of paper coming out of the MTRG 11 every month, which I ain't got time to do. 12 Some of you guys maybe without a full-time 13 job, other folks sitting here, unfortunately, got 14 other things to do. I think I heard somebody say 15 that before. 16 So let's make the decision. I think we are in 17 agreement that Greenfield and Burke are pretty much 18 the experts. At least they're the ones holding the 19 hatchet over us whether or not this is a good model 20 or not. 21 MR. DYSART: Judy. 22 MS. JENNINGS: Just a point of information, 23 Bo, the names you list, these are the people who 24 were at the March 1st meeting. Other people have 25 participated in other meetings. 141 1 2 MR. ELLIS: What we typically do is if 3 somebody submitted comments that couldn't make it 4 to the meeting, we will put their name down. I 5 think there was one person who submitted comments 6 that didn't come to the meeting. 7 MS. JENNINGS: There might be other agencies, 8 not at this meeting, that did contribute at this 9 meeting, but the point -- 10 MR. ELLIS: There are other MTRG members. To 11 be fair, if they didn't submit any comments during 12 the period, we didn't put their names down. 13 MS. JENNINGS: The point I'm making, in 14 looking at your reports over the last months, I've 15 observed what I think is a broad diversity of 16 people participating in the MTRG. 17 I've sat in and observed your meetings. I've 18 heard people from a variety background question and 19 give input. My perception is that you and Steve -- 20 your other Steve -- 21 MR. ELLIS: Steve Davers (phonetic). 22 MS. JENNINGS: -- Steve Davers are responsive 23 to the input and feedback you're getting on the 24 model, and try to incorporate what they're hearing. 25 I have no ability to judge good or bad. I 142 1 2 appreciate your comment when asked good or bad. In 3 my opinion, it is a strong, collective work. If 4 anybody feels that they have input that hasn't been 5 addressed, I think Harry said it, I'd love for them 6 to come to the SEG and say that. But we're not 7 seeing that as an interested person, but not an 8 expert in the field, I can only conclude it's a 9 strong piece of collective scientific work. 10 MR. DYSART: Dodi. 11 MS. GAY: To reinforce what Judy just said, 12 the collection of folks if you read area codes, 13 912 area codes are on here. Brittany, as part of 14 the Harbor Committee and Harry and I both serve on 15 the Harbor Committee as well, is a committee under 16 manufacturers' council, a part of the Chamber 17 of Commerce, a very wide collaboration of people, 18 scientists, and experts using a number of data to 19 make and answer questions on. Is it an expert 20 opinion? There is a good balance of information 21 there. 22 MR. DYSART: Trip. 23 MR. TOLLISON: Do you have a member of the 24 Georgia DNR on your committee? 25 MR. ELLIS: EPD, Roy Burke, who is the lead 143 1 2 water quality modeler for Georgia EPD. Coastal 3 Resources has appointed a representative from 4 Skidaway. He's not from DNR, but he does 5 participate on behalf of Georgia DNR. 6 MS. JENNINGS: I'll make the point even 7 further, the meeting in Savannah I sat in on had a 8 variety of NGO interests, and their input has been 9 incorporated and addressed. Am I right? 10 MR. ELLIS: Yes. A lot of tidal amplitude, 11 it's being addressed. 12 MR. DYSART: Stuart. 13 MR. STEVENS: I guess a procedural question 14 and another comment. The question of our 15 facilitator, are we being asked as the SEG to 16 approve these recommendations from the MTRG; is 17 that what happens if we move on? 18 MR. ELLIS: Are you asking me? 19 MR. STEVENS: I'm asking the facilitator. 20 MR. DYSART: Typically, the committees bring 21 something in and they're presenting it as a 22 recommendation or seek approval -- 23 MR. STEVENS: This says recommendation. Are 24 you asking SEG's approval of these recommendations? 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. Is this what MTRG is 144 1 2 seeking, approval or endorsement or action -- 3 MR. TOLLISON: Approval of the report, asking 4 for approval of the report? 5 MR. ELLIS: We are offering our 6 recommendations as a group to you. 7 MR. REES: If I may -- 8 MR. DYSART: Morgan Rees. 9 MR. REES: I don't want to -- 10 MR. STEVENS: I'm waiting for an answer. I've 11 got a comment, depending on the answer. 12 MR. REES: I'm going to give you my take on 13 these recommendations. When I read them, they were 14 more recommendations from the MTRG to themselves on 15 how they were going to present the tidal amplitude 16 presentation, and how they were going to work on 17 the grid resolution. 18 But I didn't -- I frankly, personally, didn't 19 read these to mean will the SEG ask the MTRG to do 20 this. It's just my take on it. I don't know. 21 MR. DYSART: What is the SEG's take on the 22 MTRG'S chairman? My comment, stuart, I do not have 23 any opinion on that. 24 MR. STEVENS: The concern I've got, let me see 25 if I can help with my question. If you're asking 145 1 2 the SEG to sanction MTRG's recommendation by 3 whatever mechanism you want to call it, I've got 4 a problem with that, because with all due respect 5 to the committee members and their abilities to 6 create models, they're not going to be using the 7 model to make decisions. 8 We're going to be using the model to make 9 decisions. We may have a different interest for 10 how we make those decisions, and the needs for we 11 have for data for those models. 12 It concerns me that a decision would be made 13 to have a coarser grid in the model, because you're 14 trying to save some time, when we might need the 15 data from a more refined grid to make the best 16 decisions on harbor impacts. 17 If we are being asked to sanction this, I 18 can't live with it. Going back to the concept, can 19 we live with this or not, I can't do that. 20 If the modeling committee is not asking the 21 SEG to sanction this, and you go forward and do 22 your model validation runs and so forth, at a 23 coarser grid and bring it back to us at a future 24 date, we accept it and we say that's not any good, 25 go back and redo it at a finer grid, then let's go 146 1 2 forward. 3 MR. ELLIS: These are the MTRG's 4 recommendations to this group. 5 MR. FARMER: To the SEG? 6 MR. ELLIS: Yes. 7 MR. BREWTON: Everybody else comes in and 8 says, we've got a request for action on this item. 9 MR. ELLIS: This is ongoing work they're 10 reviewing. This is a little bit different than 11 requesting a study. 12 MR. DYSART: David. 13 MR. SCHALLER: I hate to disagree with the 14 chair of the MTRG, but this is a report of the 15 MTRG, and I don't see any place on here where it 16 was offered up as an action item for 17 recommendations and action by the body. 18 I anticipated this was a report. I think the 19 fact Stuart has said something about it is 20 sufficient for the chair to go back to the working 21 group and say, look this question has been raised 22 on the tail end of my report, as a result of my 23 report, you know. We ought to give it a little 24 work. 25 MR. STEVENS: I would be happy with that, if 147 1 2 Bo went back and reported to the committee that's 3 a concern, and they need to rethink this, and 4 report at the next meeting, here's what the 5 committee thinks about that process. I can handle 6 it for that. 7 MR. DYSART: What I hear people saying is that 8 -- Mitch, do you have something to add? 9 MR. KING: Just briefly. I think if we say in 10 May we have finally identified all the scientific 11 issues we want to address through various -- 12 through the various committees; is there going to 13 be an opportunity for the MTRG to say -- to look at 14 those scientific studies and resource concerns and 15 say, our model with this current grid structure 16 coarseness will not answer the question that Stuart 17 might have on the impacts to a certain resource. 18 And then is there the opportunity for us to go 19 back and say, let's go for a finer, maybe more 20 costly model run to get that. Are we stuck with 21 this 16 hour model run? 22 If there's the opportunity to modify it in the 23 future, I guess what I'm hearing the SEG say is 24 that we want to make sure that when we do these 25 models to answer these questions that we're 148 1 2 surfacing here. 3 We don't want to get in a situation after 4 everything is done of the Georgia Ports Authority, 5 and the Corps of Engineers, coming back to the 6 public, and in the EIS saying, we ran our models 7 and we didn't find an impact; when, in fact, if you 8 had run a more tighter grid, you might have found 9 an impact. 10 We would like to know that sort of up front to 11 keep us from getting in a situation of when the 12 final EIS hits the streets of an environmental 13 organization saying, your model wasn't tight 14 enough. 15 If there's the opportunity to go back and 16 revisit that over a couple, three months, I don't 17 see any reason not to hold off here. 18 MR. DYSART: Judy Jennings. 19 MS. JENNINGS: I'm just curious, are we 20 hearing strong feedback? Stuart isn't sure what 21 he sees will give him the decision making tools 22 that he needs. 23 Are you at point now at which you can 24 incorporate work to give Stuart more of what he 25 thinks he needs? Why come back to it in three 149 1 2 months? Do it, do it now. 3 I've said consistently, an opinion I've 4 expressed consistently, if you have something, 5 bring it to the table, and that is what's happened. 6 MR. ELLIS: We are just starting to present 7 information, very preliminary information to the 8 MTRG, and as we do that, we receive recommendations 9 from the MTRG, and there are noted in here. 10 It's ongoing work. We're not asking anybody 11 to rule on the acceptance of anything right now. 12 MS. JENNINGS: No. I -- I accept this as a 13 report, not as a request. In giving the report 14 you've had feedback. I guess I'm asking how you 15 intend to incorporate that feedback? I don't want 16 to wait three months on it. 17 MR. ELLIS: To say there's an issue, a concern 18 about coarsening the grid and losing the decision 19 making ability in the future -- 20 MR. TOLLISON: That is something you're going 21 to carry back to the MTRG, and discuss, and report 22 at the next meeting. 23 MR. BROWNELL: I'd like to make a comment 24 here. We've got into a bit of a rut. I think I 25 see why. I think it's not intentional on anyone 150 1 2 else's part. I think the MTRG predated the 3 existence of the SEG, and already had a 4 well-established way doing business and working, 5 which continued to the present. 6 Historically, talking about SEG history, SEG 7 hasn't really been involved in the technical 8 details of the MTRG. Like I say, that group 9 predated the SEG. 10 Generally, we've had a situation where the 11 MTRG handle decision making, made recommendations 12 directly to Georgia Ports. I'm not proposing we 13 change that. That's probably why we hit a bump 14 in the road. 15 MR. ELLIS: Actually, there was a group 16 started in tier one. The MTRG was established 17 after the SEG was established, and our work -- our 18 reporting was basically set up to feed you 19 information, feed information back to the SEG 20 through the status reports. 21 MR. BROWNELL: Just like any other committee. 22 MR. ELLIS: we want to make it as productive 23 as possible. 24 MR. BROWNELL: The SEG can comment. There is 25 opportunity for whoever we need to call and report 151 1 2 on the technical details. 3 MR. ELLIS: This is very, very preliminary. 4 There's going to be continuing preliminary feedback 5 that was captured in recommendations. 6 MR. BREWTON: I have been listening. I have 7 been observing. I have to make a comment. I 8 experienced this last month when I brought up a 9 couple of questions about the model. 10 I think if we don't watch out for this, if we 11 don't stop the tendency, we're going to be lost. 12 We have a very important project. It has huge 13 economic implications. It has huge environmental 14 implications. 15 You've got a team of very, very good people 16 around the table participating regularly that have 17 to make the evaluations, and decisions, and 18 judgments. 19 The key to every judgment we're going to make 20 is the quality of that model. That's the thing 21 that's going to drive everything. 22 The data clicks, the efforts, and subsequently 23 how this is used in the model is the whole ball 24 game. Then everything else is interpretation. On 25 top of that, I have noted for reasons Press noted, 152 1 2 or whatever, that we have our other committees come 3 in here and give reports. 4 Gosh knows we've grilled Bill Farmer about 5 beach erosion. We've grilled Bill and Fred. I 6 stood up here on behalf of the Communications 7 Committee for several months answering questions 8 about why we thought something should or shouldn't 9 be posted to a site. 10 Here we have the most important thing of all. 11 There seems to be a tendency, as soon as the first 12 question is asked about the model, for a team of 13 people to feel it necessary to jump in and defend 14 the integrity of the scientists on here. 15 The quality of the scientist or the intentions 16 of them, no one is questioning the quality, or 17 intention, or value, or the fact that they know a 18 lot more about the details of the model than 19 probably the whole side of this table put together 20 here. 21 Yet, we're not -- none of us is infallible. I 22 think if we feel this need to both defend people as 23 well as somewhat put down those who dare ask a 24 question, it's somewhat of heresy, I don't think -- 25 I don't think we're going to get anywhere. 153 1 2 To defend the MTRG to Stuart, to me, to Mitch, 3 to whoever raises the question is not attacking, 4 but rather to elicit information and try to ensure 5 our concerns are addressed. Maybe they already are 6 being addressed as alluded to in remarks earlier. 7 Maybe they're not. 8 The only way we have to let you know and let 9 the MTRG know is to speak up. I think we need to 10 be very careful about this. This should be give 11 and take, and should be information put out there. 12 We appreciate the status reports, and need to 13 get status reports, and know what you are 14 considering. We're also obligated to let you know 15 something doesn't sound right. 16 Let us know. Let the guys know. We're 17 concerned about it. I don't want to fuss at Stuart 18 because DNR has a guy involved with the model. 19 He's a modeler. He might not be a coastal 20 biologist, whatever Stuart has his Phd in. 21 There may be a question Stuart needs the 22 answer to that he hasn't thought about yet. Bottom 23 line, I would encourage all of us to be a little 24 more forgiving. People question, not considering 25 as an attack that needs a defense. That's all I 154 1 2 have to say about it. 3 MR. DYSART: One quick comment. 4 MR. REES: In the interest of the reporter 5 here, I'd like to try to bring this to closure. I 6 agree with what Ben said. I think all the 7 questions are perfectly appropriate, from what I've 8 heard. 9 I think the message is the SEG would like the 10 MTRG to have a very close look at the coarseness of 11 the model, make sure when you produce the model 12 it's capable of answering the questions we need to 13 have answered to make decisions on where this 14 project is going. 15 MR. DYSART: It appears to be a consensus for 16 at least half an hour, that to be the case, and 17 we'll take a five minute break. 18 (Short Break) 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. It's 12:46. We've had a 20 five minute break. We will reconvene the 21 Stakeholders Evaluation Group. I had several 22 people indicate they would like to get out at 1:00 23 o'clock. I have had other people indicate it is 24 not necessary to restate and restate and restate 25 what has been agreed upon before. 155 1 2 We will move on and try to see if we can get 3 out of here by 1:00 o'clock. I'd like to now call 4 on Tom. We're now getting ready to have the 5 Striped Bass report. Tom. 6 MR. MERONEK: This will be short. 7 MR. DYSART: Good. 8 MR. MERONEK: The Striped Bass Committee did 9 have a meeting. We met on the 22nd of February, 10 and it was very nice to finally have Larry back in 11 town at the meeting. 12 That was the big reason for having the 13 meeting, was to brief Larry on the project we've 14 been talking about, which everyone, I'm sure, is 15 aware of by now is funded and is underway, our egg 16 study project, and the fecundity ultrasonic 17 project. 18 I'm not going to go into any details. I don't 19 have the minutes for the meeting completed. I will 20 say one of the major topics of discussion was how 21 the data will be used for -- in the analysis, and 22 what types of things will we get out of our 23 project which can be used to determine impacts. 24 And the committee -- one of the things we 25 talked about, the way we would use the data from 156 1 2 our egg sampling and egg calibration, net 3 calibration studies, is we will look at the changes 4 in available habitat or habitat loss, whichever may 5 be the case for striped bass eggs in the estuary. 6 We've kind of determined that that's what 7 we're going to be looking at. I feel like Larry 8 might have been real happy when he heard that 9 because we were finally able to give him something 10 he was looking for all along, is how would we use 11 this data. 12 That's how we'll use the data, to 13 determine habitat loss, by looking at how the 14 salinity will change with the model, where the eggs 15 will be located with the changes to the harbor. So 16 we're finally able to nail that down. I feel like 17 we accomplished a lot by getting that done at our 18 meeting. 19 Everything else we talked about really was 20 just a lot of preliminary discussion of other 21 possible uses of our data, and possible directions 22 to take with other research. 23 I really -- can't really go into that. We 24 haven't really completed any discussions yet. We 25 haven't identified any further research we need at 157 1 2 this point in time, at least we haven't identified 3 any research we want to proceed with at this time, 4 so I'll say that. 5 But I feel like we accomplished a lot by 6 finally getting to the point of how we were going 7 to use this data in the analysis of the deepening 8 project, and for the analysis that will be made. 9 So I'll just keep it short. We also talked 10 about putting together a mission statement. I do 11 have a draft of that. I will be sending it out to 12 the committee. 13 It's just a draft right now. That's about it. 14 Any other committee member who wants to add 15 anything, feel free. 16 MR. KING: Just one quick question, you say 17 it was funded. What level was it funded at -- full 18 funding? 19 MR. MERONEK: Full. 20 MR. KING: I'd like to say thanks to GPA for 21 jumping on that quickly. It was certainly helpful 22 and necessary. I appreciate that. Thank you. 23 MR. DYSART: Further comments? Okay. Next 24 item on the agenda is the Communications Committee 25 report. 158 1 2 MR. STEVENS: Just a comment, I'm showing nine 3 minute to one. We have lost a lot of people. Are 4 we planning to adjourn at one? 5 MR. DYSART: I think it would be desirable to. 6 I don't see any reason -- I would like to be able 7 to adjourn very close to one. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. Next item -- 9 MR. BREWTON: We do not have a report. The 10 only thing I would report, I haven't even discussed 11 this with Larry Keegan, I guess everybody welcomed 12 Larry back, but he's got some of the 13 recommendations implemented about things, the 14 website being made available for individually 15 submitted postings. I think Bill Farmer or 16 somebody has already contributed something. 17 There are a couple of things, I think, that 18 aren't completely consistent with the 19 recommendations that went to him. I owe Larry a 20 follow-up note on that. Hopefully those can be 21 worked out. 22 Maybe at the next meeting Larry could give a 23 report or we'll have a report on how to get things 24 posted. 25 In the meantime, all you have to do is send 159 1 2 something to Larry. He does have a button on the 3 website for individual submissions. Other than 4 that, the committee did not meet, and has no 5 business to report this month. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Economics, Judy Jennings. 7 MS. JENNINGS: I also don't have a report 8 except to say please join us tomorrow at 10:00 9 o'clock. Major topics will be finalizing the 10 mission statement, looking at the list of issues 11 we've previously identified, adding to it, deleting 12 from it, prioritizing and making the schedule for 13 dealing with the issues. Morgan, can you add to 14 that? 15 MR. REES: No. I think that covers it. 16 MS. McINTOSH: 10:00 not 10:30.> 17 MS. JENNINGS: 10:00 even though, I guess we 18 can be flexible -- did we say 10:30? 19 MS. McINTOSH: I thought I read 10:30. 20 MR. REES: I thought it was 10:00. That would 21 be better -- 10:00 would be better. 22 MS. JENNINGS: Again, I've consistently said 23 if you have an issue, please bring it to the table. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Morgan, how 25 about a report from Operating Guidelines Committee. 160 1 2 MR. REES: Operating Guidelines Committee did 3 not meet since the last SEG meeting. We did post 4 the revisions of the SEG's endorse to the operating 5 guidelines. They are now posted. 6 As of the last meeting, our report hadn't been 7 finalized in terms of specific language that's been 8 done, that's been posted. That's all I have to 9 report. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. That completes the 11 committee reports. Looks like on the agenda the 12 next item, the remaining item is next meeting date 13 April 4th, this location. Ben Brewton. 14 MR. BREWTON: Are we going to discuss the 15 agenda for the next meeting as a group, or a 16 steering committee taking any individual comments 17 about the next agenda. How are we going to do 18 that? 19 MR. DYSART: The last time everybody rushed 20 away when we finally adjourned, if you would like, 21 in the next five minutes, to work on the agenda as 22 the membership of the steering committee or 23 steering group, whatever it's called, that would be 24 great. How about April 4th, is that set? David. 25 MR. SCHALLER: My recollection is there were 161 1 2 two things we were going to do. One, the 3 facilitator was going to make a general 4 solicitation for items at the close, and following 5 the close of the meeting, the chair ad hoc -- 6 MR. BREWTON: Committee chairs plus any other 7 interested part. 8 MR. SCHALLER: -- would stay. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. We will now have a general 10 solicitation of perspective agenda items for next 11 month. 12 MR. BEASON: The dredging subcommittee hopes 13 to get together with the MTRG to talk about the 14 application of the model, as future harbor 15 improvements are made, and as to whether that model 16 will be able to predict that outcome. We hope to 17 make a report on that. 18 MR. DYSART: That would be covered under 19 your committee report or Bo's committee report. 20 MR. BREWTON: I have a question for Bo as to 21 that tidal amplitude presentation, or any of the 22 other things; were there any of those that you 23 specifically were scheduling for the next meeting, 24 or you're not sure about those? 25 MR. ELLIS: We're not sure. 162 1 2 MR. DYSART: Are there other general 3 contributions of perspective agenda items for 4 April? 5 MR. STEVENS: I think Mitch was before me, 6 whatever. 7 MR. KING: Go ahead. 8 MR. STEVENS: I would just like to hear back 9 from Bo, as the chair of the MTRG, about any 10 discussions you may have had in committee about 11 the grid. 12 MR. ELLIS: Grid resolution. 13 MR. STEVENS: Yeah. 14 MR. DYSART: You would include that in your 15 MTRG report. Mitch. 16 MR. KING: Just to get us off the dime on 17 these estuarine studies, these fisheries studies 18 that we talked about; I'd like to have it in the 19 context of a report from the Fisheries and Aquatic 20 Resource, as far as a general discussion item, a 21 discussion about where we stand with those two 22 studies still outstanding and waiting for the final 23 say of the GPA and stuff like that, so we can get 24 that off the dime. 25 MR. DYSART: Those are things that came from 163 1 2 Bill or the Fisheries Committee? 3 MR. BROWNELL: Fisheries Committee recommended 4 two studies. 5 MR. KING: Second item, similar request from 6 the discussion on the studies for Fish and Wildlife 7 Service's standpoint need to be solidified. I 8 think there's still something hanging on 9 discussions with GPA and Fish and Wildlife Service. 10 MR. DYSART: Action on the proposal with Fish 11 and Wildlife. 12 MR. KING: Or just the status on it. 13 MR. BROWNELL: One item I'd like to recommend, 14 we already talked about, it looks like in this 15 meeting we have a commitment in May, an overview of 16 study progress such as we previously discussed. 17 I think we should probably talk about that 18 some more in the April meeting to see if we have 19 any other thoughts about how to best take advantage 20 of that. 21 MR. BREWTON: I think there were a couple of 22 things mentioned in the course of the meeting today 23 that, you know, to be on the April agenda. 24 I don't know who made notes. We'll have to 25 wait for the transcript. 164 1 2 MR. SCHALLER: Ballast water was one 3 MS. VAUGHN: Chuck Watson made a 4 presentation. 5 MR. BREWTON: I guess Bill was able to get 6 a meeting together. He's hosting committee chairs. 7 There would be a report regarding the scope of the 8 list of issues and studies. 9 I wanted to note regarding that issue, I spoke 10 with Bo Ellis during the break about trying to 11 improve the process, or have a little more formal 12 process about all these issues and questions that 13 are raised here by the biologists and other folks, 14 getting that plugged back into more the 15 mathematical folks who are constructing the model, 16 or ensure they have a complete and continuing 17 understanding of the nature of the questions that 18 are being asked here that the model be used to try 19 to answer. Bo's going to work on that. 20 MR. DYSART: Is that an agenda item? 21 MR. BREWTON: No. I just want to take the 22 opportunity to say that. 23 MR. MOORE: Didn't Morgan indicate the ballast 24 water issue report? 25 MR. REES: Yes. 165 1 2 MR. DYSART: I noted that. 3 MR. BREWTON: It may be that this report that 4 Bill Bailey's going to facility, the information 5 may come out of that. It may be something very 6 good to get back to the MTRG modelers. 7 MR. DYSART: David. 8 MR. SCHALLER: It's not an item, a general 9 comment about the agenda today. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. 11 MR. SCHALLER: I say this with very, very deep 12 respect for you, sir, and the job you have to do, 13 but I'd sure like to see if we can't simplify the 14 agenda further. I don't know if that's possible. 15 I'll be happy to throw something at you for 16 consideration and share it with Mr. Brewton, who 17 is the chair of the Communication Committee, but 18 again, with all due respect, I think we can tighten 19 it and make a little simpler and more 20 user-friendly. 21 MR. DYSART: My comment is I wouldn't have 22 any problems with that. I am trying to adhere 23 to the guidance, which has headings, so forth 24 specified, from back in October. 25 MR. SCHALLER: It's not a criticism. 166 1 2 MR. BREWTON: We can talk about this later, I 3 think there's a continuing differing interpretation 4 about some of that guidance about the format of 5 division of some of things. I think if we 6 simplify, it's a great deal. We'll communicate 7 about that in the off-season. 8 MR. FARMER: I would like to say this is the 9 first meeting we've completed the entire agenda. 10 MR. DYSART: Are there further suggestions 11 about the agenda, or is that giving me enough to 12 work with? Okay. At 1:02 p.m. I declare, seeing 13 no cards up, the SEG meeting adjourned. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 167 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 4 G E O R G I A : 5 CHATHAM COUNTY: 6 I hereby certify that the foregoing 7 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 8 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 9 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 10 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 166 represent 11 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 12 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 13 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 14 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 15 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 16 anywise interested in the result of said case. 17 This, the 20th day of March, 2000. 18 19 20 ________________________ Kathleen Dore, Certified 21 Court Reporter, B-2041 22 23 24 25