1 2 3 4 5 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6 7 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 8 9 OCTOBER 3, 2003 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 INTRODUCTIONS --------------------------------- 3 8 OPENING REMARKS ------------------------------- 6 9 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS ------------- 8 10 COMMITTEE REPORTS ----------------------------- 43 11 NEW BUSINESS ---------------------------------- 50 12 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 74 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. I'm Ben Dysart, the SEG 3 facilitator. I welcome y'all to this meeting. It 4 looks like we have a good turnout here today. 5 We'll look forward to covering some material 6 that's of interest to all of you. The first thing 7 I'd like to do is mention that we have someone with 8 us today, Laura Knight, would you hold up your hand 9 and wave at us. 10 She must be related to Johnny Cash, the lady 11 in black over there. She is -- would like to film 12 portions of the meeting today. She was at the 13 Economics Working Group meeting, and I think Bill 14 Bailey introduced her there. 15 She is in the Geography Department at the 16 University of Georgia, and is working out of 17 Skidaway. She's working on her Phd, and the Harbor 18 Deepening Project relates to her dissertation, and 19 so she would like to have a little cooperation. 20 I think she -- if there's anything else you 21 need to know, you can either ask her or ask Bill 22 Bailey, but I wanted to make sure and see if the 23 group was comfortable with her recording or 24 filming? 25 Okay. So seeing no objection, Laura, we're 4 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 happy to have you. We'll hope this helps you 3 along. Some of us have been through the valley of 4 the shadow of trying to get through a dissertation. 5 We know that anything that will help is much 6 appreciated. So the first thing we want to do is 7 to introduce the members of the SEG, and those of 8 you who haven't been here forever know that to be a 9 member of the SEG, all you have to do is have an 10 interest in the Harbor Deepening Project, and by 11 walking in the door that makes you a member of the 12 SEG. So Laura, you're a member today. 13 MS. KNIGHT: Thank you. 14 MR. DYSART: So Bill, why don't we start at 15 that end, okay. Start at that end. Say who you 16 are, what flag you're flying under, who you're 17 representing here and come around the table. 18 MR. BROWNE: Tommy Browne, Savannah Pilots. 19 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo, 20 Hydrographic Surveys. 21 MR. PHILLIPS: John Phillips, Georgia DOT. 22 MR. GRIFFIN: David Griffin, Georgia DOT. 23 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, U.S. Fish 24 & Wildlife Service. 25 MR. PLACHY: Doug Plachy, Corps of Engineers, 5 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 Savannah District. 3 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers. 4 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 5 Authority. 6 MR. VALENTI: Ray Valenti. I'm a marine 7 scientist here as an interested citizen. 8 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, Lockwood Greene 9 Engineers. 10 MR. ELLIS: Bo Ellis, Applied Technology 11 Management. 12 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, GPA. 13 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, GPA. 14 MR. OSTERHOUDT: Jim Ousterhoudt, I'm an 15 environmental engineer with the Retec Group, 16 R-E-T-E-C. 17 MR. BECKMAN: Lee Beckman, Georgia Ports. 18 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Island. 19 MR. WRIGHT: Charlie Wright, citizen. 20 MR. SUTLIVE: Charlie Sutlive, Savannah 21 Maritime. 22 MR. PARSONS: Keith Parsons, Georgia 23 Department of Natural Resources. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia Sierra. 25 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, The Georgia 6 1 OPENING REMARKS 2 Conservancy. 3 MR. KYLER: David Kyler, Center for a 4 Sustainable Coast. 5 MS. KNIGHT: Laura Knight, Phd student at UGA. 6 MR. MARTIN: Ramon Martin, Georgia DNR 7 MR. SCHUBERTH: Chris Schuberth, Chatham 8 Environmental Forum. 9 MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of Savannah, 10 also the Savannah Harbor Committee. 11 MR. DYSART: Those of who haven't been here a 12 number of times before, now it's apparent to you 13 this is very diverse group, representing various 14 parts of the governmental sector, of civil society, 15 interested members of the public, all kinds of 16 folks. 17 That has been the intent from the start, to 18 have a diverse group of interested parties 19 discussing the issues that are of importance in the 20 social and environmental area relating to this 21 project, to define these issues, to provide input 22 on the scope of work that's needed to illuminate 23 these issues, and then to take a look at the 24 results that come from the various studies that are 25 done, and determine how well that does the job of 7 1 OPENING REMARKS 2 laying out things that need to be mitigated, and 3 how they can be mitigated. So Chris. 4 MR. SCHUBERTH: Can the gentleman from Retec 5 identify what Retec is. It's an acronym, I assume? 6 MR. OSTERHOUDT: Yeah. The -- originally it 7 was Remediation Technology. We're a national, 8 midsize national environmental consulting firm. 9 We have a local office here. We've been 10 involved in the Trustee Gardens clean-up. Besides 11 my business affiliation, I'm here as an interested 12 citizen. 13 MR. DYSART: Both capacities we welcome. Any 14 other questions or clarifications? That was, I 15 think, a very appropriate question, Chris. Thank 16 you. Okay. 17 Next item, how about take a look at the agenda 18 that you have in front of you, the draft of the 19 proposed agenda, based on input from members of 20 this body. 21 Is there anything you would like, at this 22 time, to add to it or delete from it or change 23 around? Seeing no hands up, we will consider this 24 to be accepted to operate under. Of course, y'all 25 have the authority to change anything you want to 8 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 with madam court reporter's permission, of course. 3 We need to indicate you have brought a lot of 4 value and sunshine to our group. You also have had 5 an opportunity to look at the transcript from the 6 last SEG meeting, to the extent that you wanted to 7 examine it. 8 Anything that needs to be put on the record to 9 clarify anything that might not have been clear in 10 the transcript. Seeing no comments, we will 11 consider then that the group decides that is an 12 accurate record of our August 2003 meeting. Okay. 13 Cruising on down to old business, how about 14 Larry, do you have something you would like to 15 share with us about the review of the General 16 Reevaluation Study. 17 MR. KEEGAN: Anybody have any questions about 18 the posted report -- no -- I've always been tempted 19 to do that. 20 MR. DYSART: I think we'd like to hear a 21 little more. 22 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah. That's my intention, just 23 a little levity. Really not a lot of substance to 24 report from September. 25 Interagency coordination, lead and cooperating 9 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 agency coordination, there were no meetings held in 3 September. We're anticipating a lead and 4 cooperating agency meeting in October 24th at the 5 district. That's still firming up. 6 Under plan formulation, the contract is now in 7 place and David Miller & Associates is gathering 8 information and data that will enable the screening 9 of some of the potential alternative plans that we 10 have identified so far, and they include not just 11 the depth alternatives discussed in the feasibility 12 study, but some alternative locations as well. 13 On the scientific analysis, the hydrodynamic 14 and salinity model and the dissolved oxygen model 15 calibration report is in its final stages of 16 preparation. 17 We expect to have that to the federal agencies 18 for their review starting on the 4th of November. 19 And that should be the final piece to the 20 preparation of those two models, once we work 21 through the review and see what issues, if any, we 22 have. 23 Similarly, the marsh secession model, we're 24 still waiting on the advanced neural network that 25 USGS is developing with advanced data mining. They 10 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 thought it was going to be done in mid September, 3 but the volume of additional data that they can 4 incorporate, during the drought recovery, has 5 pushed that out until later this month, around the 6 middle of the month. 7 We still have work in that area to do. Had a 8 request or we actually had a suggestion from one of 9 the state agencies, I believe it was Georgia DNR, 10 Bill, is that right, about collecting fall data, 11 and we had Fish & Wildlife Service suggest we go 12 out and collect another round of vegetation data 13 this fall, as we recovered from drought. 14 So that's being approved and Dr. Kitchens is 15 making his preparations to make that data gathering 16 here later this month. To finish up the marsh 17 secession model suite of tools, we have the ANN, 18 which is the part that is going to allow us to 19 bridge in the prediction out of the hydrodynamic 20 and salinity model conditions in the river into a 21 place in the marsh. 22 That has to be finished and go through an 23 independent technical review. We're expanding the 24 boundaries, the coverage boundaries of the GIS that 25 John Bossart showed us last meeting or the meeting 11 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 before, just to make sure we cover all the areas. 3 We still have to work through validity of the 4 whole collection of tools to see how well they 5 work. And part of that is going to be completion 6 of the GIS based portion for predictions by ATM. 7 And that will be used, probably in comparison, 8 with the structured equation model -- did I get 9 that right -- structured equation model that 10 Dr. Kitchens is doing, and will probably be used 11 for some validation. 12 I'm not sure quite how long that work will 13 take, probably be late this year before we have 14 that set of tools finished. 15 Engineering and analysis, we're revising the 16 sediment analysis plan to resubmit it to the 17 district for agency review. We expect that to 18 finish later this month. 19 Cultural resources, the initial exploration is 20 done. That completed actually a week or so ago, 21 and I think really notable that there were no 22 accidents. No one was injured in what could have 23 been a very dangerous -- was a very dangerous area. 24 We owe a vote of thanks to the Coast Guard 25 Marine Safety Office and the Pilots for helping us 12 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 with that. We don't the results of what they found 3 in that exploration yet. The report's in 4 preparation. I think we expect that probably in 5 about January. 6 And then the schedule included the latest 7 version. It is essentially unchanged from what I 8 had last time. Any questions? Doug. 9 MR. PLACHY: Yeah. Back on plan formulation 10 just to make a clarification. David Miller & 11 Associates are looking at alternative sites, not 12 plans, and they're not looking at anything in 13 regards to depth. 14 What they're doing is gathering data on the 15 potential to have a terminal at a different 16 location other than Garden City inside this harbor. 17 So I just want to make sure we clarify that. 18 MR. DYSART: Any other questions or comments, 19 Will? 20 MR. BERSON: Maybe I should have brought this 21 up as an agenda item. I know what I've read in the 22 newspaper about the court case over in Jasper. 23 I was just wondering if anybody was prepared 24 to discuss it, or give their point of view; where 25 does it stand? What's the likely -- I mean, is 13 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 there going to be an appeal to the current 3 situation? Does anybody know? I don't mean to 4 catch anybody flat-footed. I'm not a party to 5 these actions so I -- 6 MS. MOORER: I think, Will, I'll speak to 7 that, I guess is that what you've read in the paper 8 is essentially what we know, and that's pretty much 9 it. We don't know what if any follow-up action 10 will be taken from that. 11 MR. PARSONS: What's the status of that 12 scenario? 13 MR. BERSON: Why do you look at me? 14 MR. PARSONS: You brought it up. 15 MR. BERSON: I'm not even a party. 16 MS. JENNINGS: I can answer that again, going 17 back to what Hope said. What I read in the 18 newspaper, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled 19 for the State of Georgia, and said you can't 20 condemn this land for what is, essentially, a 21 private purpose. However, from private 22 conversations, I have heard from Jasper County 23 officials that they have every intention of 24 proceeding with the idea, as I'm told again not 25 privately, it was kind of like thank you for 14 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 letting us lose because now we know how to win. 3 MR. BERSON: That is what Mr. Moss said in the 4 newspaper basically? 5 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah, yeah. Actually, and 6 since you brought that up, I am a little confused 7 about how alternative site analysis is done. 8 Do you understand what I'm asking? I don't 9 really know how you put something like that in the 10 analysis, or when you say alternative sites, you 11 were clear to make that point. 12 You're talking about alternative sites for 13 the savannah Harbor Deepening Expansion, the 14 Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. 15 MR. PLACHY: This particular exercise has to 16 do with alternative terminal locations within the 17 Savannah Harbor. There's also work in the scope to 18 look at a regional port analysis, which has to do 19 where would one do additional capacity work at a 20 specific port, so they may say well, it's best to 21 invest all your money in this port, because 22 whatever the reasons are that comes out of that 23 analysis we don't know that yet. 24 What this specific exercise is for is to look 25 at different locations of where a terminal could 15 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 be, and one, of course, is the Tier I location 3 which was the Garden City terminal. We have Ocean 4 Terminal. 5 There's various other ones that are -- all the 6 other alternatives are where there isn't currently 7 a terminal. It would be like a green site, and 8 you would have to develop one. 9 Off the top of my head, I can't remember all 10 the locations. I think there's quite a few. I 11 think there's six -- six or seven. So the exercise 12 they have to go through is to try to pull together 13 data that could be used, in order to screen out 14 some of them before we go to the next step of the 15 analysis. 16 MR. DYSART: You want more on that or does 17 that satisfy you, or would you like to add it as 18 an agenda? 19 MR. BERSON: I don't really know what to ask 20 for at the moment. I guess I would ask, would the 21 Jasper site, the subject of litigation, also be 22 included in the site analysis? 23 MR. PLACHY: The specific port that's being 24 proposed by SSA is not, but a site on that side of 25 the river definitely is part of the analysis. 16 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 MR. BERSON: Okay. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Well, to continue that thought, 4 this is something -- and I understand what you're 5 saying, you're evaluating various alternatives for 6 a Savannah Harbor expansion -- 7 MR. PLACHY: Where the benefits could be 8 reaped, yes. 9 MS. JENNINGS: I've been curious since the 10 Jasper thing became part of the story, I never have 11 understood quite how you deal with that in the 12 economic analysis, when it's just one of those 13 little things hanging out there. 14 We say Henry Moss may try again. Henry Moss 15 might, you know, god may do something weird and 16 he'll quit. I doubt it, but his successor could 17 keep it going. 18 I just wonder how far -- for instance, you 19 know, there is also the idea I am pushing which 20 will go nowhere, if I never get the attention of 21 the Governors of Georgia and South Carolina's 22 attention to look at some by state cooperation for 23 port development. Just with stuff swirling around, 24 how do you draw a line in the economics analysis, 25 when you say this is the fairy tale land, this is 17 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 something we have to look at? 3 MR. PLACHY: To try to answer part of your 4 question, when we had the meeting with headquarters 5 in the ASA's office last August, the decision and 6 direction was that the SSA proposal, Jasper County 7 proposed port would be handled via what's called a 8 sensitivity analysis. 9 It wasn't possible at the time to say that 10 that definitely will be there in the future, nor 11 could you say it that it won't be there in the 12 future. 13 So the way they determined to handle this is 14 a sensitivity where when you do your economics, you 15 would look at what would change and what would be 16 the impact if that did come into being, and how 17 would it affect the economic analysis. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Right. I understand. I guess 19 it still is a question of how credible, you know, 20 likely, you know to what degree of chance or 21 likely credibility would any given scenario have to 22 be for -- the sensitivity analysis, I understand 23 that is, I guess, a logical thing. How credible 24 would any given course of events have to be before 25 you would go to the trouble and the time and 18 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 expense to do a sensitivity analysis on it? 3 MR. PLACHY: I don't know the answer to that, 4 I guess, right now. 5 MR. BAILEY: I think, we are going to do a 6 sensitivity analysis. 7 MR. PLACHY: Yeah, we are going to do it. 8 MR. BAILEY: Other things like signed 9 contracts, those are different levels of certainty. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Right. I understand. I just 11 honestly -- I have a certain degree of empathy in 12 not understanding how credible a scenario has to be 13 before you have to deal with it in some way. A 14 sensitivity analysis is the logical approach, the 15 only way I know to look at it. 16 MR. PLACHY: If it was absolutely certain, 17 that is under construction or nearing completion, 18 then it would be looked at in terms of without 19 project condition. 20 Because it's so uncertain, that's why we 21 couldn't do the sensitivity analysis. That 22 definitely will occur. We're definitely going to 23 do the sensitivity analysis because we want to make 24 sure we have an understanding of the impact of a 25 terminal over there on the overall expansion 19 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 benefits. 3 And the main reason is so as the document goes 4 forward, you know, whatever it has in it, at some 5 point as it is going up through the staffing 6 change, something may happen over there that makes 7 it more of a reality than a plan, but it's already 8 addressed in the document. 9 So, in other words, you wouldn't have to come 10 back and do a restudy, per se. You've addressed 11 the impacts on the proposed project, whatever it 12 would be, of having a terminal in Jasper County. 13 MS. JENNINGS: I guess you have to similar 14 judgment calls about any other potential project in 15 the Southeast, or do you? Where do you draw the 16 line in where you stop looking at sensitivity 17 analyzes? I mean, what if Charleston did 18 something, you know, what if something happened in 19 Baltimore? 20 MR. PLACHY: Well, that's picked up in the 21 economics. And Morgan, correct me if I get it 22 wrong on this because I'm not in congress by no 23 means, but my understanding is there's two things 24 that we're having -- we're doing in this scope. 25 One is what's called the multi port analysis, 20 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 and that's where they look at the effect of other 3 ports on the selected plan, when there is a plan 4 that's selected. 5 The other one is the regional port analysis, 6 which we're specifically doing. That normally is 7 not done, as I understand it, on Corps projects, 8 but we're doing it on this one, where we would 9 actually obtain data and look at it and make a 10 determination where one in the Southeast should 11 invest infrastructure dollars, federal dollars. 12 So, I mean, it's part of the regional. Of 13 course, they're going to be looking at all these 14 other ports in the Southeast, and what they're 15 doing, and what they're capacities in the future 16 could be, and environmental impacts of, potential 17 environmental impacts of more development in those 18 ports, so on and so forth. 19 MR. BAILEY: In a normal economic analysis of 20 projections of growth, I think they can do 21 sensitivity analysis on those projections. So if 22 you project a certain growth rate, you say well 23 what happens if it's a percent above or a percent 24 below, and we don't why it would be a percent 25 below, but just what happens to all those Tier 21 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 decisions. 3 MS. JENNINGS: But by nature of the 4 sensitivity analysis, you don't have to know the 5 details particularly, I understand. Okay. 6 MR. DYSART: Will. 7 MR. BERSON: I was going to suggest maybe the 8 Economics Working Group might look into it a little 9 bit more as well. I have some question, but 10 they're not very informed ones. I don't want to 11 take everybody's time up asking foolish questions. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Doug and I are prepared to 13 address that under the Economics Working Group 14 committee report. 15 MR. DYSART: Would y'all do that and let me 16 know what to call that agenda item. 17 MS. JENNINGS: It's just a committee report 18 when we do Economics Working Group. 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. Is that acceptable to the 20 group? You got a thing up, okay. John. 21 MR. PHILLIPS: I just wanted to go back to 22 Will's original question about the Jasper County 23 thing. September 15th is when the Supreme Court 24 ruled in favor of DOT. 25 And as I understand it, they had until the 22 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 30th, Jasper County had until the 30th of September 3 to file a motion for reconsideration. To the best 4 of my knowledge, they did not do that because the 5 judges voted five to nothing in our favor. 6 It wasn't like a close call so anyway, I just 7 wanted to follow-up and let you know. Legally, 8 that case seems to be behind us. According to the 9 newspapers, there may be more to come. 10 MR. BERSON: Thank you. I appreciate that. 11 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Okay. I would add 12 when I mentioned that there's a lot of agency 13 representation, civil society, it should be obvious 14 that there is a broad representation from the 15 business community that is associated with the 16 harbor, shipping, and so forth, in the area. 17 So next item, status of the Aquifer Committee 18 recommendations. Do you have anything to add on 19 the report on that, Doug? 20 MR. PLACHY: As I mentioned last time, we're 21 taking essentially the plan that was laid out and 22 approved by the district engineer, and getting into 23 the very specifics, in terms of how many borings 24 would be taken, the exact location of those 25 borings, and what type of laboratory work would be 23 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 done on those borings, et cetera, the type of 3 sensors to be put in, very specific details. 4 And that scope is currently being staffed. I 5 had hoped it had been assigned out last week, but 6 it didn't happen. So any day now, I will have an 7 approval from the Colonel on that scope, and then 8 that, of course, goes onto the port authority, at 9 that point, basically telling them in follow-up to 10 the other piece, okay, that was the plan and here's 11 the specifics of what needs to be done. 12 MR. DYSART: Chris, do you have anything to 13 add -- 14 MR. SCHUBERTH: Huh-uh. 15 MR. DYSART: -- thoughts, questions? 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: Well, just as a comment on 17 this -- on this little brochure that was waiting 18 for all of us, Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, 19 nice two pages devoted to the issues of the 20 Floridan Aquifer, and it's appreciated that the 21 concern that has been expressed regarding the 22 status of the aquifer is given fairly substantive 23 play in this. 24 My question is, not a critical one, who 25 basically wrote this, produced the cross-section 24 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 and all of that -- it's been edited? 3 The words, I'm sure, have been picked over to 4 make sure the definitions are all correct. This is 5 just -- just curious if any one person or team or a 6 public relations office put this together? Very 7 interesting cross-section, it reveals a lot. It's 8 nicely stylized. It's modern I guess. 9 MR. DYSART: Doug. 10 MR. PLACHY: Now is as good a time as any to 11 talk about the publication, I guess. It's part of 12 what we've been trying to do since we did the 13 original scoping meeting in February of 2002, I 14 believe, is to keep the public informed, and keep 15 other entities informed, in regards to what is 16 happening with the EIS, draft EIS. 17 And different -- I've seen different examples 18 of how different agencies have done such a thing, 19 and we chose to follow an example where they have 20 actually put together, essentially, what you see in 21 front of you, which is merely, basically, a 22 magazine of information that would be distributed 23 to the general public per se, and also to any 24 groups, et cetera, that would want specific number 25 of copies. 25 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 The development of the actual articles that 3 went into it were done by the technical area on 4 which the article is about, like the aquifer was 5 worked on and the text, et cetera, by Card Smith. 6 And I believe that specific graphic, I could 7 be wrong, but I believe it came out of USGS 8 Georgia. 9 MR. SCHUBERTH: Right, right. 10 MR. PLACHY: And I think in order to make it 11 work in this particular publication, I believe they 12 redid some of the titles, because you couldn't 13 really read them on the other one. 14 When you blew it up to the scale, and then 15 like Judy Wood, who is our archeologist, worked on 16 the one for the Georgia article, et cetera. And 17 it's going to be interesting to find out what kind 18 of feedback we get from doing this type of 19 informational brochure, magazine, from the public, 20 because it will give me an idea of the next time we 21 wanted to make sure we get some information out the 22 format to do that. 23 It may be like this. It may be completely 24 different. It's hard to tell. It's just basically 25 my first cut at trying to get information out on 26 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 the project. 3 We tried to make sure that it was -- that it 4 didn't put any particular spin on the project one 5 way or the other, but just merely stated here's 6 what's happening with the project. And there were 7 so many studies underway, and so many areas being 8 looked at, that's what led to the development of 9 that center poster piece, because all around the 10 outside of it is all the different things that is 11 being looked at as part of the EIS. 12 And again, the thought was if it was merely 13 just a list on a page, people may not look, but if 14 it was produced in a different manner, maybe the 15 general public would take a look at this, and read 16 it, and give us some feedback. 17 Again, the intention is to generate some 18 interest in the public, in terms what is going on 19 so that we can get more public involvement and 20 feedback on the project. 21 There's also another document that was 22 produced as part of our district newsletter that's 23 a bimonthly newsletter, and I'm having some 24 additional copies of that made up. I refer to it 25 as the insert, and I think some of those copies 27 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 have floated out a little bit outside of the 3 district. 4 And it's -- it was done by a completely 5 different public affairs specialist in the 6 district, and it doesn't go into the depth that 7 this publication goes into. But again, it has 8 interesting information in it on the project. So 9 I'm going to have some -- like I said, I'm having 10 some reprints made of that. 11 By the next SEG, I'll have them to pass out 12 too. It's the one that's a little bit smaller. 13 Chris, I think you've seen it -- 14 MR. SCHUBERTH: Right. 15 MR. PLACHY: -- at some meeting, I can't 16 remember what it was, they had a few copies of it. 17 MR. SCHUBERTH: Political one down at the 18 Continuing Ed Center, I think, to recognized the 19 various legislators who have contributed to water 20 studies in the area. 21 MR. PLACHY: Yeah. 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: I'd like to say, this is the 23 58 month that we've met, and I'm not sure how many 24 words are in transcripts, it must be a number 25 that's beyond a trillion, that's probably a 28 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 gazillion words, and taking -- that's a new word 3 for our transcriber here -- gazillion, I have to 4 say that the Floridan Aquifer section, which is the 5 only part that I can speak to looks very good. 6 And I think whoever wrote this or whatever 7 team put this together did really a wonderful job 8 in trying to take an incredibly complex topic and 9 bring it down to handful words out of this 10 gazillion words that are uttered. 11 The fact that the cross-section, is a 12 cross-section may escape a lot of people. It's 13 very difficult for people to realize that this is a 14 down-cut view of 2,500 feet below the surface. 15 They really don't very often relate that, but 16 it's a wonderful, wonderful summation of the issue 17 that deals with the aquifer, and I do want to enter 18 into the minutes a commendation to those folks in 19 putting these two pages together. They are to be 20 commended. 21 MR. PLACHY: Thank you, Chris. 22 MR. DYSART: Will. 23 MR. BERSON: I just wanted to echo what Chris 24 said. It looks like it's a lot of work, and at 25 first blush it looks like a great product. Can we 29 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 help you distribute it? 3 MR. PLACHY: Yes, I have -- I can get you 4 copies, if you have X number of copies you would 5 like to have, I can get those to you, yes. 6 MR. BERSON: Sorry we missed the Coast Fest. 7 There were 8,000 people there, literally. I could 8 have gotten rid of lots. 9 MR. DYSART: Is this by any chance on the web? 10 MR. PLACHY: It hasn't been put into a PDF 11 format yet to put on. We're talking about that 12 now, the best way to put it on, because of the 13 extent of the graphics in there, an actual PDF 14 would be huge and take a long time to load. 15 So we're talking about maybe transforming it 16 into more of a web page format, rather than to just 17 put it up as a PDF file. No, it's not yet, but we 18 intend to get it out there. 19 MR. DYSART: It seems like this has been very 20 responsive to some interested parties, and is 21 elevating the level of understanding of a very 22 important issue. 23 I appreciate what you have done. I appreciate 24 the views that have been given on this. I'm sure 25 this helps move things forward. Any other comments 30 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 on this matter? Okay. Next item, anything on the 3 regular topic of peer review, anybody got anything 4 to say on that? Chris. 5 MR. SCHUBERTH: I just consulted with my 6 colleague to my left, and I just wonder in light of 7 the progress that has been made regarding the 8 aquifer, we have this bulleted item status of the 9 June 4th, '02 Aquifer Committee recommendations 10 continuation requested by myself to be reported by 11 Doug, whether there's a need for that to continue 12 to be posted on the agenda. 13 My recommendation, and -- would be as the 14 chair of this committee -- would be to withdraw 15 that formal announcement, with the understanding 16 that there would be, in the course of reporting as 17 Larry has sort of done a review of the general 18 evaluation, that that would be simply be an item 19 that would be reported on in terms of progress. 20 Doug, for example, mentioned just a few 21 moments ago that he would have thought this would 22 have gone further down the road, that there would 23 be some action taken, but has been delayed. 24 Things like that, if there are delays or 25 actions being taken, simply have that as part of 31 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 the report, rather than the specific Aquifer 3 Committee recommendations. We've gone beyond that 4 point. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. What is the 6 will of the group on that? Does that sound 7 reasonable to the group? Seeing lots of heads 8 nodding, we'll declare that an SEG consensus has 9 been reached. Doug and Larry and other affected 10 parties will make sure they include this sort of 11 material in the future when it is relevant. Thank 12 you. How about peer review item, anything, any 13 discussion on that, anything that needs to be said? 14 Will. 15 MR. BERSON: I'm not sure how widely you 16 disseminated the OMB announcement that you sent us 17 in September, but Doug did share with us the latest 18 administration discussion of peer review. 19 And I was just interested as to its current 20 status. At the end of the bulletin, they're asking 21 for comments. That was in September. I don't know 22 when this is actually going to be promulgated. I 23 guess the second question is, have y'all examined 24 the review that you have scheduled for the various 25 studies, and found that it's consistent or 32 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 inconsistent, what the current thinking is with the 3 Corps? 4 MR. PLACHY: As far as the OMB piece, I'm not 5 aware if they have taken that any farther, at least 6 I haven't seen anything come down. 7 And I don't know if anybody's noticed some of 8 the information that's been floating out there 9 about the Corps' reorganization or what they refer 10 to as 2012, and regional business centers, and all 11 these things, but they're essentially going to set 12 up centers of expertise in different areas of the 13 civil program, be it inland navigation, or flood 14 control, beach renourishment, et cetera. 15 And it's going to be the responsibility of 16 that regional business center to put together the 17 methodology upon which they're going to do and have 18 reviews done on those types of projects. 19 Having said all that, the answer to your 20 second question, we've been paying attention to 21 that and looking at what we've put forward. And so 22 far, ours is a lot in depth and a lot more 23 cross-functional, as far as reviews, than anything 24 that's come down yet, because of the fact we're 25 having reviews done by other agencies, entities 33 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 outside of government, et cetera. 3 So far we're okay, in the sense we're doing 4 more than what they have ever come up with. My 5 belief is, by the time we get to a draft document, 6 that would have to be as a completed document all 7 pulled together, all go through a review. 8 By then they should have some specific 9 guidance out, in regards to how to go about a 10 review on the document. That is kind of an unknown 11 at this point, because we just don't what the 12 guidance is going to be at that point. 13 MR. BERSON: This is really seriously a 14 question; by the time you've gotten to the draft 15 stage, you will already have employed a number of 16 things that would normally be reviewable, before we 17 get there. So I'm kind of asking, are we tacking 18 review onto the end, when we ought to be front 19 loading a little bit more? 20 MR. PLACHY: I think as you're in that one 21 committee, you saw the grid on the different 22 reviews that are being done on the pieces. Again, 23 that is more than what has come down yet, as far as 24 guidance on the reviews. 25 So we're going the continue to do the reviews 34 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 on the significant pieces as we produce them. 3 So those will already be reviewed, and comments, 4 and whatever cranked into particular be it a 5 document, or studies, or whatever. 6 You know, for example on the model effort, 7 that review is ongoing, and that will all be done, 8 prior to even using the model for any impact 9 assessment. 10 So those will still continue to go on. It's 11 the one at the very end, when you pull all the 12 pieces together where you do another ITR, which is 13 really the only one that's normally done by most 14 districts. 15 They don't do them like you go as we are on 16 this. And I'm kind of leaving that kind of loose 17 right now, because I want to see what's going to 18 come down, because it is so far away from where we 19 are today, I believe we will have some specific 20 guidance by the time we get to that point. 21 MR. BERSON: I'm pretty sure that everybody in 22 this room knows that technical review has been one 23 of the things that I bring up incessantly. 24 One of the comments in this OMB guidance, I 25 guess draft is the best way to put it, is the 35 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 comments of the reviewers should be known and made 3 public. I just wanted to make sure y'all were 4 planning on doing that, so that the SEG -- I've 5 specifically taken issue with the level of 6 independence that y'all are using, but I think it's 7 really important, especially in those 8 circumstances, that we see what the comments 9 specifically were, and what your responses, you 10 know, are that will help. I think that will move 11 us forward through sort of a standing disagreement 12 we've had over technical review. 13 MR. PLACHY: Yeah. The comment, the response, 14 the resolution to each comment are all being 15 captured and are going to be bundled by the 16 particular item upon which it was reviewed. 17 I guess I'm not quite sure yet as whether all 18 of those would be put with each item or if the 19 actual review documentation would all go into an 20 appendice all by itself. 21 I'm not quite sure how it will be 22 disseminated, but it will be, because that's how 23 we've set it up, so people can see the comments 24 that were made and how they were resolved. 25 MR. DYSART: David. 36 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 MR. KYLER: Yeah. Also referring to the OMB 3 piece that Will was commenting on, starting at page 4 seven on into page eight, they have items for which 5 they're seeking additional comment, and I would 6 think it would be appropriate for anybody, who is 7 involved with the SEG, making comment to share 8 those with the other members of the SEG. 9 I'm just asking if agencies are going to be 10 making comments, and responding to the OMB request 11 for comments, that those be shared. 12 MR. DYSART: David, would you just for the 13 record state the title and the date on the document 14 you're referring to. 15 MR. KYLER: There's a press release dated 16 August 29th, '03, Office of President, OMB. OMB 17 proposed draft peer review standards for regulatory 18 science, and then there's the draft behind it. 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. Chris. 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: I'll follow-up a little bit 21 from what Will had said a few moments ago. There's 22 been a lot of discussion about peer review and 23 there's been some very strong comments raised at 24 the Operating Guidelines Committee and elsewhere. 25 And one of the promises that I have made was I 37 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 was going to go into my network of professional 3 associates and find people who are qualified to 4 review, and I'm not sure where this falls. 5 I have some difficulty, I have to be very 6 honest with you, I had some difficulty. I did get 7 four experts in aquifer, California, Arizona, Ohio, 8 and Syracuse, New York, and I have the information, 9 so I'm not sure where this fits. 10 And the other that I -- for my own personal 11 experience went to Rutgers University, that has a 12 major research facility on coastal processes and 13 open sand, and beaches, and have referenced them. 14 I have it on a piece of paper. 15 So I'm not sure where this fits, other than 16 the fact that I have said that I would try to find 17 some, I have to be careful in the choice of words, 18 truly independent, not encumbered in any way, 19 shape, or form to this process, in all due respect 20 to all the researchers, and investigators, who have 21 been part of this process. 22 This is, from my viewpoint, meant to be 23 independent for someone else to say in California, 24 yeah, you guys are really doing a great job. I'd 25 do it exactly the way you're doing it. Go for it. 38 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 That's all. That's all. 3 So my question then is, would Doug be 4 interested in getting this, or should it be entered 5 into the records or -- 6 MR. PLACHY: Well, I would say both. I mean, 7 I see no reason not to get it in the information on 8 the record, but I definitely want it because that 9 was one of my requests, I think, when we had one of 10 the committee meetings. 11 You know, if you have got some ideas in 12 regards to some technical areas, you know, I'd be 13 more than willing to see how we could tap those 14 reviewers. The hardest part is to get a contract 15 with some of these entities to do review work. 16 And again, I think that's one of the things 17 that's trying to be dealt with in the OMB piece 18 is, well by contracting with them, are you already, 19 you know -- 20 MR. BERSON: Prejudicing them. 21 MR. PLACHY: Right. And so maybe again in a 22 few years maybe that will all be sorted out. At 23 this point, what we would do is contact folks like 24 this, see how we could put some kind of a contract 25 in place for them to do review. And thank you, 39 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 Chris. 3 MR. DYSART: So the record will show that 4 Chris delivered a piece of paper to Doug, and thank 5 you. Will. 6 MR. BERSON: Looking ahead on the topic of 7 peer review, I accept what you said about the 8 review of the draft environmental impact statements 9 being the main show. 10 In lots of instances where you have 11 stakeholder groups, and I know our relationship to 12 the Corps is actually through GPA, I would make the 13 argument that the peer review discussion could go a 14 lot easier if the Corps worked collectively with 15 the SEG in helping to select their reviewers. 16 We could eliminate the discussion of 17 commenting on your list of reviewers, after the 18 fact, we would all sort of do it in a collective 19 fashion. Stakeholders group are often involved in 20 picking reviewers of studies, and I'd like to 21 suggest that as something to think about for the 22 future, since apparently we have time to discuss 23 it, prior to us having to make a decision about 24 those reviewers. 25 MR. DYSART: Any other comments or topics 40 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 people want to bring up, related to the broad topic 3 of peer review? I would say that the item that 4 Chris mentioned about what choice of adjectives, 5 whether it's sufficiently independent, suitably 6 independent, independent enough and so forth, it's 7 obviously a lot judgment calls here. 8 This is, obviously, a gray area. When I was 9 involved in reviewing something for the National 10 Science Foundation one time, their view was anybody 11 who ever had an NSF contract couldn't do that, so 12 therefore you went out and got people who, 13 obviously, in a way knew less about the NSF, but 14 so there's trade-offs. I appreciate the good 15 discussion we've had here. Doug. 16 MR. PLACHY: I do have one question. Larry, I 17 think I may have sent that OMB thing to you, and I 18 think you posted it on the harbor site. 19 MR. KEEGAN: I did. 20 MR. PLACHY: So it's out there. I don't know 21 what title you may have put it under, but the file 22 name that I have, it's the document number from 23 OMB which is 2003-34, and that's the release that 24 the document is under, the number that it's under 25 from OMB, and the date of the document is August 41 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 29th, 2003. 3 MR. KEEGAN: I don't recall the link to it off 4 the top of my head, but if I have a chance today 5 and certainly tomorrow, I'll go highlight it on the 6 index page, just so it's easier if you want to go 7 find it, you know. 8 Check late today, and if it's not there today 9 it will be there tomorrow. I'll put a link up 10 right on the home page so you can find it easily. 11 MR. DYSART: I do know about a month ago, I 12 think something came out. I was aware of that. I 13 did download it. It's a PDF file, isn't it, Doug? 14 MR. PLACHY: Uh-huh. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. So that will be available. 16 Everybody knows about it. Bob. 17 MR. SCANLON: Yeah. I was just -- it is a 18 clear link. It's listed as peer review. It is on 19 the home page, and there is a peer review link that 20 takes you right to this. I downloaded it 21 yesterday, it's already there. So you're good for 22 your word, Larry, very efficient. 23 MR. KEEGAN: Told you it would be there today, 24 didn't I? 25 MR. DYSART: It's obviously convenient enough 42 1 GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY STATUS 2 that someone as technology challenged as I am could 3 actually get it downloaded and open it. 4 MR. SCANLON: I also wanted to point out, it 5 is a document that's out for public comment. The 6 public comment period closes on October 28th, so 7 it's fairly short. If you want to comment on it, 8 you need to do it quickly. 9 MR. DYSART: Chris. 10 MR. SCHUBERTH: Since this is a document that 11 I think is going to become important in future 12 discussions, is it possible that multiple hard 13 copies could be made available at the next SEG 14 meeting, or should all of us go to the link and 15 print off our own just -- or is this a document 16 that's not going to be discussed really much 17 further? 18 MS. MOORER: We can bring 15 copies, 20 copies 19 to the next SEG meeting, just in case anybody can't 20 access it the other way, we'll make sure they're 21 available. 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: Computers do strange things 23 every once in a while, especially mine. 24 MR. DYSART: Laura. 25 MS. KNIGHT: I just wanted to add a humorous 43 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 comment on independence. As a researcher, I'm 3 always struggling with trying to be independent and 4 unbiased in my presentation of data, so much so 5 that I couldn't accept funding from anybody for my 6 research. 7 Everybody I'm studying is involved in the 8 project, and therefore I could not have any 9 independent standing, if I were funded by some 10 entity like the Corps or some other group. 11 That's a very lonely place to be and a very 12 expensive place to be, I will tell you that, but I 13 do feel like in the end it will be worth it. There 14 is a price to be paid for independence. I can 15 speak firsthand. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. That completes discussion 17 on that. I appreciate all the comments. Let's go 18 on to committee reports. Chris, do you have 19 anything from the Aquifer Committee? 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: No, there's nothing to report. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. Beach Erosion. Does 22 anybody -- I notice Bill Farmer, I don't believe is 23 here. Does anybody from the Beach Erosion 24 Committee have any update for us? Bo. 25 MR. ELLIS: Bill sent an e-mail out this 44 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 morning, and I read it right before I came to the 3 meeting. He said he wouldn't be able to attend the 4 meeting, and there was no activity to report from 5 the committee. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Fred. 7 MR. BEASON: Nothing new. We're still holding 8 for the studies. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. Economics Working Group. 10 Judy. 11 MS. JENNINGS: I'll do that, but can I go back 12 to Beach Erosion? 13 MR. DYSART: Sure. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Maybe Hope or somebody from GPA 15 could add more. I know that GPA recently 16 appropriated money for additional beach erosion 17 studies, and I'm not quite sure how that fits. 18 MS. MOORER: It's not -- it's not beach 19 erosion studies, essentially. It's having to do 20 with a Section 111 study of the Corps of Engineers, 21 and Lou can probably explain better the study, 22 being the head of the beach task force. 23 MR. OFF: Prior to the federal project for 24 the navigation channel, they're supposed to do 25 a Section 111, and for some reason they never did 45 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 one for the Tybee Island project, so it has been 3 requested for quite a while, and it's going to be 4 done -- started, I guess it's underway at this 5 point in time, and it's going to cost somewhere 6 close to $2,000,000 for a Section 111 and a GRR, 7 General Reevaluation Report, which is done prior to 8 a renourishment, which is due in 2007. 9 And those two reports have been combined. 10 It's expected to cost about $2,000,000. The local 11 sponsor, which is Tybee Island, and whoever else we 12 can drag in including GPA and state and county, is 13 probably going to have pay somewhere in the 14 neighborhood of 6 or $700,000. GPA was very kind 15 in forwarding us $375,000 for that. 16 MS. JENNINGS: The project at issue is beach 17 renourishment, that's what you needed the Section 18 111 for? 19 MR. OFF: That's correct. The main thing 20 Section 111 will do is see how much damage is being 21 done to the beach by erosion due to the channel 22 itself, regardless of what happens with the 23 deepening. It's where the channel is now. 24 If the -- they find that the channel is taking 25 50% or more of the litorial sand, which we know is 46 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 coming north to south, that is removing more than 3 50% of that sand, it will be a change in how much 4 the local sponsor will have to pay for future 5 renourishments. It could be decreased from 6 approximately 40% to 20%. 7 That's probably the main thrust of what 8 Section 111 is going to do. They're going to use 9 the ATM report, which is being done for GPA for 10 Stakeholders here, as a basis and starting point 11 for some of the work they're doing. 12 MS. MOORER: I knew you could speak to it much 13 better than I could. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Right. That does help me 15 understand. 16 MR. DYSART: Would you like about a five 17 minute break before we go to the Economics 18 Working Group. Why don't we take a break. Five 19 minutes. 20 Short Break) 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. Grab your coffee and head 22 back to your seat. We're going to begin again. 23 The first item, David Kyler had an announcement he 24 wanted to call to your attention. David. 25 MR. KYLER: On December 6th, we're having a 47 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 guest speaker down on St. Simons, the well-known 3 and respected geologist, Orrin Pilkey will be 4 speaking, and one of the reasons he's making a 5 tour is because he has a new book on barrier 6 islands. 7 He'll probably also be addressing some 8 regional Beach Erosion and nourishment issues. I 9 would just encourage anybody who is interested, 10 come on down, from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. near the 11 lighthouse on St. Simons. 12 MS. MOORER: Do you have extra flyers? 13 MR. KYLER: Flyers are on the table, the 14 yellow sheets. 15 MR. DYSART: The next item, I believe, will be 16 Judy Jennings. Talk to us about what the Economics 17 Working Group has been up to. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Ben, we haven't met, but I have 19 had some dialogue with Doug Plachy about the future 20 of SEG -- I'm sorry -- of Economics Working Group 21 meetings and how the Economics Working Group might 22 be useful as the economics analysis is updated. 23 Doug, if you'll help me, there's ongoing -- I guess 24 all I can do is a report, ongoing dialogue. 25 MR. PLACHY: There's certain places as 48 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 economics go that's a natural pulse check point, 3 per se, like the gathering of specific types of 4 port data, some of the things like the fleet 5 forecast, et cetera. 6 As products come available, the thinking we 7 have is that we would get that information out to 8 the Economics Working Group so they can see what it 9 is we're seeing, as we go through the process of 10 the economics. 11 The economics team per se hasn't been 12 assembled yet. We had planned to use one of the 13 Corps offices, the Institute for Water Resources, 14 Phil Thorpe. Some of you met him just a few years 15 ago. He came and talked to this body. 16 But he has now been deployed and may not be 17 available for a year or so, so we've had to rethink 18 and restrategy how we're going to go about doing 19 economics, so that's still underway. 20 As soon as that settles down, I'll have some 21 better specifics that will be interface points for 22 the Economics Working Group. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Thank you, Doug. When Doug and 24 I get to those points, and there's an opportunity 25 for meeting, meaningful interaction, I'll make sure 49 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 that I notify the Working Group members. 3 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Fisheries and 4 Aquatic Resources. Will. 5 MR. BERSON: Sloth, indolence, slack, the only 6 three words you can apply to the facilitator here, 7 I -- we haven't met, but in looking forward to 8 Doug's announced agency meeting on the 24th, I 9 think, I really wanted to ask what kind of 10 materials you expect to be sharing, only so that I 11 can sort of figure out when a good time to get 12 these folks together would be. 13 I know to a large extent the Fisheries folks 14 are waiting on the hydrodynamic and salinity 15 models. I don't know if there's anything being 16 presented in that meeting that would make a meeting 17 more ripe after it happens. 18 And I guess that's sort of an open question, 19 not excusing my slackness on you, mind you, I'm 20 just trying to figure out how to get out of it. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. How about MTRG? Bo. 22 MR. ELLIS: No activity. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. Does anybody from the 24 Operating Guidelines Committee have anything to 25 report back? Seeing no volunteers, how about 50 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 Ramon. Striped Bass. 3 MR. MARTIN: Right now I don't have anything 4 to report on. 5 MR. DYSART: New business. 6 MR. KYLER: Ben. 7 MR. DYSART: Yes. Will. 8 MR. BERSON: Maybe we should add dense to that 9 list. Did y'all answer my question or -- no. 10 Okay. You don't want to share what you're going to 11 discuss or -- 12 MR. PLACHY: You said something about a 13 meeting on the 24th? 14 MR. BERSON: I'm sorry. What I was asking is 15 you're planning on having a lead and cooperating 16 agency meeting later this month. I was just 17 wondering what's going to be presented at that 18 meeting, so I could decide whether or not it's 19 appropriate to have the committee that I'm 20 responsible for to meet and discuss what you are 21 going to reveal at that meeting? 22 MR. PLACHY: As far as the Fisheries 23 Committee? 24 MR. BERSON: Yes. 25 MR. PLACHY: That's why I looked over at Bill, 51 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 because he's doing the fisheries stuff. Where I 3 believe you are right now, Bill, is you guys are 4 pulling together the input criteria that would go 5 into running the model, and trying to get agreement 6 on some of the -- what's the other criteria, the 7 critical condition criteria, and you're trying to 8 get -- you're staffing that now with state and 9 federal agency to get feedback. 10 We don't have all the feedback yet on that, 11 but is that information available, or is it too 12 squishy at this point to say here's what we've got 13 so far, as far as fisheries? 14 MR. BAILEY: When we -- when we get some 15 agreement with the agencies, then we can share it. 16 Right now we've got drafts out for comments, those 17 things. 18 MR. BERSON: So you expect this meeting to be 19 getting comments back -- getting reaction back from 20 things you sent out already? 21 MR. BAILEY: No. The meeting on the 24th 22 really isn't to talk about fisheries stuff. 23 MR. PLACHY: No. It's more of the bigger 24 picture, how the different agencies are going to 25 interact. It's a preparatory meeting to a meeting 52 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 with the regional offices in November, but it's 3 essentially to make sure we have a good 4 understanding of how we're going to do the 5 interaction and coordination, because there's going 6 to be a lot of it going on this next calendar year, 7 because we're going to have a lot of data runs, and 8 we're going to feedback, decisions, et cetera, from 9 agencies. 10 So the meeting with the, I guess the staff 11 level, the people that we have at the working level 12 with these agencies, we're going to have that in 13 October, so that we're all on the same wavelength 14 when we go to brief the bosses in November, I 15 guess is how I would say that. 16 I don't think they're going to get into any 17 specifics on any of the particular items on the 18 24th. Okay. 19 MR. BERSON: I guess going forward, when you 20 move -- when calibration is finished and you start 21 expecting results, when we get together like this, 22 if you can give us a sense of the land, then I can 23 know when the most productive time would be to get 24 folks together, based on the sort of latest 25 breaking news. 53 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 And I understand why we're not invited to 3 those meetings, but you have kind of have to help 4 us a little, so I cannot be slack. Thank you. I 5 appreciate it. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. The next item, apparently 7 there was a desire to have a continuing item about 8 marsh die-offs; is there anything to report or do 9 you want that to continue? Is there a sense of 10 this group, do you want that to continue to be an 11 agenda item? 12 MR. SCHUBERTH: Can I ask a question -- when 13 was that suggested? 14 MR. DYSART: Several months ago -- 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: Several months. 16 MR. DYSART: -- I can't be more specific to 17 that. 18 MR. SCHUBERTH: You mean several meetings ago, 19 like about six months ago? 20 MR. DYSART: Perhaps. 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: Memory doesn't go beyond the 22 three month mark. After that I can't be held 23 accountable. 24 MR. DYSART: I think that there was a 25 presentation. There was a lot of interest in this. 54 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 There was discussion -- 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: Was anybody identified to be 4 the lead in this? 5 MR. DYSART: Will, do you have any better 6 recollection? 7 MR. BERSON: No, I would never claim that, but 8 I do think that CRD is doing lot of work of this. 9 I think the reason it became a continuing item is I 10 think the thought was we were going to see 11 something soon. 12 I think we'll all know when there are some 13 sort of authoritative pronouncements on marsh 14 die-off. I think you can remove it from the -- 15 that would be my suggestion, remove it from the 16 continuing list. 17 MR. DYSART: Without objection we'll consider 18 that a consensus to have been reached. Okay. Bill 19 Bailey -- excuse me. Laura 20 MS. KNIGHT: That's okay. Are we still in new 21 business? 22 MR. DYSART: Yes. 23 MS. KNIGHT: I had a question that came from 24 Susan Shipman, and maybe she's been made aware of 25 this, since she passed me this question, but she 55 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 was wondering what type of attention is paid to 3 what's happening to the Right Whales, and their 4 involvement. 5 I told her I hadn't had a clue, because I 6 hadn't attended any past meetings, and if there's 7 someplace I can direct her to find that dialogue 8 from SEG. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. How about Fish and 10 Wildlife Service have any knowledge about that or 11 the Corps? 12 MR. ROBINETTE: National Marine Fisheries. 13 MR. BAILEY: Right Whales are one of the 14 things we will look, intend to look at in the EIS. 15 MS. KNIGHT: Has there been previous dialogue? 16 MR. BAILEY: No. 17 MS. KNIGHT: No, so that is a new -- 18 MR. BAILEY: It's not a new issue, we've known 19 it, it just hasn't -- 20 MS. KNIGHT: Come to the meeting. 21 MR. BAILEY: -- it hasn't gotten to that point 22 in the process yet. 23 MS. KNIGHT: Who is involved with presenting 24 it as part of the Stakeholder's Evaluation Group 25 meeting here, is there a committee that is going to 56 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 be covering it specifically? 3 MR. BAILEY: There's no committee. National 4 Marine Fisheries Service, I think, is the agency 5 responsible for protecting that endangered species, 6 those endangered species. I think that's it. 7 MS. KNIGHT: Just curious, my study is looking 8 at shortnose sturgeon, specifically, and she was 9 wondering if I would be including Right Whales. 10 I hadn't planned on it. I didn't know if 11 anybody else was looking at that. 12 MR. DYSART: Will, perhaps that would be part 13 of Aquatic Resources. 14 MR. BERSON: Yeah, the slacker was thinking 15 that. 16 MR. DYSART: Larry. 17 MR. KEEGAN: I just can offer some background 18 about Right Whales, Stuart Stevens, when he was 19 still with Georgia DNR several years ago, forwarded 20 a letter to the Port Authority identifying a Right 21 Whale as a concern, and sort of entering it into 22 the record, if you will. 23 So that's been included with any -- all of the 24 public input we've gotten. That's gone into 25 actually what I think Bill is talking about. It's 57 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 been included, has been there now for several 3 years. 4 There's no specific committee or group of 5 people having singled that out to do anything with 6 it, but it is part of what we'll have to look at 7 and address. 8 MS. KNIGHT: Thank you. 9 MR. DYSART: Bill, how about the next item, 10 status of action responding to NEPA scoping 11 meeting. Give us an update on that. 12 MR. BAILEY: We wanted to give you a little 13 window into our normal process every so often. We 14 try to take a pause in our normal -- our 15 activities, and look back and see not only are we 16 doing these things, but are we doing the right 17 things, are we doing what we're supposed to be 18 doing. 19 So we did that. We did a round of that this 20 past month. And about a month ago, I guess I did 21 three parts of it. Two parts of we did with some 22 GPA folks and Corps folks, sat down and we looked 23 over the comments that were submitted from the 24 Corps' scoping meeting that was held back in 25 February of '02, and also response to comments that 58 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 was in the Tier I EIS. 3 So from the Corps' scoping meeting, I had 4 already gone through those at the time of the 5 meeting, and had kind of divided them up into ones 6 that raised new issues, and were those issues 7 already being looked at by something, and/or were 8 there new actions required, new studies required. 9 So we had already had that. So we went back 10 and looked through that list again to see if the 11 studies had been performed, if they're underway, or 12 if they're still scheduled out in the future, those 13 types of things. 14 And there were, in that group, there were 57 15 commenters that we went down through. For the 16 response to comments in the Tier I, there were, I 17 think, 129 actions that I had identified before and 18 at that -- when I had gone through that before, I'd 19 also broken them down into similar categories, if 20 there were actions already scheduled, or if there 21 were new actions required. 22 Again, we looked at where that -- where those 23 studies were being conducted, who was doing the 24 work. So we did that as a group. 25 And then after that we also -- I went through 59 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 the comments that GPA had put together from the 3 scoping meeting they had, back in July of 2000. 4 And there were 178 issues in that group. And I 5 went through a similar analysis of is work going on 6 to address that issue, or not. 7 So all three of those sets, there were a few 8 things that we identified, where I coordinated with 9 the technical staff and said, I know you're doing 10 something on this, I know you are doing work on 11 this, but does it answer this question. Make sure 12 that it answers this question. 13 I did that on a few, and other ones we 14 notified the technical elements of you may have to 15 do a study if -- if an interim studies determines 16 that there may be an effect, just kind of put them 17 on notice there may be something out there in the 18 future. Don't know yet. 19 I guess as an overall summary of all that, 20 there weren't anything -- there were no items that 21 had been forgotten. 22 The work is underway to address some of the 23 items, and the other items are still scheduled to 24 be looked at out in the future. So I just wanted 25 to let you know that's something we do every so 60 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 often, and since some of the issues were raised by 3 this group, we just wanted to get back with you on 4 it. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Questions, follow-up? 6 Judy. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, I know I didn't make this 8 comment at either of those scoping meetings, but I 9 have since raised the issue of impacts to air 10 quality. 11 I'm just curious where, in all that mix, does 12 that fit? I mean, I've raised it at SEG meetings, 13 but I honestly, when we started this, didn't know 14 it should be talked about, but now I feel strongly 15 that it is an issue for examination. 16 MR. BAILEY: I think when I talked to the 17 Economics Working Group about the quantification 18 impact, I think air quality -- I'm pretty sure air 19 quality was one of the ones that I had listed of 20 things we were looking at. 21 MS. JENNINGS: I guess I'm not -- what I'm 22 asking is, I mean for years, you know, how we 23 gather data from the river and try to determine 24 impacts on all these other kinds of species, I 25 don't know how you go about what is in the works 61 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 now; I mean, when you ask your people are you doing 3 something that will handle this, to answer this, 4 who out there is doing something that you could say 5 okay well, air issues, I know they're being 6 handled. 7 MR. BAILEY: Air, specifically what we're 8 going to look at first is fleet forecast and see 9 are there going to be more ships, would there be 10 more ships, as a result of an expansion or less. 11 I mean, if there's less, then that will be 12 pretty much the end of the analysis. If there's 13 more, then we have to look at well, what is the 14 effect of those increased numbers of vessels. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I'm not or maybe this 16 isn't the place to talk about that. I don't know. 17 I'm just thinking that is what I want to know, how 18 you intended to approach it, but I'm not sure that 19 sheer numbers alone would be any quantification of 20 what the impacts are, because some ships are older, 21 some are newer. Some burn cleaner than others. 22 So I know once you do a fleet forecast and 23 then you make the projections for Savannah, then 24 you might be able to say, these are the numbers of 25 calls by these kinds of boats -- ships, sorry. 62 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 So I'm just wondering, you don't intend to 3 literally try and quantify the impacts? 4 MR. BAILEY: Well, that was part of when I met 5 with your group was to ask for suggestions on how 6 to quantify. If you have suggestions, I mean, like 7 we said at the meeting, if you have suggestions, 8 please give them to me. We're still open for that. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. And well, I just, you 10 know, the people -- I'm sure there's tons and tons 11 of work going on that I don't know -- for all I 12 know it's happening. If it's not, I'll be glad to 13 get some thoughts down. 14 MR. BAILEY: Okay. 15 MR. DYSART: Laura. 16 MS. KNIGHT: Mine's more of a process 17 question. You were mentioning that you look at 18 studies, and if those initial studies say this has 19 to have a another study done and another study 20 done, where do your studies come from? How do you 21 select what studies will be looked at, which ones 22 will be included and which ones won't? 23 Are they all coming from the private sector 24 consultants, are they coming from academia, are 25 they doing them from a mix of academic and private 63 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 sectors? I'm just curious. 3 MR. BAILEY: When we identify a need for 4 information, then we'll go to a number of different 5 sources to get that information, whoever -- I mean 6 somebody who is qualified to get it. It may be a 7 university research group. It may be a private 8 consultant. It could be anyone. I mean, it's the 9 same scope of work. Who actually does it, as long 10 as they're qualified -- 11 MS. KNIGHT: How do you qualify them, how does 12 that come about whether somebody is qualified or 13 not? I mean, I'm asking I guess because of my own 14 personal reasons, I'm an independent researcher 15 representing, of course, a geography department and 16 a wealth of knowledge there. And many good 17 academia -- 18 MR. BAILEY: I guess probably reputation among 19 peers and among regulators among the agencies. 20 MS. KNIGHT: So if somebody has a study that 21 has new information, who should they contact, if 22 it's a study that they feel like is bringing to 23 light a new issue that hasn't been addressed in any 24 other study; is some open forum for that? 25 MR. BAILEY: This is pretty much an open 64 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 forum. 3 MS. KNIGHT: So the results of studies would 4 be introduced within SEG, outside studies for 5 example? 6 MR. PLACHY: Or directly to the agency. 7 MS. KNIGHT: Thank you. 8 MR. DYSART: I think we've had just general 9 comment -- Morgan. 10 MR. REES: One other comment, there is a 11 specific place on the website for people to add 12 whatever scientific studies they think are 13 relevant. That's been there for several, three 14 years, four years, a long time anyway. 15 MS. KNIGHT: I didn't see that. Thank you. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. Bill says he has something 17 else he wants to share with us. Bill. 18 MR. BAILEY: I had seen something on e-mail I 19 just wanted to share with the group. I made a few 20 copies, a notice of intent for proposed ballast 21 water discharge standard. 22 The Coast Guard issued a notice of intent to 23 prepare a program EIS for ballast water discharge 24 standards. So -- and there's a comment period on 25 this. I have some sheets here. I can give them to 65 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 you if you're interested in that. Thank you. 3 MR. DYSART: I was just going to say, from 4 time to time, people provide briefings, request the 5 opportunity to have some time on the agenda, going 6 through agencies, sponsors and so forth, otherwise. 7 So I think this body tends to be receptive to 8 people who have information they wish to share, let 9 somebody hear from them. Doug. 10 MR. PLACHY: On the front table, I had brought 11 some copies of some documents that we put together 12 in regards to public information on the CSS Georgia 13 field investigations. 14 And prior to this meeting, I had a discussion 15 with the staff as to whether or not we should give 16 this group an update on what transpired with the 17 field investigations, et cetera. 18 I kind of deferred that because I've really 19 not heard too much from the group, as far as 20 interest per se in the cultural resources side, but 21 if you guys would like it, at the next SEG, 22 depending upon Judy's schedule, we'd be more than 23 willing to do that, give an update on the cultural 24 work. 25 MR. DYSART: Comments on that? 66 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think it's a good idea, 3 Anything that enhances the understanding of the 4 channel is important. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Laura, then Judy. 6 MS. KNIGHT: That is an excellent lead into my 7 question of the SEG, in general. Part of my 8 research entails interviews with 30 SEG 9 stakeholders, from a variety of different 10 cross-sections of interests for this project. 11 I'm looking at not only physical, scientific 12 data, but I'm going to be overlaying that in a GIS 13 format with the cultural data associated with it. 14 When I performed 30 different interviews of 15 stakeholders willing to talk to me, I'll actually 16 be taking your comments and pinpointing them on the 17 map within the study area, such that they will be 18 cultural, geographical ties that will be overlaid 19 on top of the scientific data. 20 To my knowledge, this is the first model that 21 combines the two together directly from Stakeholder 22 Evaluation Group input. 23 So it's my hope, my vision, a chance to take 24 your input and directly put it on the map 25 literally, and have everything visually apparent 67 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 as to what cultural concerns go along with what 3 scientific concerns and what specific geographics. 4 So I would hope that at some point in time, 5 if I should approach one of you or all of you, as 6 the case may be, to do an interview with me, I 7 would appreciate your cooperation. It would be 8 immensely helpful, and I want a good cross-section 9 of representation. Thank you. 10 MR. DYSART: Judy. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Just my thought about the CSX 12 -- that's a railroad, anyway the CSS Georgia. 13 Doug, I haven't brought up that topic, because I 14 just assumed, and I could tell y'all were doing 15 something about it. 16 So since you have done something about it, I'd 17 love here feedback. It wasn't a topic I cared 18 to micromanage, I just figured somebody else was 19 doing that for you, but once you have those 20 results, I think it would be great to present. 21 MR. DYSART: Anything else in the way of new 22 business, anybody wants to bring up, follow-up on, 23 kick around. Morgan, you've been pretty quiet 24 today. 25 MR. REES: And I will continue to do so. 68 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. So we have had the Morgan 3 report today, economical in the use of his words. 4 How about the next meeting, what's the group's 5 pleasure on that? 6 MR. SCHUBERTH: December 2nd. 7 MR. DYSART: December 2nd, two months from now 8 has been suggested. Any reason to go any sooner or 9 any later, two months. Morgan. 10 MR. REES: I don't object to two months. We 11 did have some discussion -- I'm sorry I did say 12 something further, son of a gun. I don't want to 13 raise expectations for a meeting in two months, in 14 terms of the level of substance that will be 15 available. We've looked at the schedule. 16 There are lots of studies going on and lots of 17 things happening. We don't expect any really 18 significant kinds of output between now and then, 19 just so you know. I don't mind if you want to meet 20 in two months. I don't want to anybody to have any 21 expectations of any result by that time. 22 We certainly will give Larry's update report 23 and whatever is relevant to the progress of the 24 studies, but we don't expect a lot. 25 MR. DYSART: Morgan has sufficiently lowered 69 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 expectations so they can wow everybody. I might 3 say this has been -- several people have mentioned 4 to me that this has been an interesting meeting, in 5 that there have not been any big major light shows 6 and that sort of thing, but there has been a very 7 good, broad discussion on substantive matters of 8 importance to a lot of people around the table. 9 This has been, I think, a very productive 10 meeting. It's been different from some of the 11 models we've had in the past. 12 I appreciate that. Apparently, a number of 13 you have found this to be productive, collegial, 14 characterized broadly by productivity, respect and 15 civility, which is much and widely appreciated by 16 all of us. Chris. 17 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think that even though 18 expectations may not be particularly high, as 19 Morgan puts it, we still should get together even 20 if it's for about an hour to shake hands, get an 21 update, even if it's no update, and then go on our 22 merry way. 23 MR. DYSART: I sense a consensus for meeting 24 in two months. December 2nd. Laura. 25 MS. KNIGHT: Since expectations are lowered, 70 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 that might be a good time for me to present any 3 findings I have from my initial part of my data. 4 I don't know if y'all are interested, I should 5 be finished with the water quality part of my study 6 in the Savannah River that is not unique or 7 different from any water quality study that is 8 ongoing or has gone on before, but it does continue 9 the data from an existing study that is on file 10 from Mark Collins, from the year 2000. 11 I used the same sample points. And although 12 that was a drought year, and the data will differ 13 because of that because we've had a hurricane 14 almost, and various other factors, if anybody is 15 interested in seeing the data, I'll be happy to 16 present it at that time. 17 MR. DYSART: Why don't you provide me with the 18 proposed little title there, and we'll see what 19 kind of time we can give you. I'm really not 20 familiar with a whole lot of precedence where we 21 have rejected offers of people to come in and share 22 insights, and it's another way of saying, I think, 23 welcome. 24 MS. KNIGHT: I would, in turn, expect insights 25 coming from around the table. Some of the results 71 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 of what I have found, I don't pretend to say that I 3 can look at the data and say exactly what it means. 4 With all the expertise represented around the 5 room, I could imagine I could interpret it a lot 6 better, so it would be extremely helpful to me in 7 interpreting -- 8 MR. DYSART: So since you are truly 9 independent, we'll be interested in your insights. 10 I'll come to Bob in a minute, but Dodi, I'm going 11 to ask you to introduce yourself. You came in 12 after we introduced, so why don't you tell us who 13 you are and who you represent. Nice to see you. 14 MS. GAY: I appreciate that. I'm Dodi Gay. 15 I'm truly independent. I came to the first 16 Stakeholder's Evaluation meetings, when the group 17 first started years and years ago, when I was with 18 the Chamber of Commerce and the Manufacturers' 19 Council and Government Affairs. 20 My hat's off to you and compliments to the 21 group to see you continue to speak openly and share 22 information, because you all have the same mutual 23 interest with the long-term goal being we're all 24 working toward something very good with a win win 25 situation. 72 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 This is an incredible piece of information 3 here that looking back years ago, and after my 4 little sabbatical from this group, it's great to 5 see information like this, just to see the 6 conversation, open communication, ongoing 7 communication to make something better. 8 My company is called Enviro Assets. It is 9 consulting for large manufacturers. My interest 10 here is more a citizen, Tybee resident, Savannah 11 native. So those are my vested interests. 12 MR. DYSART: Let the record show that Dodi's 13 positive comments about the publication are 14 referring to the Savannah River -- Savannah Harbor 15 expansion Project that Doug discussed earlier. 16 Getting a lot of good, good feedback today, Doug. 17 I'm glad you came to hear all this. Bob. 18 MR. SCANLON: I would just like to ask Laura 19 to repeat -- could you cite that study you were 20 talking about, the water quality study in 2000 21 again. 22 MS. KNIGHT: I can give you the information 23 afterwards. 24 MR. DYSART: You have something else, Laura. 25 MS. KNIGHT: No, I'm sorry. 73 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MR. DYSART: Anything else for the good of the 3 project and the Stakeholder's Evaluation Group. If 4 not, we'll declare the meeting closed. I thank 5 y'all for your participation. 6 (Concluded at 11:30 a.m.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 1 2 3 4 5 C E R T I F I C A T E 6 G E O R G I A : 7 CHATHAM COUNTY: 8 I hereby certify that the foregoing 9 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 10 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 11 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 12 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 73 represent 13 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 14 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 15 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 16 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 17 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 18 anywise interested in the result of said case. 19 This, the 28th day of October, 2003. 20 21 22 ________________________ 23 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court Reporter, B-2041 24 25 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25