1 2 3 4 5 6 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 7 8 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 9 10 NOVEMBER 9, 2004 11 9:00 A.M. 12 MIGHTY 8TH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 13 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 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 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING ------------------------- 10 9 COMMITTEE REPORTS --------------------------- 52 10 REVIEW STATUS ------------------------------- 65 11 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING ------------------------- 98 12 CERTIFICATE --------------------------------- 126 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 (THE REPORTER: I'm appearing here today on 3 behalf of my employer, Tom Crites & Associates. My 4 office was requested by Georgia Ports Authority to 5 provide a court reporter today at 9:00 a.m. at this 6 address. 7 Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well as at 8 the instructions of my employer, I wish to disclose 9 that, other than accepting to serve as your 10 reporter, we have not entered into any other 11 contractual agreement with any party involved in 12 this case.) 13 MR. DYSART: I'll tell you what, why don't 14 let's get started. David is supposed to be nearly 15 here. It's 9:20, and we'll call the meeting of the 16 Stakeholders Evaluation Group to order. 17 And as usual, let's go around the table and 18 say who we are, and who we're representing, and who 19 you're representing can be more than one outfit, or 20 it could be simply as an interested citizen, or 21 whatever. 22 First of all, I'm Ben Dysart, the SEG 23 facilitator, and we'll move to the right here. 24 Will. 25 MR. BERSON: I'm Will Berson. I'm with the 4 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 Georgia Conservancy, and I approve this message. 3 MR. DRAKE: Sam Drake, Fife and Clydesdale 4 Plantations in Jasper County, South Carolina. 5 MR. GRIFFIN: David Griffin, Georgia DOT. 6 MR. PHILLIPS: John Phillips, Georgia DOT. 7 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo 8 Hydrographic Surveying. 9 MR. WRIGHT: Tom Wright, citizen. 10 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Beach Task Force, Tybee 11 Island. 12 MR. HOKE: Joe Hoke, Corps of Engineers. 13 MR. WIGGINS: Wilbur Wiggins, Corps of 14 Engineers. 15 MS. COLLINS-RAHN: Lucille Collins-Rahn, 16 Sierra Club. 17 MS. LEFFEK: Teri Leffek, Marine Terminals 18 Corporation. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia Sierra. 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: Chris Schuberth, Chatham 21 Environmental Forum. 22 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers. 23 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 24 Authority. 25 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for GPA. 5 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, Lockwood Greene 3 Engineers, GPA project manager. 4 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, Fish and 5 Wildlife Service. 6 MR. DYSART: And Kathleen, why don't you say 7 who you are, being one of the most long-term 8 participants here, and having one of the nicest 9 personalities, why don't you tell us who you are 10 and so forth. 11 MS. DORE: I'm Kathleen Dore, and I'm a court 12 reporter with Tom Crites & Associates here in 13 Savannah. 14 MR. DYSART: And we're delighted to have you. 15 You bring sunshine and good humor to our meetings, 16 and have been known to make poignant observations, 17 that even candid people sitting around the table 18 didn't have the guts to say -- lots of heads 19 nodding saying we're appreciative of the wisdom and 20 clear-eyed observation within the body. So anyway, 21 welcome, appreciate all of you being here. 22 The draft agenda is in front of you, and 23 starting this time, we have the interim group that 24 was discussed and approved at the last meeting that 25 would meet between regular SEG meetings and decide 6 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 what were the issues, or topics, that warranted 3 consideration, action, deliberation for the full 4 body. And so that body, through Teri Leffek, 5 provided that information for items on the agenda. 6 Then we've had a couple of other items and so 7 forth. So that process is working, and I presume 8 that we will continue to do that, until the body 9 decides otherwise. 10 So you can look at the agenda, if you have 11 any thoughts on it, anything you would like to add. 12 Anybody who is in this room is a member in good 13 standing of this body, by virtue of walking in, you 14 are an interested party. 15 So you have the authority to suggest items to 16 go on here or anything you want to do. So any 17 comments on the agenda. Chris. 18 MR. SCHUBERTH: I see you have me as a 19 separate report on that second page under new 20 business; why don't we simply make that as the 21 committee report at the very bottom of that first 22 page of the agenda. 23 MR. DYSART: That's fine with me. You sent me 24 a request, and I intend to error on the side of 25 giving voice to the members. And anyway, that 7 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 seems perfectly reasonable. Thank you. Any other 3 comments or suggestions concerning the draft 4 agenda? 5 Seeing no hands up or cards up, we'll consider 6 that the draft agenda, as adjusted, has been 7 accepted for today's meeting. 8 The September transcript has been available 9 for anybody who wants to look at it, review it, and 10 examine it, to do so. Are there any corrections 11 for the record or clarifications? 12 The custom is that we tend to -- if somebody 13 has something, we put it on the record here, as 14 opposed to going back and redoing things. Judy 15 Jennings. 16 MS. JENNINGS: The last item of business under 17 -- the last item under new business, the updated 18 scheduling milestones, I did see an e-mail that 19 that was postponed. I'm not sure I understood why. 20 MR. DYSART: That was put on the agenda 21 pursuant to the action of the interim group. 22 MS. JENNINGS: That's what I saw last. 23 MR. DYSART: Then I was informed the 24 individual that was prepared to talk about that 25 would not be able to be here today. So it was 8 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 suggested that that be delayed until whenever, one, 3 two, three months down the line, when we might meet 4 again. Do have any thoughts -- you look like you 5 have thoughts. 6 MS. JENNINGS: No. I guess that's the answer. 7 MR. DYSART: Is that a satisfactory answer to 8 you? 9 MS. JENNINGS: I mean, if that's the only one 10 person that could do it, I'm assuming was there 11 only one person who could do that? 12 MR. DYSART: Larry Keegan was the one who 13 informed me that Doug would not be available today. 14 Do you have any comment Larry? 15 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah. Doug really is the only 16 person who understands what he's done to build this 17 revised schedule in the Corps' enterprise 18 management system. 19 The only people who have access to it are 20 those within the Corps, who happen to have a 21 license for this software. Doug's the only one so 22 far. None of the rest of us have seen it in its 23 entirety, other than one or two very early draft 24 printed copies. 25 We certainly have no understanding of it. 9 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 With Doug not being at work, there's really no one 3 who can intelligently talk about it. 4 MR. DYSART: As a light, humorous side that 5 hasn't necessarily prevented us, in the past, from 6 discussing topics from time to time. I'm being 7 humorous. Engineers will need to loosen up. The 8 keeper of the keys -- the keeper of the keys is not 9 available. 10 MR. KEEGAN: Right. 11 MR. DYSART: I presume that the interim 12 committee can -- they can deliberate this, and if 13 they wish to provide additional guides or 14 instructions back to us, they can. 15 Okay. What about the September transcript; 16 any changes, clarifications? Seeing no hands, we 17 will assume then -- we will -- there's a consensus 18 by the body that the September transcript is 19 accepted by the body as an accurate record of the 20 meeting. 21 Okay. Old business. I was informed that the 22 update, requested by Judy Jennings, the ship 23 simulation study was now available, and Wilbur 24 Wiggins would be presenting this. 25 Does anybody -- Larry, or Bill, anybody wish 10 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 to make any preliminary or introductory comments 3 about this? 4 MR. BAILEY: Wilbur is in our hydraulics 5 branch in Savannah. He is kind of overseeing, 6 coordinated this effort. Ship simulation study is 7 really kind of a design effort to see what channel 8 is needed to handle certain size ships. 9 We've -- you had asked for an update. 10 Basically, we've been waiting for a final report 11 from the people who have done the work. We've been 12 waiting and waiting. They finally sent us the 13 final report last week. So we pressed Wilbur into 14 service and have asked him to explain what's in the 15 report. 16 MR. DYSART: Wilbur, we welcome you. 17 MR. HOKE: Can I take a minute to revise the 18 talks. We had mine loaded in first. We have to 19 switch them around. 20 MR. WIGGINS: I don't know if I need this to 21 be heard. Let me give you an introduction, again, 22 Bill introduced me. I'm Wilbur Wiggins. I work 23 with the coastal waterways section for the Corps of 24 Engineers. 25 This morning, I here just to present results 11 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 from the navigation study done by ERDC, which 3 stands for Engineering Research and Design Center 4 for the Corps of Engineers. It's located in 5 Vicksburg, Mississippi. Most of you have probably 6 heard of it referred to as WES, the Waterways 7 Experiment Station. They're now called ERDC, name 8 change, consolidation, that kind of thing. 9 If I refer ERDC, that's what we're talking 10 about. The study was to determine the channel 11 design necessary to accommodate the design vessel 12 for the expansion project. 13 I'm just going kind of give you some 14 background on what was involved in the study, the 15 steps that went into it, and some of the purposes, 16 just to kind of give you background on why we had 17 to do what we had to do as far as ship simulation 18 goes. Probably better get the slide report. 19 MR. DYSART: Practice a soft shoe routine. 20 MR. WIGGINS: This is what the hardcopy will 21 look like, when we get the hardcopy out. Right 22 not now it's just been posted to the extra-net 23 site. 24 Hopefully you've been informed of that so you 25 can look at it on your own as time permits. Like I 12 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 say, in a couple of weeks, we'll have a hardcopy 3 available for everybody to be able to see. 4 I'm not Don Wilson, Chief of the Navigation 5 Branch of ERDC. That's just a lot of sides I had 6 to borrow for the presentation. 7 I've got a lot of slides, and I was asked to 8 do just a brief introduction for the simulation 9 study itself, referred to formerly as the 10 navigation study for Savannah Harbor channel 11 improvement. I'll just call it the ship simulation 12 study. That's what I'm used to. 13 Ready to go. I'll go over this briefly. Why, 14 you may ask, do we have to do a ship simulation? 15 First of all, safety checks for me means piece of 16 mind, knowing that we designed the channel for 17 these huge vessels to go down and want to be sure 18 that they're able to design a channel that's able 19 to accommodate them, put some formulas together, 20 just go by the manual, and map all that out. 21 The model gives you a lot more piece of mind 22 about what you are working with. The pilots have 23 what they need to be able to navigate ships down 24 the channel. Get pilots onboard the project, 25 that's figuratively and literally. 13 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 We got input from pilots from day one as to 3 what they needed for the navigation channel to be 4 designed to accommodate these ships. 5 Also, they're on hand to actually make the 6 model runs for the simulator. We had three trips 7 out to ERDC for them to participate, and actually 8 run the model, and get the feel for what the 9 project entailed. 10 The comparison between multiple proposals, we 11 came up with our initial design, what we thought 12 would be necessary to accommodate the larger 13 vessels, just based on guidelines that were given 14 in the deep draft navigation manual. 15 By design, those guidelines are fairly 16 conservative, so in most cases, we probably 17 designed a little more than what was necessary to 18 accommodate the vessels. And we're able to come up 19 with our proposals and look at other proposals, 20 during the course of simulation, to see what was 21 the best fit for what we needed. 22 Optimization of channel dimensions, 23 optimization might be a bad word to use here. It 24 sounds like you're trying to get as big a channel 25 as you can when you optimize something. 14 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 Actually, we're getting the best fit for 3 what we need. In most cases, we designed a little 4 bit too much channel for what we needed. After we 5 ran through the simulation, the designers were able 6 to narrow down what was actually necessary for the 7 project. 8 Rationalization of project design, that's just 9 easier to explain to someone why you need what you 10 need for the channel. You're able to tract plots 11 the ships exactly took the during the runs to show 12 what was necessary for channel design because 13 that's the law. 14 The next slide, we're actually required -- if 15 the Corps is involved in a channel design, for deep 16 draft navigational project, you actually have to go 17 through a ship simulation to do that to show what's 18 necessary for the project. 19 This is a photo -- it's kind of hard to see. 20 There's some better photos later on in the slides. 21 You see what's actually involved. This is one of 22 the models that the pilot runs for the design 23 vessel. There's actually, what I learned going out 24 to see them do the simulations, there's actually 25 two models set up, one for each pilot. 15 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 And later on, you'll see the slides where they 3 approach each other. Each one has a view farther 4 down the channel of what the -- what the other 5 pilot is doing. 6 Okay. That's just a diagram of the input. 7 Your pilot gives your commands to the simulator. 8 It goes through the software and gives an actual 9 display on the screen of how the vessel responds to 10 his commands, comes back to us, next command, so 11 forth. 12 It's actually real time to how the pilot 13 transits the channel. It takes three hours to come 14 in from the entrance of the channel all the 15 way to Georgia Ports, so it takes three hours to 16 run. It's not like some video game 17 where they will be able to speed up and go through 18 scenarios. It actually is real time. 19 This mimics what the pilots actually see 20 aboard the ship. Their command displays for how 21 the vessel is oriented in the channel. They get 22 input from what the engines are doing, wind speed, 23 currents, other things actually involved, forces 24 acting on the ship. 25 There's also an electronic display of where 16 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 they are in the channel, the charts -- this is 3 fairly real world. 4 That's what they have aboard the vessels 5 themselves, so you get this in the model as well. 6 This is the setup, actually, for the operators that 7 gives input to the pilots of what they're actually 8 going to see. I mentioned before it's real time, 9 so it would be hard to go and transit the whole 10 channel, make a three hour run. You couldn't get 11 much done in a day, but you can actually make 12 certain ranges for the pilots to run, and they'll 13 discuss with each other, via radio onboard, just 14 like they would aboard the vessel. 15 They have radio commands to each other, 16 communicate how they're going to pass each other in 17 the channel, and just set up what they're going to 18 do with each other, and also have input to the 19 operators. 20 They can actually input tugs in there if 21 they're necessary to correct direction and that 22 kind of thing to help them dock. 23 This is an actual photo from one of our 24 simulation runs. That's Captain Brown, the 25 silhouette, as he was out there making his run. 17 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 He sees the approaching vessel coming down the 3 channel to him. Another pilot that came with him 4 would see his vessel, his approach, as they're 5 coming down the channel. You can see how they can 6 actually interact with each other. 7 Just as an example, why it would be difficult 8 to design the channel just based on a set of 9 formulas and guidelines, all the different forces 10 that have to be taken into account. The model does 11 that for you; ship to ship interaction, forces that 12 are involved between the ships as they pass each 13 other, and also forces from the bank, wind, 14 current, how the rudders affect the performance of 15 the vessel, the speeds and everything else. 16 And that's just an example of all the forces 17 and motions the ship can go through taken into 18 account, as well. It would be difficult with just 19 a set of formulas to go through. 20 These are the different phases that are 21 involved with the project. First being the 22 reconnaissance trip. Dennis Webb came out here 23 from ERDC in December of 2001. It's been a while, 24 like we said, this project has gone on, but I hope 25 we got a good result. 18 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 Dennis met with the pilots. He got input on 3 the difficult parts of the channel navigation, what 4 design concerns were, what they needed to be able 5 to accommodate the larger design vessels. 6 While he was here, this bottom photo is hard 7 to see, the instruments used to record the visual 8 background for the model. He took individual 9 photos and videos so they can build that for the 10 pilots to actually see, in the simulator, what they 11 experienced as they go down the channel. 12 What else -- I was going to say about 13 reconnaissance. He also had a chance to interact 14 with ship captains. He took two trips in, a couple 15 different vessels. I was fortunate enough to be 16 able to go on one of those trips with him. 17 That was just a learning experience for me as 18 well to actually experience that and see what was 19 involved. That was just a very integral part to 20 start out the ship simulation phase of the project 21 to have that input. 22 All that goes into making the visual database. 23 The environmental database involves making a three 24 dimensional hydraulic model. That takes all the 25 currents, the tides, the winds into effect, and 19 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 that's input into the ship simulation model to 3 determine the ship's reaction. 4 This is just all the things involved that you 5 see in the individual scenes, kind of give them a 6 real world image of what they're experiencing as 7 they pilot the vessel down the channel. 8 You have the image of the other ship that's 9 approaching, the shoreline, navigation aids, a few 10 of the larger structures that are along the edge of 11 the channel. This is just an example of how they 12 build those structures. They come in, from those 13 photos, and take reconnaissance, build a wire 14 frame, and then go ahead and fill in and make the 15 objects to fill into the model itself, and the 16 charts they see are on the screen. 17 All the things -- some of the things I 18 mentioned before. Initially, we provided them with 19 bathymetry for the channel itself and our channel 20 design. They input all these other things into the 21 tabs model, the currents, the wind, everything else 22 that acts on the ship. 23 This is just an example of the model that they 24 developed to incorporate with the currents and 25 winds that are different in different areas of the 20 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 channel from another state. 3 This is an output you see. The arrows -- the 4 longer the arrows the greater the current -- gives 5 the direction of the current. I mentioned the 6 pilots came up for several trips, three trips 7 actually. The waterways or ERDC -- the first 8 was a validation phase. That was taking our 9 existing channel, and the pilots would take the 10 ships down the channel, and models, and see if it 11 actually felt like it was supposed to. 12 That was, I think, probably the more difficult 13 phase of the three trips. I wasn't involved with 14 that one. ERDC went through a lot of pains to make 15 sure that the model was responding to actually how 16 the pilots felt it should respond, again, to give 17 that real world effect. 18 And before we proceeded any further, they had 19 to be satisfied that the pilots were satisfied with 20 how the model was responding to their commands. 21 Again, the input from the different agencies that 22 we tried to get, as far as the actual channel 23 design that was required. Okay. 24 Again, the existing phase was the validation, 25 two design phases -- two designs trips after that 21 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 that the pilots would go through and navigating the 3 approved channel with the design vessels. 4 Also, there's a point in there about random 5 order. We didn't just let them go in there and do 6 one run over and over until they got better at it. 7 They'd just skip around to the different areas of 8 the channel, so they didn't really just get used to 9 one area and determine how to respond to the 10 simulator each time. 11 This is probably the best photo they sent us. 12 You can see this coming upriver -- it may be hard 13 to see -- the Talmadge Bridge is at the upper end. 14 This is coming up on another vessel which is not 15 real world. They don't actually pass, the vessels 16 in the channel, as far as overtaking. They record 17 all different data in the simulation runs. They 18 do the next run to see how to respond. 19 These are the results from the study that we 20 put into the report, and kind of go forward with 21 the actual report from here. 22 Again, that's the results we get from 23 operating the model in real time, how the vessel 24 responded, and what the channel conditions are from 25 what the model told us. Okay. Just had a few 22 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 slides here from the actual report, which you'll 3 see now where the study is. 4 Again, what we shot for on the design is to 5 try to deepen the channel on the exist side slopes. 6 We used 48 foot here. That was the maximum we were 7 going to consider -- could be less than this. 8 We're going to stick to that design wherever 9 possible. If the bend wideners were required we 10 would have to go out beyond those. 11 The next three or four slides are what we 12 submitted to them initially. You can't see at this 13 scale, but we have the dimensions where we thought 14 we were doing wider channels in certain places. 15 One of the difficult areas was Ft. Jackson 16 trying to work around some pipelines. They had -- 17 go to the next slide. They took out one of these 18 initial bend wideners, because they didn't feel 19 that was feasible for the pilots. They didn't want 20 to have vessels thinking they could go to this 21 outside area, so they shifted the channel over and 22 took that edge off, and used that for one of the 23 first plans for design. 24 That was, I think, last November. From there, 25 there's a larger photo of the data gathering 23 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 instruments they used on the reconnaissance trip. 3 That's what the model looks like, as far as the 4 tabs model has currents and tides effects for both 5 flood tide, I think, and the next one is ebb tide. 6 Just another photo of the simulator, Captain 7 Brown, an approaching vessel. It has the same type 8 of readout they see as well as for him. It's kind 9 of hard to distinguish the colors on here, but 10 existing channel is that inside toe on this bend 11 widener. 12 On the outside toe is what we felt like was 13 the necessary dimension to handle the increased 14 vessel size. That shows the actual tract plots as 15 the pilots ran down the tract -- ran down the 16 channel. 17 They went through a phase for each of our 18 plans. We considered plan one is noted in the 19 manual, just to kind of flip through these. Again, 20 although they used the pilots to model each of the 21 vessels they could, they had the capability of 22 putting more vessels in there that could be 23 computer controlled. 24 For the most part, they did runs that the 25 pilots actually piloted themselves. And from those 24 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 initial runs, and from our initial design, they 3 came up with their own design for a recommended 4 channel, which is in blue in these. 5 You can just -- I'm sorry. The recommended 6 channel is in these latter sides. And again, in 7 several places where we had recommended wideners, 8 they decided to deepen on the existing toe rather 9 than the existing side slope. 10 They just took toe straight down in some 11 places. In some places, the pilots told us they 12 needed room on inside of the bend. We got through 13 the actual runs, like through the bight, we had 14 recommended more room on the inside of the turn. 15 They actually used it on the outside. 16 So when they came up with the recommended 17 channel from ERDC, they incorporated those changes 18 in that as well. From that we have our final 19 channel design. 20 I just want to stress that the pilots' input 21 was invaluable on going through this whole process. 22 I really feel they had a comfort level they got 23 with our validation phase. And before we proceeded 24 any further in the design, they were very 25 comfortable with the model, and expressed that was 25 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 the best they had seen as far as taking the model 3 to the real world from where they were to actually 4 make the runs. They were very satisfied with that. 5 I just thought that was very valuable too, as 6 far as making our design less conservative to what 7 we actually needed to make the design work, and 8 that's all I have. 9 MR. DYSART: Questions, comments. 10 MR. WIGGINS: Again, I hope this will be 11 available in hardcopy in a couple weeks. 12 MR. DYSART: Judy. 13 MS. JENNINGS: You may have had it, and I 14 don't understand enough to see it, but do you have 15 a picture that's like -- my interest in this, I 16 think it's fascinating how you do it, but my 17 interest in it was what would the river look like 18 with the recommended changes, as opposed to what it 19 is now. Do you have a picture, did WES send 20 pictures like that? 21 MR. WIGGINS: I don't know if you could see at 22 that scale. There were several slides that noted 23 where the existing channel was and they recommended 24 channel. They have it in different colors. In the 25 report itself, you can see how -- 26 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. It just wasn't obvious 3 to me. 4 MR. WIGGINS: I'm sorry. In the report 5 itself, you'll able to see that better where we 6 actually put the bend wideners, and if you don't 7 see a change, they just took the toe straight down 8 from where it was and did the bend change. 9 MS. JENNINGS: By that, you mean there's not 10 a slope, is that what you mean? I don't know that 11 word. 12 MR. WIGGINS: Where the bottom of the channel 13 is, it always slopes down from wherever the side 14 slopes come in to that actual toe. When I say the 15 slope straight down, I don't mean the slope went 16 straight down, it's just where the existing toe 17 was, it went straight down rather than coming 18 inside the way we tried to stick with the design. 19 MR. DYSART: Fred. 20 MR. BEASON: Ben, clarification for Judy. I 21 don't mean to get too elementary. You -- I've not 22 read the report. You have to visualize that the 23 waterline on the bank, if you were to cross-section 24 the river, is probably going to be pretty close to 25 where it is on most if not all the locations. 27 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 The federal channel is not what you see when 3 you see the waterline. That is the -- think of it 4 as the street in front of your house. That's where 5 the corps dredges to maintain a waterway path for 6 the vessels. 7 In most cases, there's a three to one side 8 slope, there's some five to one side slopes, and 9 that is from the outside edge, where the yellow 10 line is on the highway. 11 It's flat, in theory, from yellow line to 12 yellow line. The slope goes up. That's to keep 13 the bank from sliding in, based on the 14 characteristics. 15 The information I've real -- Wilbur, correct 16 me, they have looked at changing that path and 17 moving it over to the left, a little bit to the 18 right, so the ships can make that turn as they go 19 through it. 20 Then they looked at maybe going straight down, 21 so it's deep enough for it to run in a trough. 22 Then the issue behind that is, is there any effect 23 on the waterline because of the bang's stability. 24 That's a different issue. Isn't that, 25 generically, what you're saying there? Most people 28 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 don't understand what you're saying when you 3 waterway and you say channel. The two work side by 4 side, but they're not the same issue. 5 MS. JENNINGS: That's a helpful distinction. 6 MR. BEASON: He's not telling you if they 7 widen it or move it, they actually move the bank 8 where the water is. It's a path the ship actually 9 runs inside there, if you saw a cross-section. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. That's helpful. 11 MR. DYSART: Wilbur, do you have any comment 12 from Fred's comments; did he state things in a 13 reasonable way? 14 MR. WIGGINS: He did. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. Tom. 16 MR. WRIGHT: Can you tell us the principle 17 dimensions of the vessels that were modeled. 18 MR. WIGGINS: It's all contained in the 19 report. Off the top of my head, no, I would be 20 scared to take a guess. 21 It's safe to say they are longer and they are 22 wider for the design vessel. We went from -- the 23 draft design we used was 47 1/2 feet, as far as the 24 depth. As far as the actual change in dimensions, 25 I don't have that. 29 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MS. JENNINGS: I thought Susan Maersk -- 3 MR. WIGGINS: Right. Susan Maersk was the 4 design vessel. Those dimensions of that vessel are 5 what we used for the design ship. I can have that 6 for you before we leave. It's in the report. I 7 can give that to you. 8 MR. DYSART: Sam, do you have a comment? 9 MR. DRAKE: That was my comment too, the size 10 of the vessel. 11 MR. DYSART: Any other questions or comments? 12 MS. JENNINGS: I just want to make sure I 13 understand. In one of the slides there was a 14 situation where the boats were passing. 15 MR. WIGGINS: Right. 16 MS. JENNINGS: But the design is not still 17 planned to accommodate passing boats, is that right 18 or wrong? 19 MR. WIGGINS: We'll have areas that are set up 20 in there for passing. Larry may want to help me 21 define that, whether it's a two-way channel or not, 22 but it's a two-way channel except in restricted 23 areas. That's up to the pilot's discretion 24 whether they would pass two design vessels. They 25 pass, I guess, ships of the design size now, I 30 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 guess smaller vessels now, but we're trying to 3 decide the channel in case say two design ships 4 want to be able to pass each other, is that -- 5 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah. Let me see if I can add a 6 little bit to what Wilbur said. If you look at the 7 dimensions of the channel and you compare it to, 8 let's say, the width of design vessel, you'll find 9 that's there's -- you put two times width and two 10 design vessels, you've got about 100 feet less than 11 the actual dimension of the channel. 12 So theoretically, you could take two ships of 13 that width and run them by each other, but that's 14 not a lot of extra room for clearance, very, very, 15 very little room for error. 16 So the pilots told us that they really don't 17 do that. When they have two big vessels -- big is 18 sort of a sliding term -- then they arrange how 19 they operate the ship, so they don't get in a 20 situation where they're meeting each other, unless 21 it's in a part of the channel where there's enough 22 room to give them dimension to do it. 23 So for intents and purposes, the pilots 24 operate things one vessel at time now, a one-way 25 channel, if you will. As Wilbur said, there is a 31 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 couple of places where there is enough width that 3 they could meet. Seaward of the bight, I guess, 4 there's some width there where they could meet. 5 One of the design features is to put a little extra 6 width upriver of the bight near the sediment basin. 7 The pilots asked for some room there, in case 8 they got in a situation where they needed it. But 9 for all intents and purposes, what they tell us, 10 they will continue to operate one vessel going out, 11 one vessel coming at a time, except as they can 12 time it to meet in those places. Does that help? 13 MS. JENNINGS: Uh-huh. 14 MR. DYSART: Thank you very much, Larry. 15 Chris. 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: Academic question; what is the 17 definition of bight -- that's B-I-G-H-T? 18 MR. KEEGAN: That's the portion of the channel 19 that curves around Elba Island. 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: B-I-G-H-T. 21 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah, B-I-G-H-T. 22 MR. SCHUBERTH: I just asked that because 23 there is the Coastal Bight from Cape Hatteras down 24 to Cape Canaveral. 25 MR. KEEGAN: No, no, I'm talking about a 32 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 specific area in the channel -- 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: So that technical term bight 4 is incorporated in the river channel way 5 configuration? 6 MR. KEEGAN: Is that a named range, do you 7 recall, Wilbur, is that the way it shows up on the 8 charts? 9 MR. WIGGINS: I know it's referred to that 10 commonly, but I don't know if -- I know we have 11 individual range numbers. 12 MR. KEEGAN: I think one of the illustrations 13 he had, it labeled it on the actual navigation 14 chart as a bight channel. I'd have to go back and 15 look at the slides though. 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: Bill just told me it's a term 17 used locally rather than regionally. 18 MR. KEEGAN: That's entirely possible. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: That answers my question. 20 MR. DYSART: So is that a technical term or is 21 that a colloquialism or is that simply just an 22 informal term? 23 MR. KEEGAN: Yes. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. Which? 25 MR. KEEGAN: Yes. 33 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. DYSART: Judy. 3 MS. JENNINGS: You didn't talk much about the 4 turning basin. That was part of the whole thing, 5 though. 6 MR. WIGGINS: Right. 7 MS. JENNINGS: And the Susan Maersk drafts 8 47 1/2. What depth did you come up with for the 9 turning basin for the Susan? 10 MR. WIGGINS: For the purposes of our design, 11 we're going to uniform -- at this point, it's just 12 a uniform depth change. If we have any advanced 13 maintenance built into the project now, we'll just 14 keep that in there, and just go by whatever comes 15 up any plan of deep -- deepening depth, we'll just 16 add, if it's two feet, we'll add two feet to what 17 we have now, four feet, et cetera. 18 MS. JENNINGS: That's not the way it is now, 19 though, is it? Isn't the turning basin usually 20 deeper than the navigation channel in general? 21 MR. WIGGINS: Yes, right. It's got an 22 advanced maintenance feature built into it now. 23 What we discussed, we'll maintain that same 24 advanced maintenance and add whatever depth we come 25 up with for the deepening project. 34 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MS. JENNINGS: The advanced maintenance and 3 the under keel clearance and the -- at least my 4 understanding was that both of those, advanced 5 maintenance and under keel clearance, between the 6 basin, are greater than the navigation channel in 7 general? 8 MR. WIGGINS: That's correct. 9 MS. JENNINGS: So you're saying you would just 10 maintain those same -- so we would still expect the 11 turning basin to be deeper than the channel? 12 MR. WIGGINS: Yes. 13 MR. DYSART: By the same amount, the 14 differential would be the same in the future as it 15 is now; is that what you were saying? 16 MR. WIGGINS: Right. 17 MS. JENNINGS: That's what I was asking. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. Wilbur nodded his head in 19 the affirmative. 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: May I ask, what's that 21 differential? I'm sorry. I spoke out of turn. 22 MR. DYSART: Sure. That's follow-up. 23 MR. SCHUBERTH: What is that differential? 24 MR. WIGGINS: Right now, there's a six foot 25 advanced maintenance feature built in. Judy 35 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 mentioned something about under keel. That's the 3 same draft; inner harbor there's two feet more 4 than outer harbor. So it's the same throughout. 5 That won't change. 6 MR. HOKE: The advanced is different for the 7 turning basin -- 8 MR. WIGGINS: That's correct, but for Kings 9 Island -- 10 MR. HOKE: -- based on predicted -- 11 MR. WIGGINS: Joe was just asking that 12 advanced maintenance feature, the six foot was 13 only in Kings Island Turning Basin. It is 14 different for other turning basins, based on the 15 shoaling rates. 16 MR. BERSON: If, as a result of other work 17 going on, it ends up being that the decision is to 18 do less than a 48 foot channel, do you have to redo 19 this work, or is it -- 20 MR. WIGGINS: As far as the simulation, no. 21 They evaluated the channel for without project 22 condition, and for that design vessel, they 23 determined those bend wideners would be necessary 24 for that at any depth. 25 MR. DYSART: Larry. 36 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. KEEGAN: Just a bit of clarification. 3 When we talk about under keel clearance, that's not 4 a feature of the navigation channel, in that they 5 don't dig X feet deeper for under keel clearance. 6 Under keel clearance is a requirement that's 7 imposed on how much water depth a particular ship 8 has, essentially by the pilots, that they say we're 9 going to require two feet in the inner harbor, and 10 four feet in the bar channel, to handle a vessel -- 11 to allow for the vessel to move in the seaway. 12 That's not a feature of the navigation 13 channel, so you can't say, for instance, the 14 channel depth is 48 feet, and we add two feet for 15 under keel clearance, then we add four feet for 16 advanced maintenance. 17 It doesn't work that way. Two feet doesn't 18 get added for under keel clearance. So the 19 channel, what you dig to is the channel depth, 20 let's say 48 feet. If you have an advanced 21 maintenance feature, whatever that feature is, 22 let's say an additional four feet. 23 So you would dig to 52. Under keel clearance 24 is not part of how much you dig out. I just want 25 to make that clear. It's an operational constraint 37 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 imposed by the pilots. It's not part of channel 3 design. 4 MR. BAILEY: For the -- 5 MS. JENNINGS: Help me. 6 MR. BAILEY: -- 42 foot channel, basically the 7 pilots are saying I'm only going to take a 40 feet 8 deep vessel in there. I want two feet of water 9 underneath the vessel at all times. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Help me. I'm still not there. 11 If Susan Maersk was calling Savannah drawing 47 1/2 12 feet of water, so we'd have to have 49 1/2 feet for 13 that vessel to safely call, is that right? 14 MR. SCHALLER: The answer -- the answer is 15 that it would be tidal restricted; in other words, 16 it would wait for the tide to be sufficiently high 17 enough to float a vessel higher in the water so 18 that there's room underneath. 19 MR. KEEGAN: So yes, you're right, but you 20 wouldn't change the channel design in that case. 21 You would wait for the tide to come up in that 22 case, so we had enough. 23 MR. ROBINETTE: Is that 47 feet fully loaded, 24 right, 47 1/2 Susan Maersk? 25 MR. SCHALLER: That would be the design draft, 38 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 is that right? 3 MR. KEEGAN: That's what was used, I believe. 4 MR. DYSART: Teri. 5 MS. LEFFEK: A question about the model, when 6 we get the model to the point we can start doing 7 runs, and we look at different depths, and we say 8 48 feet; is that including the advanced 9 maintenance? 10 MR. BAILEY: Which model are you talking 11 about? 12 MS. LEFFEK: When we get to the hydraulic and 13 salinity and all the other models, we run something 14 at 48 feet; is that assuming adding in that four 15 feet of -- 16 MR. BAILEY: It will add in all that other 17 stuff. 18 MS. LEFFEK: It will, okay. I want to make 19 sure. 20 MR. DYSART: Will. 21 MR. BURSON: Actually, David answered my 22 question. I was assuming to get the extra 23 clearance you would just wait on the tide. 24 MR. DYSART: Other questions or comments? 25 MS. JENNINGS: Just about the under keel 39 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 clearance -- I'm sorry, the advanced maintenance, 3 whose decision is that, is that the Corps' 4 decision, I mean two feet, four feet, six feet? 5 MR. WIGGINS: Basically, yes. We've done 6 studies in the past. It's all based on shoaling 7 rates and how often they dredge that to maintain 8 the adequate depth for the ship traffic. 9 MR. DYSART: Will. 10 MR. BERSON: I'm just curious, is that 11 knowable now, or is it something that you have to 12 do more investigation to determine what would be 13 appropriate in this instance? 14 MR. WIGGINS: As far as what advanced 15 maintenance is required? 16 MR. BERSON: Uh-huh. 17 MR. WIGGINS: It's our best knowledge of what 18 we have of that, the shoaling of -- the shoaling 19 conditions as they exist. 20 Those have been put into place, based on 21 operating guidelines, as the years have gone by. 22 We've seen where shoaling shows up. If for some 23 reason deepening the channel changes the 24 configuration, we would have to consider that in 25 the future, I guess, if something needed more or 40 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 less advanced maintenance in the future. 3 MR. BERSON: But based on your past 4 experience, you feel like you know what the proper 5 recommendation at this point? 6 MR. WIGGINS: At this point, yes. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Is the need for more advanced 8 maintenance in the turning basin because -- why is 9 that? 10 MR. WIGGINS: Just because it's got -- 11 MS. JENNINGS: Because of the shoaling 12 patterns you said, but why is that? 13 MR. WIGGINS: -- the shoaling patterns -- 14 because you get a wider channel there with the 15 turning basin. That slows flows down. You have 16 freshwater and saltwater interface that tends to 17 make sediments fall out more in the upper regions 18 of the river at another place. 19 And basically, like during the dredging cycle 20 now, even with that advanced maintenance built in, 21 operations people have to send a dredge in there 22 two times, during the dredging cycle, to keep that 23 depth maintained, so the ships have room to 24 turn around. 25 MS. JENNINGS: Is that more a function of the 41 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 place it is in the river or the depth? I guess I'm 3 wondering, is it like the deeper hole you dig the 4 harder it is to dig a deeper hole? You see what 5 I'm saying? 6 I don't know function if it is a function of 7 where it is in the river, like you said, it's 8 further upstream or is it because of the greater 9 depth? 10 MR. WIGGINS: You're saying if you dig it 11 deeper does it shoal faster? 12 MS. JENNINGS: Right. 13 MR. WIGGINS: I don't know -- 14 MS. JENNINGS: Is it just kind of falling back 15 on just about as quick as we -- 16 MR. WIGGINS: I think it's more of a function 17 of the actual change in dimension there where it 18 lines up so much. The current's going to slow 19 down, and the sediments are going to tend fall out, 20 and freshwater and saltwater interface plays in 21 that as well. 22 MR. DYSART: Larry and then Bill, unless Bill 23 has a sense of urgency. 24 MR. BAILEY: There's been a constant volume of 25 maintenance material, a constant volume of shoaling 42 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 every year for, I think, 10 or 15 years. 3 It's been a while. It's been, at least, that 4 long. You can go back, you know, they keep records 5 of how much they dredge each year, and that's -- 6 within the inner harbor, that's been the same for a 7 number of years. So total volume -- 8 MS. JENNINGS: Even before the previous 9 deepening? 10 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Even before the previous 12 deepening? 13 MR. BAILEY: Yes. In '96, we completed a 14 study, looked at maintaining the harbor, and one of 15 the things we said was it was more efficient to 16 make these off-channel areas, to let the sediments 17 fall out -- out of the channel rather than in the 18 channel. 19 The same amount of material is going to fall. 20 If you can get all the fall outside the channel, 21 that's a good thing because then it will keep the 22 channel open more, keep the channel open longer. 23 So one of the recommendations of that study 24 was -- was to deepen that Kings Island Turning 25 Basin to let it fall out there. You had 43 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 recommendations to deepen some of the other areas. 3 They haven't been done yet, if that's helped any. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah, I think it does. 5 MR. DYSART: Larry. 6 MR. KEEGAN: He said it all. I was going to 7 say the same thing Bill did. 8 MR. DYSART: You concur. Okay. Anything 9 else? 10 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I'm still stuck just a 11 little bit on advanced maintenance, because I asked 12 is it your decision. You said based on what you 13 know now, it probably wouldn't change. 14 If you decided that you wanted it to change, 15 what process would you go through to make that 16 happen? Is it just internal and unless we're 17 asking, nobody in this room would ever know, or how 18 does that work? 19 MR. BAILEY: The answer is no. Basically, we 20 start off with normally, between the engineering 21 and operations folks, saying we think we got a 22 problem here. 23 And then we would probably ask the engineering 24 folks well, how would you solve it? Come up with a 25 solution. Then we, basically, look at the 44 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 environmental impacts of that, prepare a report, 3 send it up to division. The order may change. 4 Basically, it goes out for public comment, 5 just like any other project change. We have to get 6 environmental approvals for the action. We have to 7 get approvals from people up in Atlanta, our office 8 up in Atlanta for that kind of a change. 9 MS. JENNINGS: So it would be treated like any 10 other change to the river? 11 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 12 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 13 MR. REES: I just want to be sure it was clear 14 to everybody. When you talk about advanced 15 maintenance, you're not talking about over the 16 entire channel. Advanced maintenance occurs maybe 17 here and maybe here and maybe there, where 18 additional sedimentation occurs. 19 If you're talking about a 48 foot channel and 20 doing four foot of advanced maintenance, you've got 21 52 feet deep, but not over the entire channel 22 length. So it doesn't change the utility of the 23 channel, in terms of the authorized channel depth. 24 It just changes the efficiency of the maintenance 25 program. 45 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MR. BAILEY: Correct. They're not supposed to 3 operate vessels down in that section. 4 MR. SCHALLER: And they won't, you know, 5 captains will say, what's the authorized channel 6 depth, what does the chart depict, and they're not 7 going to risk an $80,000,000 ship to say well, 8 there's advanced maintenance dredging in there, I 9 can go in deeper. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Well, no. I'm less worried 11 about the ships than I am natural features like the 12 aquifer. I'm assuming that a captain's not going 13 to be stupid enough to screw up his big boat. 14 But even if, you know, my point is that just 15 for instance, what if you dug advanced maintenance 16 here, at a certain depth, and we're still not fully 17 sure about the effects of the paleochannels and 18 that kind of thing, so my concern is -- is for the 19 natural feature. 20 I mean, I'm assuming there aren't many pilots 21 as stupid as that one in the Suez. I mean, poor 22 thing -- sorry about that, but -- 23 MR. DYSART: Will. 24 MR. BERSON: I guess then, based on what 25 Morgan said, as far as modeling, I was about to ask 46 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 the question, should we start talking, in terms of 3 modelling then, at 50, 52, and 54 feet as a model 4 depth? 5 I understand that's not an operational 6 depth for commerce, but how much -- it does seem to 7 me that could make a difference in your modeling 8 result, based on -- I'm hearing you that it's not 9 over the entire channel length. 10 But I'm wondering if it -- if it makes -- if 11 you're doing enough, does it change the model 12 performance? I have no -- if that makes sense. 13 MR. DYSART: Larry, Chris, and Bill. 14 MR. KEEGAN: It's a good question, Will and 15 the answer is it may. So right now, there's an 16 effort going on to look at the various models. 17 Probably you heard Bill ask which model are you 18 talking about. 19 We do have several different ones to examine 20 different things. There's an effort to identify 21 for particular usage. Let's say for running the 22 EFDC model for salinity and hydrodynamic purposes, 23 how do you characterize, how do you build in the 24 model the dimensions of the channel your modeling; 25 and there's a number of different things you would 47 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 consider. 3 It's not just that you would put a 48 foot 4 flat bottom, let's say, for that version 5 everywhere, because you do have things like some 6 advanced maintenance features. You have some 7 considerations you have to think about like well, 8 that may be the design configuration, but for most 9 of the year what does it look like in that area, 10 maybe it's not exactly that way, maybe there's 11 little piles of stuff here and there. 12 You have to decide for the purposes for which 13 you are modeling, what's the effect of that. You 14 probably have to do some sensitivity looks at it. 15 I think we're going to wind up with channel 16 bathymetry configurations that are logical for the 17 use for which we're running the model. 18 We don't have all of those yet. Once we get 19 them, the plan is we'll tell you what they are, so 20 you'll know how we're planning to use the model. 21 At the very least, that will be in the written 22 documentation, if not ahead of time, but it turns 23 out to be a pretty complex set of considerations 24 and one that merits pretty careful thought. 25 MR. BERSON: It seems like we're learning 48 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 different complexities all the time. This isn't 3 one I had ever thought of. 4 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah, exactly. I didn't expect 5 it to be that complex, but it is. 6 MR. SCHUBERTH: Will just hit it right on the 7 head, new complexities we had never thought of. As 8 this conversation is going forward, I see this as a 9 modern version of ancient paleochannel, where you 10 dig a hole into a channelway. 11 Let's see, up in the north they call them 12 potholes. They can get to be pretty big in Duluth, 13 Minnesota, and you can drop a car into them. 14 But a serious question, and these are 15 intermittent along the way, I understand that. How 16 close to the Tybee high would one of these be, just 17 curious? 18 The Tybee high is the sedimentary sequence 19 that underlies this whole business. That includes 20 the aquifer that Judy made reference to, and it 21 generally slopes eastward and southward, has a 22 plunge, so that the particular reference strata 23 gets deeper and deeper as you go farther offshore, 24 not by very much, but there is a little troublesome 25 spot where the past events buckled the sequence up 49 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 a little bit in the vicinity of Tybee Island, and 3 that has come to be called the Tybee high. 4 It's a little arch, and it brings the whole 5 sequence of strata, the confining units, the 6 aquifer itself, which is the principle layer of 7 concern, closer to the surface. 8 So, if you have a channelway, and we've been 9 debating for years about depths currently 42, 10 possibly to 46, possibly to 48, and now we're 11 speaking of these turn basin potholes here and 12 there down to 52, maybe more. 13 Which one of these -- is any of them or none 14 of them in the vicinity of the arch? 15 MR. BAILEY: The one at Kings Island Turning 16 Basin is the deepest one in the channel, the whole 17 length of the channel. There is a separate 18 advanced maintenance section between the jetties. 19 And I don't know the depth. 20 It's not as deep as the one at Kings Island 21 Turning Basin, but the one between jetties is in 22 the area that you're talking about. 23 MR. SCHUBERTH: Just a point of information 24 for the record. 25 MR. KEEGAN: Bill, am I correct that the 50 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 advanced maintenance features are not necessarily 3 all just deeper holes, but they may be areas off 4 channel that are some depth, not necessarily even 5 the channel depth, but where you can get sediment 6 as well? 7 MR. BAILEY: That's correct. We are looking 8 at one on the entrance channel like that now. 9 MR. DYSART: Chris. 10 MR. SCHUBERTH: In response to Larry, I don't 11 think it would make that much of a difference if 12 it's in the channel or off the side of the channel. 13 From your navigational perspective, it's very 14 important. From the geological perspective, it 15 isn't. A hole is a hole and it goes down. 16 MR. KEEGAN: I guess what I was trying to say, 17 Chris, is that not all advanced maintenance 18 features go down. They may extend laterally, but 19 not deepen. That's what I was trying -- 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: Okay. Thank you. 21 MR. DYSART: Further comments, questions, 22 clarification? 23 MR. WIGGINS: One clarification, just that I 24 mentioned advanced maintenance at Kings Island. I 25 think I said six feet. I confused it with six foot 51 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 deepening. It's actually eight foot, King Island. 3 As far as the channel -- the dimensions on the 4 design, right now what it is designed for is 950 5 feet long, with a beam of 106 feet. That was the 6 present for the existing channel. And for the 7 design vessel, it's 1,140 feet with a beam of 144 8 feet. 9 MR. DYSART: Did you say a beam of 106 or 160? 10 MR. WIGGINS: One zero six. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. 12 MR. WIGGINS: That's the existing channel. 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. Has everybody gotten what 14 they wanted out of this, gotten their questions 15 answered, surfaced, or otherwise? Will. 16 MR. BERSON: Just one question, that's in the 17 -- was it 4,000 TEU range, the Susan Maersk? 18 MS. JENNINGS: It was about eight -- 19 MR. BERSON: I knew this once, but I was just 20 -- I don't remember. 21 MS. JENNINGS: The Susan Maersk was about 22 eight -- am I right? I'm not a brain, why should I 23 know? I'm pretty sure it's about eight. 24 MR. DYSART: Anybody from GPA have a 25 clarification on that? The design ship, how many 52 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 TEUs? 3 MR. SCHALLER: I'd be guessing if I said it. 4 MS. JENNINGS: I guessed eight. 5 MR. SCHALLER: I don't think it's that high. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Is it closer to six? 7 MR. SCHALLER: Yeah, it's probably 66, 68 -- 8 strictly a guess. I don't know. 9 MR. DYSART: That sounds like something 10 somebody could bring up next time to share. Okay. 11 Wilbur, thank you very much. We appreciate your 12 sharing this and appreciate the Corps providing 13 this. 14 This is something that the group has waiting 15 on for a while. Appreciate it. Okay. Next item, 16 how about let's do committee reports and then we'll 17 take a brief little break. Aquifer Committee, 18 Chris. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: Oh, thank you. Just for those 20 who have kind of joined this group more recently, 21 the Aquifer Committee, I guess, first began to meet 22 four years ago, in response to the published report 23 regarding the impact that deepening would or would 24 not have on the aquifer. 25 This generated a fairly strong interest. And 53 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 because many people were present, a special group 3 was formed, who were strictly hydrogeologists and 4 aquifer water specialists. 5 That came to be called the working group. And 6 so they met and reported back, periodically, to the 7 Aquifer Committee. They met for the better part of 8 a year. So finally, on the 4th of June, '02, a 9 formal report was presented to the SEG that grew 10 out of the working group. 11 And that was titled Recommended Technical 12 Approach Involving Multiple Tasks. I have copies 13 of it. It's been on the web. Larry put it on the 14 web back there then. 15 It identified a series of tasks. And those 16 tasks were given over to the Corps of Engineers as 17 recommendations. I made it a point to have 18 reports, at each SEG meeting, regarding the status 19 of those recommendations and they were done. 20 So the Aquifer Committee went into hiatus. It 21 just -- there was nothing really to do, until Card 22 Smith, who is the lead researcher for the Corps on 23 these studies, suggested that the Aquifer Committee 24 might meet again, and a date was selected of Friday 25 October 29th of this year. 54 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 Card made his report. He also made it 3 previously to the SEG that most of you had shared. 4 He updated his report, based upon additional data 5 that he had received from that time of the SEG 6 report to the October 29th meeting. 7 And outside of some technical aspects, it went 8 very well. Card is doing truly a super job in 9 trying to get an understanding of what seems to be 10 going down there with the Upper Floridan Aquifer. 11 The meeting was attended by approximately 20 12 people, 95% of them know what they're talking 13 about, in terms of hydrogeology. Questions were 14 raised, discussions were underway. 15 It was meant to simply be an update to the 16 Aquifer Committee. A second report was given by 17 the contractor, Mark -- Larry help me -- 18 MR. KEEGAN: Mark Maimone. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: -- Maimone from CVM, I think 20 it is, an engineering firm about the modeling that 21 is being prepared, developed -- just -- just -- 22 just for the channelway, which overlaps, and 23 doesn't overlap to some degree with the Sound 24 Science Initiative, which is also developing a 25 model under the guidance of the USGS. 55 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 So there was quite a bit of discussion and 3 exchange of views regarding both of these 4 presentations. And I had hoped to have minutes of 5 this meeting finished by today. 6 But, I guess, like anything else with the SEG 7 and its membership, things tend to get bogged down. 8 And so there are differences of opinion of what do 9 we mean by the definition of is, for example. So 10 the minutes kind of stay in abeyance, but I'm just 11 reporting that the Aquifer Committee has met. 12 Progress is aggressively, as far as I'm concerned 13 personally, aggressively underway to try to better 14 understand the movement of water into the aquifer 15 from above, which is the concern. 16 And Card is really mapping out the 17 paleochannels, from a geological perspective. He's 18 very excited about what he's discovering. He's 19 shared this excitement at the last SEG meeting. 20 It was, as I said then, refreshing to hear 21 basic science being laid out in a public forum. 22 They're ready to probably update again sometime in 23 February. And what I think is important, even 24 though we make recommendations, that the 25 recommendations are listened to. 56 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 And I think that's, basically, where the issue 3 lies, is that the Aquifer Committee participants 4 feel very strongly they would like to be listened 5 to. And that basically is my report. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Comments, reactions, 7 thoughts, advice back to the committee? 8 MR. SCHUBERTH: If anyone wants a copy -- I'm 9 sorry. If anybody wants a copy of the eight tasks, 10 that emerged out of the working group, approved by 11 the Aquifer Committee and then approved by the SEG, 12 they're here. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Chris. Is Card's presentation 14 and the other presentation online? 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: Yes. Yes. Larry. 16 MR. KEEGAN: Both Card's and Mark Maimone's 17 presentation. 18 MR. SCHUBERTH: They're online. 19 MS. JENNINGS: I'll share just a personal 20 anecdote about that meeting. I was doing my best 21 to follow it. Mark's a great speaker. I was 22 trying so hard, but about halfway through the 23 meeting, a scientist, a Phd for whom I have a lot 24 of respect leaned over and he said, a lot of this 25 is going over my head. I'm going whoa. Thank 57 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 goodness because I'm really wasting my time. 3 MR. DYSART: Okay. I was going to ask any 4 further comments? Thank you, Chris. Anybody from 5 the Beach Erosion Committee got a thought or can 6 tell us what's going on, since the chair is not 7 with us today? Lou, please. 8 MR. OFF: Bill Farmer circulated a couple of 9 e-mails about a month ago about three reports, 10 studies, and I didn't see any resolution to his 11 questions. I don't have knowledge of what reports 12 or studies he was talking about. I think they were 13 on his e-mail. 14 MR. DYSART: Anyone else have any knowledge 15 about that? Larry? 16 MR. KEEGAN: One of them was the Beach Erosion 17 Study, which has been laboriously working through 18 the independent technical review and resolution of 19 comments. 20 We're down to less than 20 comments to 21 resolve, and hopefully we'll be able to work 22 through those remaining ones, and lay the whole 23 thing out for everybody in the next two months. 24 The other two, I can't talk to. 25 MR. OFF: The other two what? 58 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 MR. KEEGAN: The other two things he had in 3 his e-mail, I can't address. I don't know. 4 MR. OFF: Who can address those? 5 MR. DYSART: Anybody know what the other two 6 items were? 7 MR. SCHALLER: Who did he ask? 8 MR. BAILEY: What was the question, maybe I 9 can get an answer -- tell me what the question is? 10 MR. OFF: The question was that there were a 11 couple of studies, which Bill Farmer thought were 12 in the agenda being done, under the purview of the 13 Beach Erosion Committee. 14 He circulated an e-mail to numerous people. 15 Again, I apologize for not bringing a copy of that, 16 but I'm wondering where these reports are. 17 Probably best to wait till the next meeting and 18 bring them up. 19 MR. DYSART: If no one knows what the other 20 two are -- Will. 21 MR. BERSON: I think we discussed at the 22 interim meeting and all of us said three -- three, 23 and I think we're not quite what the other two are 24 either. 25 I think that was sort of where we left it at 59 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 the time, that we just didn't know. Three was news 3 to us. That doesn't mean there aren't three. I 4 just don't know what they are. 5 MR. DYSART: Since you made reference to the 6 interim group, I'd ask Teri, who is coordinating 7 chairing, to comment and then Chris. 8 MS. LEFFEK: I agree with Will. We did talk 9 about this. We weren't sure exactly what Bill was 10 referring to. One of possible things, I think, we 11 talked about was the fines, the fines studies, and 12 also where would that be located. 13 I think that was being held up because of -- 14 Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, budgetary -- if 15 that's even what Bill is referring to. We're not 16 sure, but that was the one thing that was put out 17 on the table, maybe it was about fines study. 18 MR. DYSART: Larry? 19 MR. KEEGAN: The fines, we haven't started to 20 do that. It's just a matter of timing. It hadn't 21 been funded. That doesn't mean it's a budgetary 22 problem. It just means timing, where you do it in 23 the study. So yeah, that hasn't been done. That's 24 what we talked about at the interim meeting. 25 MS. LEFFEK: I thought this was something tied 60 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 to budgetary -- some aspect of the study I thought 3 was tied to budgets or maybe my recollection is 4 incorrect? 5 MR. BAILEY: There was a Corps study about O 6 and M material, and where to put that in the near 7 shore. That one, work has stopped on that because 8 there's no more money. 9 MS. LEFFEK: That's what I'm thinking of. 10 MS. JENNINGS: That's not specifically related 11 to harbor deepening? 12 MR. BAILEY: That's correct. It's for 13 existing O and M material. 14 MR. DYSART: David. 15 MR. SCHALLER: Yes. I just understood you to 16 say something that Larry said you didn't say, so I 17 want to qualify. Is this the Fish and Wildlife 18 2-A, or the spoil capacity evaluation in the upper 19 harbor that you're talking about? 20 MR. BAILEY: No, the other end of the harbor 21 out in the ocean. 22 MR. SCHALLER: Got you. 23 MR. DYSART: Chris. 24 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think this brief 25 conversation, again, demonstrates the importance of 61 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 communication. The Beach Erosion Committee met 3 consistently for a while, and out of that grew 4 certain recommendations. And then it didn't meet 5 anymore. 6 And then a year later, year and a half, I 7 don't know, I lose track of time, there's a report 8 that's appears somewhere, there were three studies. 9 Everybody yelled three studies -- who knew. 10 This was at the Operation Guidelines 11 Committee. Now the same three studies -- it could 12 have been one study that morphed into three, it 13 could have been two studies that morphed into 14 three. 15 The question comes up again, who are these 16 studies, and it again brings us back down to the 17 definition of what do we mean by is, or I first 18 voted against it before I voted for it. There 19 seems to be some parallel to these kinds of 20 commentary. 21 But I think it's very important. The Beach 22 Erosion Committee basically questioned some of the 23 conclusions drawn in the '97 original report, and 24 so back to the drawing board. 25 One of the big concerns is the transfer of 62 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 sediment from the north to south across deepened 3 harbor. And basically, that was the Corps' 4 question, whether it's just a little or a lot. 5 And even with the word budget being used, the 6 word budget is used for sand, the volume of sand on 7 one side of the equation versus the volume of sand 8 on the other side of the equation. That's the 9 budget. Also, that's the sand budget. 10 So we really need to refocus our energy on 11 this question of what happens to sand as it moves 12 down the litoral current across the current harbor 13 and across the deepened harbor, which really is the 14 core of the question. 15 MR. DYSART: Will and I have decided there are 16 enough sand dollars we could build both of these. 17 Lou. 18 MR. OFF: I hate to start another question 19 with this now, but is there any focus on -- I've 20 heard bantered about, you have to excuse me, I've 21 only been in the area three years, is there any 22 focus on the wakes produced by ships, now that 23 we're, purportedly, going to have larger ships, 24 because this is a particular danger on the north 25 beach for where we have a low beach and drastic 63 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 erosion into the small dunes that we have. 3 And I ask this question for my own stupidity 4 here, anywhere in any of the studies out there is 5 this being looked into? 6 MR. DYSART: Good question. Bill Bailey. 7 MR. BAILEY: That's an issue that came up at 8 the public scoping meeting we had, and it is 9 something that we will be looking at. We haven't 10 completed the study yet on that, but it is 11 something we're going to look at. 12 MR. OFF: Okay. So it's on the schedule 13 somewhere. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any further questions 15 about Bill Farmer? Thank you very much. This has 16 been a nice discussion. Dredging and Disposal, 17 Fred. 18 MR. BEASON: No report. 19 MR. DYSART: Judy, Economics Working Group. 20 MS. JENNINGS: I don't have a report, but it 21 might be a good opportunity to ask what the status 22 is that I don't know. 23 The last thing that we had, that was in a form 24 that could be shared with us, was the existing 25 world fleet and perspective world fleet. I know 64 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 other reports are forthcoming. Does anybody know 3 what and when, because I don't? 4 MR. BAILEY: Basically, we've asked -- I've 5 asked that question of our economics folks and I'm 6 supposed to get an answer tomorrow of when they're 7 supposed to be done with the reviews of those 8 reports. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Excuse me. 10 MR. SCHALLER: After you. 11 MS. JENNINGS: What do you anticipate next, do 12 they have them kind of lined up? Seems to me, 13 there's a logical order to approach it -- maybe 14 logic isn't logical. 15 MR. BAILEY: I don't know. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 17 MR. DYSART: David. 18 MR. SCHALLER: I can't answer the question 19 about when the consultant will be done, but I can 20 tell you the consultant is in the New York/New 21 Jersey area interviewing steamship lines today and 22 tomorrow, with regard to the question of their 23 individual expectations, with regard to the fleet 24 in Savannah. And that's, as I understand it, part 25 of the work that the Corps tasked. 65 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 MS. JENNINGS: Thank you. 3 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Fisheries and Aquatic 4 Resources, Will, anything to report? 5 MR. BERSON: Nothing to report. 6 MR. DYSART: Timely report then. Okay. How 7 about the modeling area, Larry, anything to report 8 there? 9 MR. KEEGAN: Nothing. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Operating Guidelines, 11 Teri? 12 MS. LEFFEK: Nothing really to report. Any 13 ideas or suggestions out of the interim meeting, 14 which is not really Operating Guidelines -- our 15 committee sort of runs that meeting, have already 16 been incorporated in the agenda in front of us. 17 MR. DYSART: Does anyone from the Striped Bass 18 Committee have anything to share with us? Okay. 19 Let's take about a 10 minute break and let our 20 court reporter rest there, and we'll then get back 21 to the remaining topics. Thank you. 22 (Short Break) 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's call the meeting 24 back to order. The next item on the agenda is new 25 business, and so the next item is review status and 66 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 function of SEG's committees, especially the MTRG. 3 This was requested by the SEG interim committee, 4 and so, Teri, why don't you kick that off. 5 Who do you wish to pass the baton off to or 6 who do you wish to speak on that? 7 MS. LEFFEK: You're talking to me. I'm sorry, 8 I was running my mouth -- I apologize. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. That's the first item the 10 interim committee recommended, review the status 11 and function of SEG's committees, especially MTRG. 12 MS. LEFFEK: I'm not sure we have one person 13 to speak on that. I might defer to Will. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Since you were leading 15 this group I was letting you kick it off. 16 MS. LEFFEK: Leading is a loose term. This is 17 a work in progress. Will, we're talking about 18 under new business review the status and function 19 of SEG's committees. We talked about that. 20 I don't know there was any one person who 21 brought this up. I know this was something you had 22 mentioned. Do you want to start the discussion on 23 that? 24 MR. DYSART: That seems reasonable, and my 25 understanding of the purpose of the group was not 67 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 necessarily -- they could say we want to hear from 3 so and so, or you could say we want discussion on 4 this. We don't want people to disappear and not 5 show up. We want to have some discussion on it. 6 So, Will. 7 MR. BERSON: Okay. There are sort of two 8 bites to this, one is the interim SEG meetings, and 9 the other is sort of a specific question about how 10 Operating Guidelines fits into the general 11 structure of how we operate. 12 And I think the main question there is, is 13 everyone happy with the way this structure seems to 14 be, and that's holding the interim sort of to the 15 side, but is Operating Guidelines fitting the 16 function that we envisioned for it. 17 And I think that's really a discussion item 18 for everyone, for all six in the room, and then I 19 guess the other thing is I'll just put in a pitch 20 for the interim SEG meetings, in that someone 21 brought up a point here, and granted all of us had 22 to scratch our heads about the beach studies, but 23 it was something that we actually discussed at the 24 last one. 25 It was an issue that we were, at least, aware 68 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 of. We didn't have the answer to it. We did know 3 there were a couple of studies we weren't quite 4 sure about. I call that progress, actually, 5 instead of sitting here -- at least I feel 6 confident in December I'll be able to nail down the 7 three studies, with some assurance, and not have to 8 wait until January when we all will get together 9 again and sort of figure it out. 10 Having said that, since I have the floor now, 11 I think Teri's done a wonderful job. Whether it's 12 -- always seems like I'm the instigator here, but 13 whether it's independent technical review or other 14 issues has been difficult, I think the Operating 15 Guidelines Committee has been a very useful place, 16 in a sense, to take discussions offline the main 17 SEG and talk them through, if not resolve them. 18 Some things can't be resolved. I think that's 19 not the point. If we all understand where we're 20 coming from, we can move forward constructively, 21 even if we don't necessarily agree on something. 22 Honestly, in terms of getting everybody 23 together and doing the meeting summaries, Teri is 24 unsurpassed. After that, I'll open it up to what 25 other folks are thinking. 69 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. Who would like to take the 3 next bite? 4 MS. JENNINGS: I remember that conversation, 5 and a question for me was, you know, we go through 6 the committee reports, and is that still the best 7 way to -- is that the best way for the SEG to be 8 organized or is it not? 9 I mean, is it meaningful currently, or will it 10 be meaningful as the project moves forward? I 11 think we had specific questions about the MTRG. 12 That may be, you know, there was one committee we 13 killed and kind of rolled over. We might be at a 14 juncture, looking back and asking, you know, what's 15 meaningful, what's relevant, or just scrap it, or 16 is there some importance to it? 17 For instance, the MTRG, clearly that's not 18 what it used to be, but that work is happening 19 somewhere by somebody. The point is not so much 20 the committee's doing work, but there are conduits 21 of communication. 22 So my thinking was, are we at a point in time, 23 maybe the interim meetings are all the conduit for 24 communication that we need. But still, there might 25 be specific things. I mean like today on 70 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 Fisheries, clearly something's going on with 3 Fisheries. We just are not quite sure what it is. 4 You know, who is doing it, and where should 5 those reports be coming from? That's the way I saw 6 that discussion. 7 MR. DYSART: Larry. 8 MR. KEEGAN: I just wanted to perhaps 9 illustrate a little more what Judy said, and Will, 10 and Teri. 11 As I recall the discussions, part of them 12 were the contrast between how the SEG is supposed 13 to be functioning through committees now, as Judy 14 says, as conduits of information, versus how the 15 work that's being done, to finish the general 16 reevaluation study and prepare a Tier II EIS is 17 structured. 18 And those things have, in some views, 19 diverged. In other words, the committees that were 20 formed several years ago may no longer be relevant 21 to the way the work is structured. So, it 22 interrupts the flow of information, or it's not 23 conducive to the smooth flow of information. 24 I think the MTRG sort of was picked as the 25 poster child to illustrate that, because as a group 71 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 the MTRG has not met now -- August of 2003, I 3 believe. And probably, as a group, as an MTRG, it 4 certainly, in my horizon, I don't see them meeting 5 again under that banner. 6 Absolutely right, the work is going on 7 elsewhere. Many, if not all the same people are 8 still involved, but the forum, the banner under 9 which it's -- the information will flow will 10 probably come more out of the interagency 11 coordination efforts that are set up now to deal 12 with fisheries, to deal with wetlands impacts, that 13 sort of thing. 14 So as I recall, that's what led to maybe 15 should we reexamine, at least, some of the standing 16 committees and see if they're still relevant to 17 what we're doing, and is this meeting, where we 18 look to committee reports, the way to get the 19 information that people are seeking, or is there, 20 as Judy mentioned, the interim meeting may be a 21 viable substitute or supplement, whatever, just to 22 try and add to the background. 23 MR. DYSART: Teri. 24 MS. LEFFEK: I echo what Will and Judy and 25 Larry said. That is the essence of what we 72 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 discussed. One thing we also talked about was the 3 shift, we touch on this, Larry, the shift in 4 emphasis from looking -- and Will talked about this 5 too in our meeting, the shift in looking at studies 6 and suggesting studies, to getting material and 7 reviewing material, to taking on a bit of a more 8 practical, and doing our homework and understanding 9 what's on the table, so we can discuss it 10 intelligently, to reach intelligent conclusions and 11 decisions. 12 In the sense of putting that in light of the 13 committee discussion, the committees may have some 14 use when we start talking about getting results 15 back and looking at, you know, mitigation. 16 I don't know. This body needs to decide that 17 committees have the expertise to do that, or does 18 that need to stay maybe in the interim general 19 discussions. I think that's something for us to 20 also consider. 21 MR. KEEGAN: Will, do you recall how you 22 characterized the change in the nature of the work 23 we're doing? 24 MR. BERSON: I'm sure it was brilliant, but 25 actually I don't exactly. By analogy, I'm sure 73 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 it's the only way I can seem to talk. 3 I mean, I think that we are in a different -- 4 especially as our modeling work moves forward, I 5 think probably Chris' Aquifer Committee exemplifies 6 the fact there is more and less active periods for 7 committees. 8 Now there seems to be a time to start looking 9 at the eight tasks, matching them up and seeing how 10 things are progressing, based Card's work, and I 11 guess the science initiative as well. I personally 12 think that there's -- the Fisheries and Aquatic 13 stuff is going to be important. 14 I think it's most important when some modeling 15 results come in. And I imagine that I need to get 16 on my horse and do something about getting them 17 together before that information comes in, so that 18 they're not looking at it as a cold group, but have 19 gotten together and looked at it previously. 20 I think Teri's exactly right. She was saying 21 exactly what I said. I think we are changing 22 horses, in a sense, and our task is different now 23 that we've got things to review and comment on. 24 We'll be getting them more in the future. 25 And yet, it seems like every single SEG 74 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 meeting, or the interim meeting, I find out some 3 other level of complexity, like the fact there's 4 advanced maintenance dredging, in certain parts of 5 the, river that I hadn't ever considered before. 6 I mean I was thinking of it almost like an LA 7 drainage ditch all the way up, and not appreciating 8 the fact there are going to highs and lows. 9 Again, it's interesting we can be discussing 10 it for -- 11 MR. DYSART: A long time. 12 MR. BERSON: -- 71 months, and still there are 13 interesting wrinkles that come out of this. I 14 expect that will be the case, as the results from 15 all these different studies come in. There will be 16 other elements I've never considered. 17 MR. DYSART: Teri and then Chris. 18 MS. LEFFEK: I want to echo Will's comments 19 about learning things. I think the interim meeting 20 was very helpful. We still need a structure for 21 that, and I'm sorry that's been delayed. 22 I understand why, but we kept trying to come 23 to some sort of, okay, this is our road map. This 24 is what we're going to use at these meetings to try 25 to make sure we're not missing anything, and we're 75 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 covering everything in a timely manner. 3 We really can't do without the schedule, and 4 sort of identifying some milestones. But having 5 that aside, I think the meeting was very helpful. 6 We did learn a lot of things. We did cover some 7 good ground. If this body decides not to have 8 interim meetings, that's fine. 9 I would very much like to advocate for the 10 interim meetings. I think they are helpful and 11 facilitate communication, which is what Chris was 12 talking about. I think we did learn a lot of 13 things and did have some productive discussions. 14 MR. DYSART: Chris. 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think Teri's comment about 16 communication, my comment about communication is 17 really extremely important. 18 I'm a little troubled by something said a few 19 moments earlier, and I'm not sure where it came 20 from, is that committee's structure -- my viewpoint 21 of a committee is that it consists of people who 22 know the subject, or who have an interest in the 23 subject, and who can speak to the subject in some 24 meaningful way. 25 My only experience with a committee is the 76 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 Aquifer Committee. Now, there are a lot of people 3 who initially were interested in the aquifer when 4 this first surfaced. 5 I still remember as if it were yesterday that 6 first meeting, which was set up in a very small 7 conference room in Armstrong, and 45 people showed 8 up. So we went into a larger auditorium and took 9 care of business. 10 Well, that consisted of people who had 11 interests in the Aquifer Committee in a passing 12 way, as well as people who had interest in the 13 aquifer in a technical way. So we did something 14 that I think was perfectly logical. 15 We simply developed a secondary group that did 16 -- the technical people, so that when Judy came to 17 the last meeting, couldn't understand a word 18 that was being said, and the Phd hydrogeologist, -- 19 I don't really know what they're talking about, 20 because when it comes to modeling, that's so 21 esoteric, only a handful people really know what is 22 being said, and who can raise sensible questions, 23 but nevertheless, the working group -- very simple 24 name -- the working group became a group of people 25 who knew the subject well. 77 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 They couldn't agree on a lot of things. It 3 took them about a year plus to finally come up with 4 the tasks that are here. If you read this, you can 5 see there's a lot of rational, explanations, and 6 approaches. 7 They wanted to make very clear that the reason 8 they were thinking this way is for very, very 9 specific reasons, so that's all in here. If a 10 committee does not do the work that it's assigned 11 to do, and that is to address striped bass, I don't 12 know anything striped bass other than it's a fish, 13 then the system isn't going to work very well. 14 It's the responsibility of the committee, then 15 to -- or the committee representative, the 16 committee chair -- to present to the SEG the 17 information that the SEG needs to hear. I mean, 18 what happened this morning is a perfect example. 19 All of us look at the LA waterway ditch, you 20 know, the irrigation channelway, you know, 35 21 degree slopes to the bottom, and you can run a car 22 down it 100 miles an hour down it and up the banks. 23 Well, it's not quite like that. It's more 24 complicated. After six years, I finally realized 25 there are the holes in this thing that go down 78 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 deeper. Now, that's a revelation. All of these 3 meetings should have revelations, as part of the 4 purpose of the meeting. 5 We went from monthly meetings to bimonthly 6 meetings. Some of us felt that bimonthly meetings 7 just isn't enough, so the Operating Guidelines 8 filled in with the in-between meetings. I think to 9 do away with that format would do a disservice to 10 the entire process. 11 MR. DYSART: David. 12 MR. SCHALLER: I think just for the record the 13 subject of maintenance, advanced maintenance 14 dredging, is not a revelation. It's been around 15 for years -- 16 MR. DYSART: I have heard it mentioned in the 17 past, yes. 18 MR. SCHALLER: Okay. That's all I have. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: But point well made, David, 20 but maybe it wasn't emphasized. It's just there, 21 you know, whether you talk to your students -- you 22 never emphasized it. Oh, you mean write it on the 23 board. If I write it on the board, then you write 24 it in your notes. If I didn't write it on the 25 board, then it's not emphasized. 79 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 So it could very well be, yes, I remember 3 what's his name -- Corps -- Dave -- Dan Parrott 4 came up four years ago with a model. 5 He talked about advanced, okay, but that's 6 four years ago. So it didn't get mentioned again 7 so it kind of slides off to the back of the stove. 8 MR. SCHALLER: I certainly understand that, 9 Chris, and there will be probably more of those 10 things that will come back and we'll remember. 11 But the only point I want to make is it's on 12 the agenda. It's been for a very long time. The 13 record shouldn't demonstrate, if someone were just 14 to read today's transcript -- 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: True. 16 MR. SCHALLER: -- Oh my goodness, we've 17 discovered something we've never heard about 18 before. 19 MR. BERSON: Nor did I mean to imply that. 20 MR. SCHALLER: No, no. 21 MR. DYSART: Judy. 22 MS. JENNINGS: Back to the larger agenda item 23 that we're on right now, and that's the status and 24 function of the SEG committee, I think as work is 25 proceeding, I see a good deal of difference in how 80 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 some work is being done, as opposed to the way some 3 other kinds of work is being done. For instance, 4 the Aquifer Committee continues to make, what 5 appears to be, good use of input from many of those 6 people that were at the meetings, but that's a very 7 open, apparently inclusive process, that is 8 incorporating a lot of comments as they come along. 9 But I see a bit of difference with how some of 10 the other committees are working. For instance, 11 the fisheries, that might be happening entirely 12 interagency. And maybe that feedback doesn't come 13 back to the SEG. 14 I see a good deal of difference with the way 15 the economics work is being done. I realize that 16 the Corps can't do everything in-house, and some 17 things have been contracted out, but, you know, 18 there's a difference between interaction and just 19 handing down reports. 20 I say this specifically whereas I think in the 21 Aquifer Committee, Chris, it might be possible for 22 any one of knowledgeable people to walk up and make 23 a point, and that point be considered. I'm afraid 24 that's not necessarily happening with the economics 25 work that's been contracted. 81 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 Clearly, that paper is going to be handed 3 down, and my input to it -- I regret this -- it's 4 probably going to come at the end on account of I 5 feel pretty ignored during the middle. So I think 6 there is a difference in the way the work is being 7 done, depending on, you know, what area of work 8 you're talking about. 9 MR. DYSART: Let me ask, I don't see any other 10 cards up now, Teri, could you tell us in the 11 interim group -- not interested in names -- kind of 12 how many people attended, what types of people 13 there, was there, you know, in your view was it 14 good, meaningful participation that floated out the 15 topics that needed to be brought to this body? 16 MS. LEFFEK: We had the usual suspects. I say 17 that in a favorable way; Judy, Morgan, Larry. 18 MR. DYSART: I'm not interested in pointing 19 out who was and who wasn't there. I'm just, you 20 know -- 21 MS. LEFFEK: The usual people that I have seen 22 in meetings, people who tend to give a lot of input 23 in the process, be very vocal and participate in 24 SEG meetings -- a core group of people that tend to 25 be present. I think, as I characterized earlier, I 82 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 think the interim meetings were very helpful. 3 We had lot of discuss. The SEG serves a 4 purpose. Sometimes when you have a large group of 5 people, the discussion kind of goes off on all 6 kinds of tangents, and you may not get to a 7 resolution. 8 With a smaller group of people, you can maybe 9 indulge those tangents a bit more, and sometimes 10 make progress you can't make in a larger group of 11 people. I thought it was a very good meeting. 12 Some of the things that are on the agenda came 13 directly out of that, that discussion about 14 committees, the agenda item we haven't gotten to 15 yet about the model aspect. Hopefully, we'll get 16 to the updated schedule and milestone. 17 I think it's a step in the right direction, 18 and I think it could be good if the SEG continues 19 to pursue that and flesh it out further and see 20 where that leads. 21 MR. DYSART: What's the possibility or, you 22 know, you might consider sending the minutes of 23 meeting, or a summary from your meeting to a 24 broader list, in that there's broad discussion, and 25 that might be useful as information to a broader 83 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 cross-section of the body here. 3 MS. LEFFEK: That's fine. I think we 4 discussed, rather than sending out minutes per se, 5 notifying people and directing people to the 6 website. That's what I would rather try to do, 7 rather than having people rely on Larry and me 8 getting out information. 9 MR. DYSART: So you're -- you're summary, from 10 that meeting, is on the website. 11 MS. LEFFEK: It's not posted yet. It will be 12 posted. 13 MR. DYSART: Okay, good. Chris. 14 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think what's so very 15 positive about the eight or nine people who meet, 16 one is always on the phone, is that it has blended 17 distinctions. It has opened up a dialogue, on a 18 deeper level, between individuals on different 19 sides of this entire process. 20 I think that opening of the dialogue has 21 allowed someone to say, for example, I think you're 22 right in your thinking; however, it seems to be 23 much more grass roots, in terms of the exchange of 24 information. 25 I think that is a shift for the better in the 84 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 entire process. If that small of a committee is 3 able to do something like that, then I think that 4 should continue. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Teri, I would ask you so 6 far as committees, do you have or does the group 7 have any thoughts about refocusing the committees, 8 or disbanding, or simply recognize that some are 9 waiting for additional information to come in, or 10 simply, as has been discussed today, that there is 11 apparent higher or lower levels of activity over 12 time, and that that simply recognized and accepted 13 it. Are there any recommendations that seem to be 14 coming from the interim group concerning 15 committees? 16 MS. LEFFEK: Those who attended help me out 17 here, I don't know we came up with any specific 18 recommendations. Committees of concern, I know 19 MTRG -- do we continue that, do we not continue 20 that. Help me -- aquifer, the smart team is really 21 doing a lot of that work, sort of filling that 22 role, is that correct -- 23 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 24 MS. LEFFEK: -- through the Corps. 25 MR. BAILEY: Right. 85 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 MS. LEFFEK: That was the specific committee 3 that I remember coming up in conversation, in the 4 sense of concern. And then we have this general 5 discussion about, you know, how do we -- do 6 committees serve the same purpose, has the purpose 7 changed? 8 I don't know that we came up with a specific 9 recommendation about that. The discussion just 10 sort of ran the gamut of ideas as to how to handle 11 that. 12 MR. KEEGAN: If I may, I think Teri's right. 13 As I recall it, we had a discussion about relevance 14 and -- but we didn't reach any conclusion. We, I 15 think, avoided, is the right word presuming, to say 16 that any particular committee was irrelevant, 17 because we thought the entirety of the SEG needed 18 to be part of that reaching a conclusion like that. 19 So as I recall it, that's what led to the 20 suggestion that there be a discussion about this 21 relevance of committees, structure, and how the SEG 22 information flow is working, so that more than just 23 the people who were at that interim meeting would 24 have an opportunity to express their perspectives 25 on it. 86 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 MR. DYSART: Chris. 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think the impetus that got 4 this committee going was the failure of the H and S 5 model, after four years of effort, to catch most 6 everybody in the SEG by surprise. We sort of said, 7 where were we all this time, especially when two 8 years prior it was known -- this never got reported 9 to the SEG, so -- or didn't get reported 10 effectively to the SEG. 11 I have to be careful how I phrase this. So 12 for the future, since so many studies announced are 13 coming down the pike, it was thought how can we 14 better manage the flow of critical information. I 15 think that was the core basis for this interim 16 meeting to get started. 17 MR. DYSART: Judy. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah, I think it's important to 19 realize why it's important to resolve this 20 question. We can all be very passive and sit and 21 wait on the document. That's one way to do it. 22 That's fine, because I'm actually one boring 23 enough to go home and read it. But the body, the 24 SEG as a body, is supposed to be involved in the 25 mitigation plan. 87 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 I think that's going to be very hard for us to 3 do, if we're not careful about channelling 4 communication all along the way. So I think that's 5 why this is valuable -- this discussion. 6 MR. DYSART: As a follow-up, let me just 7 clarify, is there some thought about if modeling is 8 as important as it is, there needs to be somebody 9 talking about what's going on there on a regular 10 basis, or the MTRG is not active anymore, or what 11 are the thoughts on that? 12 I'm not pushing on anything. I'm just saying, 13 you know, is there -- is there a mechanism for 14 getting the information back to the SEG, on a 15 regular basis, on kind of where things are in the 16 modeling area? 17 MR. KEEGAN: I'll try. We actually spent a 18 lot of time talking about that very subject, Ben. 19 I think that's what led us to thinking that this 20 interim meeting could serve to identify things that 21 were becoming ripe for evaluation and discussion 22 by the whole of the SEG, be it some analysis coming 23 to a conclusion, or a particular study wrapping up 24 and coming out with a report. 25 So we were trying to identify a way that we 88 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 could look at what was coming, and try to identify 3 those things so that in this session, there could 4 be substantive and meaningful discussion of the 5 issues that were coming out. 6 And that's where we ran into sort of the 7 quandary about well, is that the best way to get 8 this information out for digestion, interpretation, 9 and discussion, or is the committee a better way, 10 or do we need both of them. 11 I don't know that we ever got to a conclusion, 12 but you want my personal opinion, since I'm an SEG 13 member I'll give you my personal opinion -- I think 14 the MTRG, as a body, has served its purpose and 15 probably no longer has a purpose. 16 There may be another group that would better 17 address what the needs of the SEG are than what's 18 called the MTRG right now. I don't know that, but 19 I think the MTRG, as it was constituted with its 20 mission, it's goal we've got written down somewhere 21 in the Operating Guidelines, I think it's probably 22 been overcome by events. 23 MR. DYSART: Any further comments on that? 24 Perhaps the interim group might wish to bring back 25 something else, a recommendation, or results of 89 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 your discussion. Anything else on this? I think 3 this has been a good discussion. David Schaller 4 came in right after we introduced ourselves. 5 David, why don't we make sure you're on the record 6 being officially introduced. 7 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller with the Georgia 8 Ports Authority. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Teri. 10 MS. LEFFEK: I just want to clarify, so the 11 SEG -- we don't have a decision on this. Is the 12 SEG referring this back to the interim committee to 13 come up with a specific recommendation? 14 MR. DYSART: I guess my sense is there has 15 been good discussion here, sort of things the door 16 has been kind of pried open a little further. I 17 think my feeling is it's probably premature to do 18 something here, but it seems like things are a 19 little riper than they were. 20 The interim group's discussion has been very 21 helpful in getting things. I'm just suggesting 22 that this might be something you might wish to push 23 a little further. 24 MS. LEFFEK: Pursue further, okay. 25 MR. DYSART: Particularly, in line with 90 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 Larry's significant observation. 3 MS. LEFFEK: People who have been in the 4 interim committee, are you comfortable with doing 5 that, discussing that further, trying to come to a 6 recommendation? 7 MR. DYSART: Y'all can discuss anything you 8 want to. 9 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah, sure. 10 MS. LEFFEK: I don't want to just discuss. 11 Will said there are some issues you don't resolve. 12 But this obviously very important. The interim 13 committee spent a lot of time discussing it, and 14 communication, I think, we all agreed is a 15 priority. 16 I don't want something to just sort of fall 17 off the radar. I want to make sure I understand. 18 We've been tasked with trying to come up with some 19 recommendations and make some progress on this 20 item. I just don't want it to dissolve. 21 MR. DYSART: It just seems to be important 22 enough that we would like additional thoughts. If 23 you want to call them recommendations, you can call 24 them that. If you want to call them something 25 else, you can call them something else. 91 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 MR. KEEGAN: Are we being to make asked 3 recommendations about how to change how the SEG 4 works? 5 MR. DYSART: Referring specifically to the 6 MTRG. 7 MR. KEEGAN: Just the MTRG? 8 MS. LEFFEK: That's my question, are we 9 talking about committees in general or are we 10 talking about the MTRG. 11 MR. DYSART: I think what everybody's hearing 12 is both. It appears the MTRG, that was much riper 13 for some kind of more definitive discussion or 14 recommendation. I think y'all have -- Morgan. 15 MR. REES: Well, they say fools rush in. Let 16 me rush in here. I concur with Larry's personal 17 observation. This is not cleared by GPA or 18 anything, but I don't recall any discussion, in the 19 interim group meeting, that would lead one to think 20 that we would do anything other than recommend that 21 the MTRG be discontinued. 22 That's not to say that some of the functions 23 needn't be carried on. What I'd like to suggest is 24 maybe this body would task the Operating Guidelines 25 Committee to look at what the alternative functions 92 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 might be, and where they might fit into the SEG 3 process, and reach the conclusion that the MTRG has 4 served its purpose. 5 The point is I think the SEG, at this point, 6 can make that determination. We've had all the 7 discussion several times. We, as the Operating 8 Guidelines Committee, would need to focus on what 9 pieces of the MTRG mission need to be carried on, 10 and how they might be carried on. 11 MR. DYSART: Is there -- is there -- Judy. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah. I realize it's 13 absolutely unavoidable, we can't do this today, but 14 I think also part of the discussion was that we 15 would have this presentation about the schedule and 16 the milestones, so that we could see what's coming 17 down. 18 Maybe there's a giant piece of information we 19 don't have a committee name for, maybe we could 20 scrap half of them add one, something like that, if 21 we knew more about the work that's being done. I 22 think all know a lot about it, but there might be 23 -- I'm not sure if we would have ever heard about 24 the ship simulation study, if I weren't personally 25 curious about it. 93 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 I realize it's nobody's fault we don't have a 3 presentation today, but I think if we had had it, 4 it might have been constructive as to what 5 committees are relevant and irrelevant. So maybe 6 possibly, in order to be more clear about the what 7 the interim committee does, maybe at the next one 8 we could have just sort of an informal discussion 9 about what this item would have been, and use that 10 to say, you know, the only point about having 11 committees is that it -- it points a person with 12 responsibility to come back to this body. 13 I mean I don't feel like the Corps' 14 responsible to just come in and report everything 15 they have done. There's a lot of people working 16 a lot of hours everyday. But this committee is 17 interested -- I mean this body is interested in 18 certain things. What are you doing that impacts my 19 interest? 20 The only relevancy of a committee is that it 21 puts a person -- makes a person culpable, 22 responsible for bringing something back. Without 23 that, you know, we're just sitting here waiting on 24 a constant stream of, you know, constant stream 25 from the port. 94 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 MR. REES: Can I respond without putting my 3 card up? 4 MR. DYSART: Sure. 5 MR. REES: I don't disagree with anything 6 you said. I was simple suggesting, with respect to 7 the narrow issue of the MTRG, that its function has 8 been satisfied, and that my suggestion was that the 9 SEG, as a group, disband the MTRG, but ask the 10 interim group to address what needs to be done to 11 pick up any slack that may cause. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Right. I think I took a clumsy 13 way of doing it. I agree with you that we simply 14 suggest we do that with all our areas of interest. 15 MR. DYSART: What about the notion there has 16 been sufficient discussion and guidance for the 17 Operating Guidelines Committee or the interim group 18 to look at this, and whichever body needs to, bring 19 back further discussion, agenda items, and 20 recommendations, particularly concerning MTRG and 21 any further advice or suggestions you might have 22 concerning sharpening the focus and effectiveness 23 of the committee? Larry. 24 MR. KEEGAN: Could we ask, as a member of the 25 interim guideline committee, it would be very 95 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 helpful to know if there are people here who have 3 considerations we should be aware of, when we're 4 going to go back and debate this yet again, the 5 MTRG? 6 I don't know of anything that is open or on 7 the table for consideration. If there are some 8 things the membership -- that they're concerned 9 about, it would be very helpful to know. Can we 10 ask people to tell us? 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. Consider yourself asked. 12 We have heard a view that perhaps that body's 13 function has been satisfied, that it has done its 14 thing; is there agreement on that or disagreement? 15 Are you suggesting that this body today could push 16 this on further? 17 MR. KEEGAN: I'm suggesting the body pushes it 18 on further and asks me to evaluate it, I'm going to 19 tell you the same thing I've told you the last two 20 times, because I'm lacking any new input. 21 If there's something, some consideration we 22 haven't identified, we need to know, or we're going 23 to come back to the same conclusion. 24 MR. DYSART: Sam. 25 MR. DRAKE: I got a question for 96 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 clarification. The MTRG, we're talking the model 3 group that Bo Ellis is the chairperson of? 4 MR. KEEGAN: Yes. 5 MR. DRAKE: Bo was on GPA's payroll? 6 MR. KEEGAN: Yes. 7 MR. DRAKE: But when the fiasco came up with, 8 I guess, the EPA suggesting a different model for 9 dissolved oxygen, that Bo kind of quit attending 10 the meetings whatever? 11 MR. KEEGAN: No, no, no. 12 MR. DRAKE: Something else happened I don't 13 know about -- I'm sorry. I've been absent from a 14 lot of meetings. 15 MR. KEEGAN: The modeling questions -- the 16 MTRG deferred to another group, an agency group, a 17 formal -- 18 MR. DRAKE: Right, more technical -- 19 MR. KEEGAN: -- agency group, and it was just 20 federal and a couple of state agencies -- just 21 federal agencies -- SMART. 22 The MTRG, when it became apparent that most of 23 the modeling questions and development were going 24 to be dealt with in the SMART, the MTRG agreed 25 okay, well, we'll listen to what SMART decides and 97 1 REVIEW STATUS 2 we'll go from there. 3 So we weren't having a meeting one day with 4 SMART and having the same people come back the next 5 day and having a meeting with a couple of 6 additional attendees and talk about the same thing. 7 What happened then, as the decision moved on 8 to shift from the WQ models to the EFDC and WASP, 9 the MTRG just sort of never had a reason to come 10 back together, so they haven't. 11 It's not like Bo didn't attend or anything. 12 It's just that the group didn't have a reason to 13 meet any further, because of the shift in how the 14 development took place. Fair enough, Bill? 15 MR. DYSART: Teri. 16 MS. LEFFEK: Then as a SEG member, can I make 17 the recommendation we dissolve the MTRG. We task 18 the interim guidelines, interim committee to make 19 sure that the information continues to be 20 communicated in an effective manner -- make sure 21 it's not going to fall between the cracks. 22 MR. DYSART: Sounds like you captured a lot of 23 the discussion. Any disagreement? Then I declare 24 a consensus of this body, as stated by Teri. Thank 25 you. 98 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 Okay. Are we ready to move on to the next 3 remaining item. Let's do so. Bill, do you or 4 Larry, anybody, have any comments to introduce 5 this? 6 MR. KEEGAN: No. 7 MR. BAILEY: This is Joe Hoke, another person 8 in our hydraulics branch, and he is in charge of 9 the coordination and development of this EFDC 10 model, basically the EPA-developed model, and how 11 it will be applied to this project. 12 MR. HOKE: I've been asked to come and give an 13 update on the status of the modeling. Before 14 everybody gets too excited, we don't have any 15 results. 16 I'm just going to talk about the status. The 17 next slide, please. The things we're going to talk 18 about here are the overview of the TetraTech 19 contract and schedule, and then review the status 20 of the TMDL model, which is the basis, and finally 21 the enhanced deepening model. 22 So we've entered into a contract with 23 TetraTech back in September of this year. Their 24 major tasks, they're going to enhance the EFDC 25 model and that's the deepening model. 99 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 The model already exists as TMDL model which 3 they worked on for EPA. We're going to be 4 recalibrating the WASP water quality model. 5 There's a task for uncertainty and sensitivity 6 analysis, and that's been subcontracted Kennedy 7 Analysis Corporation here in Savannah. 8 They will be looking at the bathymetry, 9 updating that with some newer information, and 10 providing some model training, which was already 11 done. We've had one model training session 12 already, back in October. 13 Their final report is supposed to be completed 14 in March of 2005, and that will mean the modeling 15 is complete, and the report in March. There will 16 be an interim report that should come out in 17 January of 2005. That will be a calibration of the 18 models. 19 So the total project from start to finish will 20 be 23 weeks under contract. This is just a little 21 review of TetraTech's involvement in Savannah 22 Harbor modeling. As I mentioned, they started out 23 working for EPA on their model to develop the TMDL 24 for the lower Savannah River. 25 That project is completed. They're now using 100 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 the model as a basis for our project here, the 3 deepening model, so the basic model is already 4 developed. We didn't have to pay for that. We're 5 just building on that and continuing on with the 6 deepening. 7 There's two parts to the TMDL and the 8 deepening models, and they're compromised of two 9 different programs. First is the EFDC, that's the 10 actually stands for environmental fluid dynamics 11 code. That's where we're computing the water 12 surface elevations, discharges, velocities, and 13 also computes the salinity. And the second portion 14 of that, the modeling team, if you will, is the 15 WQAS program, which IS the water quality analysis 16 simulation. 17 That's where we're going to get the dissolved 18 oxygen projections from. So the status now of the 19 deepening model -- I'm going to focus on the EFDC 20 because that's where they're starting. There 21 really hasn't been any progress on the WQAS model 22 yet, so what I'm talk about here is the EFDC model, 23 which is the hydrodynamic calculations. 24 There's four main point of emphasis here. 25 That's the bathymetry, they're approving and 101 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 updating bathymetry. There's a survey done by the 3 USGS this past July and August, so in an area -- 4 I'll get to that later -- on the back river. 5 Second thing is the boundary conditions, 6 reexamining the boundary, which offshore is the 7 tide, and the upstream end we have the boundary 8 with the USGS gauge at Clyo. 9 Third item is the grid, so they're refining 10 the grid resolution, concentrating on the shipping 11 channel, and also some of the other areas of 12 importance. And the risk of uncertainty analysis 13 is going to help us figure out what portions of the 14 grid are the most critical, that need the most or 15 the refinement will give us the most good. 16 The fourth item is the marshes, doing some 17 improved modeling in the marshes, the exchange 18 between the marsh and the river, and that's been an 19 outputting to the marsh model which is a separate 20 effort by others. 21 The TMDL model also will be used as a 22 screening tool to examine the changes, before we 23 get to the actual deepening model. Next page over 24 -- so we've got two things going on simultaneously. 25 This the existing TMDL model, and there's one 102 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 group of modelers that is doing some screening 3 level runs of the TMDL model, looking at various 4 depth scenarios, and depths of 44, 45, 46, 47, and 5 48 feet. 6 Meanwhile, another group is working on 7 enhancements and converting the TMDL model into the 8 more improved deepening model. Once we've 9 screened these somewhat, the best options will be 10 carried forward into the advanced model. 11 This is the TMDL model. In the past, we've 12 called these -- it's been called plan B model, or 13 referred to as a coarse grid and a fine grid. 14 We've kind of settled on doing away with those 15 terminologies, and we're just calling it the TMDL 16 model and the enhanced deepening model now. 17 This is an example of the grid that's in the 18 TMDL model. You've got 657 horizontal cells. You 19 see from offshore, you can't actually see the 20 individual cells in here, but I believe they are 21 three wide up through the channel, of course, 22 extends all the way up to Clyo on the river. 23 What you can't see on here is six vertical 24 layers, so each one of these -- each one of these 25 cells has six vertical components to it that are 103 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 all computed individually. It runs 61 miles from 3 Ft. Pulaski -- 61 miles upstream from Ft. Pulaski 4 to Clyo to 18 miles offshore. 5 The connections are included in there, the 6 Rifle Cut, Drakies Cut. There's a closure where 7 the new cut was closed some years ago, and the tide 8 gate is also included in the models. 9 So as I said, one of the keys here is the 10 refining of the bathymetry. The first three items 11 were included in the TMDL model, and new data from 12 the USGS, which was just taken this summer. It's 13 on the front river, middle, back, and little back 14 rivers. 15 I think that's going to be very important. 16 I've got some detail on that next slide. 17 Everything that's shown in blue here, that is the 18 area that the USGS has surveyed. 19 You've got the back river here from the tide 20 gate all the way up to its end. You've got the 21 middle river. You've got the cross-sections here 22 on the Steamboat River, and then the front river, 23 Houlihan Bridge there up to I-95 sort, so it 24 covered this entire area, which we did not have 25 very good information from before. 104 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 That's some of the crucial areas where we're 3 looking at where the salinity is moving from the 4 front river to the back river. I think that's 5 going to help us out a lot. 6 This is just some detail to show you some of 7 the work they did there. This is the front river, 8 Steamboat River, and the -- that is Drakies Cut, is 9 that right, Wilbur? 10 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 11 MR. HOKE: What we're trying to show here is 12 the variation in depth. I don't know if you can 13 see the colors, but the light gray is zero to two 14 meters. You've got some very shallow areas back 15 here in Steamboat River. Most of the dark navy 16 blue is 10 to 12 meters in depth. You've got some 17 very deep holes on the outside of the bends of the 18 river. 19 That's where you generally find the deep holes 20 right there, there, there, there. So there's a 21 tremendous variation in depth up in that area, 22 anywhere from zero to 12 meters. And this is the 23 enhanced deepening model grid. This is a 24 preliminary view. There's still -- still refining 25 this. 105 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 And as I mentioned before, we've got 657 grid 3 cells in the horizontal dimension in the TMDL. 4 This right now has about 1,300. They're not sure 5 yet if they're going to need all those, but they 6 think the final resolution will be somewhere 7 between 1,000 and 1,300 grid cells in the 8 horizontal dimension. 9 The vertical layers, they will be working with 10 that, as far as the risk uncertainty analysis, 11 trying to refine how many vertical layers we need. 12 I believe it's somewhere between four at eight, so 13 it's a good chance it will be remaining at six as 14 it is now. 15 In these models, bigger is not necessarily 16 better. There's a certain point at which you 17 refine your numbers. Once you get beyond that, you 18 just are increasing the computation time. 19 Our goal is try to keep the simulation where 20 it can be done overnight, to where you can work 21 during the day, get the model set up, hit the start 22 button as you're leaving for the day, and it will 23 be finished by the time you get back the next 24 morning. 25 So we want to find the optimum area where 106 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 additional cells are adding value. You can see on 3 here the cells are smaller. We're in the channel 4 here, a much smaller, more refined area. We have 5 four cells across through here and Drakies Cut up 6 here, it changes to three cells. 7 That is where the enhanced model stands right 8 now. Like I said before, I don't really have more 9 information on the WQAS model. They are moving 10 ahead on the EFDC. 11 The EFDC model will feed into the WQAS model. 12 They will recalibrate that. That's down the road 13 right now. That's the last slide. I'll be glad to 14 take any questions. 15 MR. DYSART: Questions, comments. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Well, everybody seems to 17 understand this, but I really don't. Fluid 18 dynamics code, that seems really like a basic 19 thing. I write it down and sit here and look at 20 it; it doesn't mean a thing to me. What is it? 21 What is it talking about? 22 MR. DYSART: Sounds like a good question to 23 me. 24 MS. JENNINGS: I mean, I've got it all written 25 down here, hydrodynamics model, I mean, I've 107 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 written -- hell, I've even written this and turned 3 it in as something I wrote, and I don't know what 4 it is. 5 MR. HOKE: They're just saying the code, the 6 program, as it is written, is just a fluid 7 mechanics computation process. 8 MS. JENNINGS: That works. I got it now. 9 MR. HOKE: As far as the exact words, I don't 10 know. I don't know what they were thinking when 11 they developed -- 12 MS. JENNINGS: Fluid dynamics code, I mean, 13 can you dumb that down just a little. 14 MR. DYSART: I think we can refer you to Sir 15 Horace Lambs book on hydrodynamics and that would 16 be a good place to start. Larry. 17 MR. KEEGAN: Maybe an analogy will help, Judy 18 Think of the WQ map as Word Perfect word process. 19 Thing of EFDC as Microsoft Word. They're both 20 programs to enable you to do something, in the case 21 of Word Perfect and Word, that's to prepare a 22 document. 23 In the case of EFDC and WQ map, that's the 24 model hydrodynamic situation. The codes different. 25 They approach it using differing algorithms at a 108 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 certain end of the code, but they do the same task. 3 Does that help? 4 MS. JENNINGS: That helps a lot. The only 5 thing is -- okay. So once you -- that model will 6 tell you water quality in addition to DO? Exactly 7 what does it tell you? 8 MR. KEEGAN: EFDC is hydrodynamics and 9 salinities. 10 MR. HOKE: Right. So that will give us the 11 water surface elevations, velocities within the 12 water column, salinity, flows as far as upstream, 13 downstream. 14 MS. JENNINGS: That's where the salinity is? 15 MR. HOKE: Right, in that EFDC model. The 16 WQAS model is the water quality model, and that's 17 where the dissolved oxygen will come from. So 18 we'll take the results of the EFDC model and feed 19 that into the WQAS model. 20 So we have an initial product where we're just 21 looking at the water, and then the secondary 22 product with the WQAS model, we're looking at the 23 dissolved oxygen. 24 MS. JENNINGS: And the TMDL model, the EPA 25 model, contains both of these components. 109 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 MR. HOKE: That's correct, yes, just not as 3 detailed a scale. 4 MS. JENNINGS: All right. I appreciate that 5 because I really didn't understand. 6 MR. KEEGAN: In plan A -- I hate to use that 7 term because Bill's going to beat up on me for 8 using it, but we didn't have two different 9 programs. 10 We had the WQ map, which was going to have a 11 component that did hydrodynamic and salinity, and 12 then water quality was another component of the 13 same code. In this case we actually had two 14 programs; EFDC and WQAS, so, a little different, 15 but to get tools to do the same thing. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Are they both, the 17 enhancements, do both of these models -- I know you 18 showed it, but it was most about the bathymetry. 19 Is that necessary for both of them, I mean the 20 enhancements? 21 MR. HOKE: The WQAS model will just be 22 recalibrated, once we have the new input from the 23 EFDC model. They will take the WQAS model and 24 recalibrate it, with the data that was collected in 25 '97 and '99. I don't -- haven't really gotten very 110 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 far with the WQAS model yet. They will be doing 3 that second. 4 One other thing I wanted to add, there was 5 discussion earlier about the different depths, and 6 the existing channel design is for a 42 foot depth, 7 and so just to use an example, if we're doing our 8 deepening alternative for a 44 foot channel, what 9 we'll do is take our surveys we have to represent 10 a 42 foot channel, which is the existing condition. 11 We'll then lower all those depths by two feet, 12 so a 44 channel will be two feet deeper than a 42 13 foot channel, but it won't necessarily be 44 feet. 14 I think there was a lot of discussion that centered 15 around that earlier. 16 MR. BEASON: You lost me -- say that again. 17 MR. HOKE: Okay. The existing channel is a 42 18 foot design, so we have these surveys from -- it's 19 2002 -- 2002 annual survey. We're using that to 20 represent the existing condition, which was based 21 on our 42 foot channel. 22 So that will have sediment in some places, 23 advanced maintenance in other places, so we're 24 assuming that that survey will be representative of 25 a 42 foot channel. So the 44 channel, which is one 111 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 of deepening scenarios will be two foot deeper than 3 the survey that we're using for the existing 4 condition. 5 MR. DYSART: So the existing can kind of keep 6 going up and down, so forth, you simply say, we'll 7 just drop that cross-section, or that two feet, it 8 will still have the same dips and so forth. 9 MR. HOKE: Right. So a 44 foot design channel 10 will be two feet deeper than existing, 48 foot 11 would be six foot deeper than existing. 12 MR. BEASON: All right. I got to ask a 13 question. You've got some places in the harbor now 14 that are deeper than the project. 15 Are you saying you're going to take that 16 contour that's there today, pick a number -- 60 17 feet, you got a 60 foot hole. 18 Are you going to make that hole reflect a two 19 foot drop, if you project a two foot project 20 increase? Are you going to run the contour on 21 today's exactly, two feet deeper, three feet 22 deeper, four feet deeper? 23 MR. HOKE: I don't know of any places where we 24 have holes that are deeper than the maximum 25 advanced maintenance. 112 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 MR. BEASON: Yeah, there are places in the 3 harbor that are beyond advanced maintenance. 4 MR. BAILEY: The answer is yes. 5 MR. BEASON: You're going to automatically 6 push those down deeper? 7 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 8 MR. BEASON: My question is this, if there's 9 reach in the river today that is deeper than 48 10 feet, are you going to project the impact in these 11 models deeper, even though they won't be affected? 12 MR. KEEGAN: I don't know that we've reached a 13 conclusion on that question yet, Fred. It's a good 14 question. 15 MR. BEASON: I thought that's what he said. 16 MR. KEEGAN: I think I know what Joe is trying 17 to say. I'm not quite sure that's what he was 18 trying to say to you. 19 MR. BEASON: I don't think it should be done 20 that way. 21 MR. KEEGAN: It's one of the things I was 22 talking earlier about, the complexities of how to 23 represent the channel. That's exactly one of the 24 questions I think we're still trying to wrestle 25 with. I don't know that we've reached the end of 113 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 that. 3 MR. HOKE: If it's the scoured area -- the 4 scoured area, outside the dredged channel, then 5 that would just remain as is. 6 MR. SCHALLER: Would it be fair to say, 7 though, there will be no reason to exactly 8 replicate the contours if, for instance, it were to 9 be deepened by four feet; in other words, for that 10 54 foot, 56 foot hole, there would be no reason to 11 take it 60, right? I mean it's a deep hole, it 12 just stays a deep hole. 13 MR. BEASON: That was my point. I say that 14 because I can see Chris raised the issue of do 15 you create a deeper hole and run a potential 16 impact. 17 There are some places out there that mother 18 nature has already deeper than the deepest 19 projection would be, as far as dredging is 20 concerned. The project depth dredging would not 21 encroach some of those spots, in the river, that 22 are already that deep today. 23 MR. BAILEY: That's correct. And that's how 24 it would -- if something is constructed, that's how 25 it would be constructed. 114 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 MR. BEASON: Yes, okay. That's all I wanted 3 to ask. 4 MR. DYSART: Chris. 5 MR. SCHUBERTH: I think the point that needs 6 to be made is that oversized hole is there for a 7 reason. I mean, the dynamics is such in the river 8 that it created that particular 60 foot hole, just 9 take that number -- that 60 foot hole at that 10 particular place. 11 So if you change then the relationship, that 12 hole then might respond completely differently. If 13 you lower it two feet, and you lower everything 14 else and you don't touch that, then that hole may 15 respond differently. 16 It also may respond differently if you drop 17 everything two feet, and take that 60 foot hole and 18 drop it 62 feet, that may again change 19 circumstances, but then, I'm so naive, this is what 20 modeling is supposed to determine, is if you make 21 these kinds of changes, what is going to be the 22 outcome of those changes, before you actually 23 create the change in the channelway itself. 24 MR. BEASON: And I concur. What I've seen 25 from my side is as you increase the volume of water 115 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 that's being moved down the river, because the 3 space is enlarged, the flow slows down and you have 4 some shoaling in some different spots. 5 I'm looking at it from a different point of 6 view from you. You're correct. It could impact it 7 and it would go down, but my concern, and that's 8 a concern, but also I want us to look at the 9 concern of where is that shoaling going to occur 10 now. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Haven't we already -- don't we 12 know for sure at different depths, bathymetry 13 changes. I'm not as -- I mean, there is some 14 concern about the shipping channel, but I'm also 15 going to be concerned about what changes that would 16 mean for the river and marsh interfaces. 17 My original question, though, was I know there 18 was some concern about the grid resolution. Are 19 all of your technical people happy with what you 20 have proposed? 21 MR. HOKE: As far as the -- 22 MS. JENNINGS: The grid. 23 MR. HOKE: The size of it? 24 MS. JENNINGS: Right. 25 MR. HOKE: It hasn't been reviewed by the 116 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 panel yet. 3 MR. BAILEY: It works -- basically, it's just 4 been started. The modelers haven't reached the 5 decision, produced a report. No one has looked at 6 it, so none of those steps have been done yet. 7 MS. JENNINGS: You have to decide on what the 8 grid resolution is going to be before you do that. 9 MR. BAILEY: Part of the work of the model is 10 to find out how small the grid should be. That's 11 one of their tasks and they haven't completed it 12 yet. 13 MR. HOKE: They will trying some different 14 runs with different size of cells, especially 15 within the channel area, trying to refine that and 16 seeing when it gets small enough. It makes no 17 difference, other than to make a computation take 18 longer. 19 MR. DYSART: Teri. 20 MS. LEFFEK: I need some clarification on the 21 discussion we just had. I thought I heard 22 conflicting views; it makes sense to lower that 23 hole two feet, in the model, because that may 24 change -- I don't know. 25 Maybe I didn't understand that correctly. I 117 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 mean, you want to make sure that we model for if 3 you're changing -- you're lower things two feet in 4 the channel, that may change what happens in the 5 hole. Did I understand your discussion, Chris? 6 MR. SCHUBERTH: Yes. See rivers reach a point 7 of dynamic equilibrium, and they do that over a 8 long period of time, which is a complex 9 interaction of a lot of factors and a lot of 10 forces. 11 If you look at the original map, and I don't 12 mean to digress and I know it's getting late, but 13 if you look at one of the original cartographic 14 maps produced in 1790, the depth of that river was 15 basically two to three feet, at its maximum there 16 would be a hole at maybe 10 feet. 17 Now, this river has been modified since then, 18 since 1790 it's been modified. Each time its 19 been modified, it's reached its own dynamic 20 equilibrium, which is going to be different from 21 what it had been before development, before anybody 22 moved sand around. 23 So the question then becomes, if it's reached 24 dynamic equilibrium with the last deepening, and 25 it's got the 60 foot hole here, it's got these 118 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 over-deepened sites here and there, if you then say 3 let's just lower everything by two feet, is the 4 river going to continue to say, oh, I find that 5 acceptable. I'll continue to do my job. 6 Now everything is plus two. Then you say, 7 okay. Let's do plus four. And the river might 8 then say, you know, it's kind of anthropomorphic 9 thing, well, I don't like this. So I'm going to do 10 so and so. 11 A good example is to look out at Tybee where 12 there was an enormous volume of sand placed out on 13 beaches, with the idea the sand was going to stay 14 there. Well, it doesn't stay there. The system 15 takes it away, and where does the system put it, 16 it puts out at ebb tide delta at the back river, 17 and when you look out there at low tide, there is a 18 kazillion tons of sand out there that normally 19 wouldn't be there, if it hadn't placed for the last 20 20 years on the beaches. 21 So for every change that one makes in the 22 system, there's a price to be paid. What we're all 23 trying to figure out is to anticipate these prices 24 that are going to have to be paid. 25 So I'm not advocating anything. I'm not 119 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 advocating keeping everything except that 60 foot 3 hole. I'm not advocating deepen everything 4 including that 60 foot hole, because I don't know. 5 I can't get into the head of the river. The river 6 is going to do what it wants to do in its own way. 7 And Fred and others that work the river everyday 8 know this full well. 9 MS. LEFFEK: So do we -- as someone who is 10 going to have to look at the results, and have 11 trust that the model is modeling things accurately, 12 is it better then to take that hole and make it two 13 feet deeper or not? You're saying don't do that. 14 MR. SCHUBERTH: Take Larry's words, it's 15 complex and we really don't know yet how we want to 16 address this. I guess this is what Larry might be 17 saying. 18 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah, I think those are some of 19 the questions that are still being thought about, 20 the answers to exactly what you're talking about 21 and most other things. 22 MS. LEFFEK: Will someone come back to us and 23 say, this is what we decided, this is a topic we 24 debated and talked about; this is why we decided to 25 model it this way? 120 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah, absolutely. 3 MS. LEFFEK: Okay. 4 MR. KEEGAN: We've already talked about that, 5 that's essential that we do that. 6 MR. DYSART: Safe to say that the members of 7 SEG have a better idea of what's going on, the 8 complexity and so forth, than they did before. 9 Perhaps your body will have a recommendation about 10 when you would like to hear more about this. 11 MR. KEEGAN: Might be better to let us get to 12 the end, before you ask us to tell you what the 13 answer is. 14 MR. DYSART: Any other questions? Bill 15 Bailey. 16 MR. BAILEY: I did want to say, Joe talked 17 about the TMDL model enhancements, all that. These 18 enhancements are things we're trying. They may or 19 may not be successful. 20 So we're asking the contractor to look to see 21 if we can make what EPA developed, see if he can 22 make that better, make it more accurate. He may 23 come back and say no, I couldn't, or he may say you 24 asked me to look at these six things, and only this 25 one makes a difference. 121 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 MS. LEFFEK: That would be in the March 2004 3 report? 4 MR. BAILEY: Right -- 5 MR. DYSART: 2005. 6 MR. HOKE: He puts in the finer grid and comes 7 up with the same results we had in the TMDL model, 8 then we'll say that we don't need to use the finer, 9 more-detailed resolution. We can use the one we 10 had already. 11 MR. KEEGAN: One more additional piece of 12 information, the contractor has given the exact 13 same performance goals that were used before. They 14 haven't changed a lick. 15 So they have been told, here are the goals 16 you're trying to meet, and as part of their report 17 they have been charged with coming back and saying, 18 here's how well we did or didn't meet them. 19 So we haven't changed the bar for them at all. 20 It's the same goals. They will come back and tell 21 us how well they did. 22 MR. HOKE: The TMDL model met most of those 23 goals, but not all of them. With the enhancements, 24 they're trying to meet more of the goals. 25 MR. DYSART: Chris. 122 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 MR. SCHUBERTH: And the contractor is this 3 Tetra? 4 MR. HOKE: TetraTech. 5 MR. KEEGAN: Their contractor, the Corps'. 6 MR. SCHUBERTH: No, no, I mean -- yeah. 7 MR. KEEGAN: TetraTech is the name. 8 MR. DYSART: Sam. 9 MR. DRAKE: I just have one final question. 10 I'm a little confused now. I know you did some new 11 bathymetric surveys, in August of last year. Are 12 they using a good bit of the ATM data? 13 MR. KEEGAN: Every bit of it. 14 MR. DRAKE: It's programmed to try to give 15 more accurate answers? 16 MR. KEEGAN: Absolutely, not only the '99 17 data, the '97 data, plus some additional that USGS 18 collected. That data has also been incorporated, 19 hasn't it, some of their gauge station information 20 has been used? 21 MR. BAILEY: I think so. 22 MR. DRAKE: Fine. 23 MR. DYSART: Further questions. 24 MR. HOKE: I guess the other item was there 25 was some talk about the river back in the 1700s. 123 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 We don't have anything back that far, but we do 3 have a bathymetry, I think, from an 1815 map that 4 ATM had encoded for previous use. We've got that 5 from them. We'll be running that 1850s bathymetry 6 also just to see what that shows us. 7 MR. DYSART: Further questions, comments? 8 Joe, we thank you very much. Next item, when do 9 you want meet again? Pick a month first. 10 MS. LEFFEK: I'll jump out here and say 11 January 11th. That allows the interim group to 12 meet December 7th, if that's convenient. 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. January 4th would be the 14 first Tuesday, but that's kind of close to the 15 holiday weekend. How about the 11th. 16 MR. SCHALLER: That's what she said. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. The meeting room here is 18 available, Cathy has determined. Why don't let's 19 say January the 11th. 20 MS. LEFFEK: Let me then announce the interim 21 meeting would be December 7th in the afternoon at 22 Larry's office, is that correct? 23 MR. KEEGAN: That's fine. 24 MR. DYSART: David. 25 MR. REES: Is that 1:00 o'clock? 124 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 MS. LEFFEK: Yes, 1:00 o'clock, we usually 3 meet in the afternoon. 4 MR. SCHALLER: Can I get a reaction from the 5 group about changing our meeting time from 9:00 6 o'clock in the morning to 1:00 o'clock in the 7 afternoon? 8 MS. JENNINGS: Yea, I love it. 9 MR. SCHALLER: Okay. Thanks. 10 MS. JENNINGS: A Christmas present, gosh. 11 MR. DYSART: Is there any sentiment contrary 12 to that? Seeing none, I declare -- 13 MR. SCHALLER: Cathy has got to check on the 14 room availability. I just wanted to get kind of 15 knee jerk reaction. 16 If everybody started throwing things at me, I 17 know 1:00 o'clock is not popular, but with 18 everybody saying okay, maybe, let us check the room 19 availability and we'll put the notice out. 20 MS. VAUGHN: Right. 21 MR. DYSART: Speaking of throwing things, a 22 very brief observation for the record, at this 23 meeting and at a number of meetings, I think we 24 have a lot of people share this observation; 25 there's a lot of good humor, smiles, respect, 125 1 SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION 2 collegiality, as Chris would say, and the 3 environment, I think, is conducive to good 4 communication. 5 I appreciate that. I think it's probably the 6 feeling all around the table that it is very 7 helpful, and is a very good thing. And I thank you 8 all for contributing to the constructive 9 environment in which we can deliberate and talk 10 about a lot of complexities and things that are 11 important. Seeing no further tent cards up, I 12 declare the meeting adjourned, and thank you all. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 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 125 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 9th day of December, 2004. 20 21 22 ________________________ 23 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court Reporter, B-2041 24 25