March 6, 2000 Meeting

Agenda Items and Discussion/Directives:

1. Mission Statement. The committee unanimously approved the following mission statement: "Determine the scientific analysis needed to determine the effect of the project upon dredging processes, including but not limited to disposal of all dredged materials from the Savannah Harbor and its approach.
2. Review LTMS guidelines for dredging Savannah Harbor. Bill Bailey walked the committee through aspects of the LTMS including the following:

• The goal of the LTMS is to identify how best to perform maintenance dredging in the Savannah Harbor.
• Historical data reflects the maintenance dredging in the Savannah Harbor has held steady over the last two Harbor improvements at around 7,250,000 cubic yards annually. The GPA Harbor Expansion engineering study indicated the expansion to –48’MLW will have no significant (+/-60,000 cubic yards annually) impact on the required maintenance dredging requirement. History does demonstrate a change in the shoaling patterns. The Harbor Expansion may impact these shoaling patterns.
• The LTMS concluded agitation dredging in berths is the least expensive. Placement of maintenance material in confined upland disposal sites (CUDS) is the most environmentally acceptable alternative for berths operators.
• Useful life of the existing upland disposal areas except 1N/1S and 2A is at least 100 years based on the USACOE geotechnical team stating the dikes do not have a height restriction and that the hydraulic dredges are capable of pumping upwards to 150 feet of lift with booster pumps. An updated dredging and dike construction schedule was distributed.

3. Review GPA impact on existing upland disposal areas with expansion material. The GPA engineering study for the expansion of the Harbor provides the GPA will raise the existing confined upland disposal sites (CUDS) on a 1:1 cubic yard basis for all new works material deposited in the CUDS’s. Therefore there will be no negative impact or loss of capacity in the CUDS for future maintenance material. The new and improved Harbor will not result in any major additional maintenance dredging volumes.
4. Difference in the Charleston and Savannah District COE on sediment testing. Each district utilizes a different threshold for sediment testing, as different individuals at EPA are responsible for managing the Georgia and South Carolina testing standards. Both thresholds are EPA approved. EPA requires testing of ocean disposal site sediments every six years.
5. Possibilities for developing a deep-water port in Jasper County, South Carolina. There are various rumored Jasper County developments including a container facility for the SC Port Authority. The Jasper County site is in fact being evaluated in the EIS for the development of the proposed Daniel Island port facility in Charleston Harbor.
6. Review ongoing possibility of developing additional upland disposal sites outside of the proposed Harbor expansion proposal. The need for additional upland disposal sites pre-exists the Harbor expansion proposal and the committee is aware of ongoing discussions outside of the SEG process to address this need. Various committee members voiced the concern that the model for the Harbor expansion project will not include known future events such as additional disposal sites, which could significantly affect the Savannah Harbor. A joint meeting with the MTRG Committee will be scheduled to determine if the model will include such conditions and if not, if those conditions can be added to its scope, either now or at a later date. The committee feels there is a need to develop a model that will be valid as well as accurate for future Harbor impacts.
7. Additional issues.

• The Jacksonville District office is reviewing the work of Mitchell Granat in hydrocyclone technology, which enables the separation of sand from silt when dredging.
• The committee decided it would investigate various beneficial uses of dredge material.

The committee will meet next month on the afternoon prior to the SEG meeting.