1 1 2 3 4 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP 5 6 MEETING 7 OF 8 MAY 6, 2008 9 10 11 12 MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE MUSEUM 13 POOLER, GEORGIA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 I N D E X 4 5 6 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS --------- 3 7 8 Status Update - Bill Bailey --------------- 6 9 Milestones Update - Hope Moorer ----------- 22 10 Recommendation to Corps - David Kyler ----- 32 11 Next Meeting Date ------------------------- 47 12 13 CERTIFICATE ------------------------------- 50 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 (THE REPORTER: I am appearing here today 3 on behalf of my employer, Tom Crites & 4 Associates. My office was requested by Georgia 5 Ports Authority's office to provide a court 6 reporter today at 9:00 a.m. at this address. 7 Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well 8 as the instructions of my employer, I wish to 9 disclose that, other than accepting to serve as 10 your reporter, we have not entered into any 11 other contractual agreement with any party 12 involved in this case.) 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. Good morning. I'm Ben 14 Dysart, the facilitator for the Stakeholders 15 Evaluation Group. I'd like to call our meeting 16 to order. 17 If you'll find your seat, we'll get going. 18 You have, as usual, a draft agenda at your 19 place, and first thing, be looking that over. 20 I'll just mention, you were informed, I think, 21 by e-mail yesterday that the scientific 22 briefing that was scheduled for today will not 23 take place. 24 The presenter became ill, and it is being 25 rescheduled. So be looking over the draft 4 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 agenda, if you care to. The first thing we'll 3 do is introduce ourselves to one another. 4 Which side do we want to start on -- 5 following the orders of Madam Court Reporter, 6 Tom. 7 MR. WRIGHT: I'm Tom Wright. I'm here as 8 a local citizen. 9 MS. GRAINEY: Karen Grainey, Savannah 10 Riverkeeper. 11 MS. WENDT: Priscilla Wendt, South 12 Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 13 MR. PERRY: Bob Perry, South Carolina DNR. 14 MR. DYSART: Ben Dysart 15 MS. LANDERS: Mary Landers, Savannah 16 Morning News. 17 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 18 Authority. 19 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant to 20 the Georgia Ports Authority. 21 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant to 22 Georgia Ports. 23 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 24 Authority. 25 MS. MALLOY: Andrea Malloy, South Carolina 5 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 Coastal Conservation League. 3 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 4 Service. 5 MR. WEBB: Wes Webb, US Fish and Wildlife 6 Service. 7 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, Fish and 8 Wildlife Service. 9 MS. COLVIN: Elizabeth Colvin, Georgia 10 Wildlife Resource Division. 11 MR. DuBECK: Guy DuBeck, Georgia DNR. 12 MR. NJIKAM: Forpu Njikam, Army Corps of 13 Engineers. 14 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of 15 Engineers. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia 17 Sierra. 18 MR. COLLINS-RAHN: Lucille Collins-Rahn, 19 Georgia Sierra Club. 20 MS. WALKER: Laura Walker, City of 21 Savannah. 22 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee. 23 MR. DYSART: Thank you. We have other 24 people coming in. We'll introduce them on the 25 record later. You have the agenda. 6 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 Is there any desire to add anything or 3 move anything around? Seeing no request to do 4 so, we will operate using this draft agenda. 5 We'll consider it to have been adopted. 6 What about the March transcript. It has been 7 online, posted. You've had an opportunity to 8 look at that. As is our custom here, if you 9 have any clarifications, corrections or what 10 not we do it on the record the next time. Any 11 clarifications needed? Seeing no request for 12 any changes, we will consider that the group 13 has adopted the record of the last meeting held 14 in March of this year. 15 Skipping on past the scientific briefing, 16 Bill Bailey, talk to us about the GRR, EIS 17 status update, please, sir. 18 MR. BAILEY: Okay. We're coming to the 19 end of our -- the technical evaluation phase. 20 Most of the engineering design work has been 21 completed. We're kind of shifting to the 22 report writing mode. 23 On the dissolved oxygen systems, we've 24 received an electronic copy of Tetra Tech's 25 final report, and expect the hardcopy of the 7 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 report this week. We'll provide those to GPA 3 and have those posted on the website -- 4 probably be posted next week. 5 We've got some engineering work underway 6 on site development for those DO systems, and 7 expect to have that complete within the next 8 couple of weeks. 9 And that's designing the roads to these 10 facilities, and getting electrical power to the 11 facilities, and that kind of site development 12 work. 13 As far as sediment quality, we received 14 the final testing report from our contractor 15 and we completed our evaluation, our sediment 16 quality evaluation, and sent that to the 17 agencies for their review a couple of weeks 18 ago. 19 And we intend to post that evaluation on 20 the website probably by the end of May. 21 Air quality analysis, we've completed that last 22 week, and it's going out -- it's going around 23 for an internal review now. We intend to send 24 it to EPA next week for them to look at. We 25 will probably post it on the website probably 8 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 in late June, then giving the agencies about a 3 month to give us any comments if they have 4 them. We'll follow that partner with the air 5 quality analysis. 6 On the mitigation plans, we recently 7 completed drafts of two documents. One of them 8 explains how the mitigation plans were 9 developed, and the second document describes 10 the monitoring, the adaptive management plan -- 11 we provided those to the agencies the end of 12 April. 13 We intend to hold a public workshop at the 14 end of June to kind of go through the 15 information that's in those documents. So 16 those are essentially our drafts, you know, 17 pre-decisional until the information comes out 18 in the EIS. 19 But that's what we're thinking of now for 20 those -- for those two things; mitigation and 21 the monitoring. 22 The economic analysis, the economists 23 produced a report and the project team looked 24 at it, asked some questions, and the economists 25 went back up and asked our headquarters folks 9 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 about those things. 3 They decided they needed to perform some 4 additional analyses. So that's additional work 5 that's extending their completion date. So 6 they're now -- the benefits are now scheduled 7 to be calculated by the middle of June. 8 Work is continuing on the cost estimating. 9 There are a lot of pieces to make sure that we 10 get everything included that's supposed to be 11 there, and that work is scheduled to be done at 12 the end of May. 13 We have a value engineering review 14 scheduled for this month, and that's kind of a 15 standard Corps process to review by 16 individuals outside the project team. The 17 purpose is to identify if there is any lower 18 costs way to achieve the project goals. 19 And next month we have scheduled a cost 20 risk analysis. And again, that's a standard 21 Corps process. That's a review by the center 22 of expertise for cost estimating. 23 The purpose there is to determine the 24 appropriate contingency factors to include on 25 the different components of the cost estimate. 10 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 So those are things on the cost side going 3 on this month and next month. The end of June, 4 we have plan selection scheduled to occur. 5 That's when we would identify the NED plan. We 6 talked about that a couple of meetings ago. We 7 went through some of that process. 8 So that's when we would -- the Corps would 9 identify which plan to recommend in the draft 10 reports, and GPA would identify any locally 11 preferred plan. 12 We've come across a couple of policy 13 issues that we've sought guidance from our 14 headquarters, and there are items where the 15 responsibility is split between the existing 16 navigation project and the proposed harbor 17 deepening. 18 Those deal with things like the mitigation 19 for CSS Georgia, construction of advanced 20 maintenance widener on the entrance channel, 21 and so we asked them for how to handle those 22 things. 23 They came back and said just explain how 24 we thought the responsibility should be split 25 and split the cost that way. We've started 11 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 preparations for the alternative formulation 3 briefing which will be in late August. 4 That's an internal Corps decision meeting 5 on whether to release the draft reports for 6 public comment. The natural resource agencies 7 will be invited to that. So that's coming up 8 in late August. 9 And then in the draft report, those will 10 go out for agency and public review in late 11 October. So kind of November and December will 12 be the public review time. We've got a public 13 workshop scheduled for November. So that's 14 what as I have. 15 MR. DYSART: Questions, comments? David 16 Kyler. 17 MR. KYLER: This is probably known by the 18 people who are familiar with the process, but 19 what's the distinction between the -- or the 20 significance of the distinction between the 21 plan selection by the Corps and the preferred 22 plan by GPA? 23 MR. BAILEY: The report can have both. 24 EIS and GRR can have two different plans in 25 there and there are -- they end up with 12 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 different cost sharing. 3 The first one, the Corps has to identify 4 the NED plan which is the National Economic 5 Development Plan, and then it normally 6 recommends that plan -- doesn't have to but 7 normally does. 8 It can recommend something -- the report 9 can recommend something else, maybe a higher 10 cost plan, maybe have some other features in it 11 that wouldn't be a federal expenses. And those 12 other expenses would normally be paid for by 13 the sponsor -- 100% by the sponsor. 14 MR. KYLER: And is it assumed if there is 15 a difference between the plan selection and the 16 preferred plan that there has been -- what's 17 the responsibility for evaluating impacts and 18 mitigating impacts of anything that goes beyond 19 the plan selection? 20 MR. BAILEY: They would have to be 21 evaluated in the document, and mitigated, you 22 know, mitigation plan for that being part of 23 the document. 24 MR. KYLER: But they would be distinct -- 25 distinguished from the impacts and mitigation 13 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 of those elements in the recommended plan 3 selection? 4 MR. BAILEY: It would be a plan for each, 5 mitigation plan for -- well like the NED plan 6 and then a separate mitigation plan. It could 7 be a separate plan and there may be no 8 difference in mitigation, but that would be 9 described, what the mitigation would be for the 10 locally preferred plan. 11 MR. KYLER: Okay. 12 MR. DYSART: Hope. 13 MS. MOORER: And any difference in -- if 14 there's a difference in cost above and beyond 15 the preferred plan, it's 100% the local 16 sponsor. 17 MR. DYSART: Judy. 18 MS. JENNINGS: You know, I didn't know 19 that, Bill. I didn't know that -- I didn't 20 know that a locally preferred plan could 21 actually come out in your document. 22 MR. BAILEY: (Nods head up and down.) 23 MS. JENNINGS: So even though a lot of 24 this material isn't released to the public, it 25 is being released to the sponsor continuously. 14 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 MR. BAILEY: They're part of the project 3 delivery team so they see the stuff as it's 4 being developed. The last harbor deepening had 5 a locally preferred plan. 6 MS. JENNINGS: The NED was 40? 7 MR. BAILEY: Right. 8 MS. JENNINGS: Can you talk about any of 9 the questions that went back to HQ on the 10 economics analysis. 11 MR. BAILEY: It had to do with the change 12 in fleet calling at the port with a deeper -- 13 deeper harbor. It was on that subject. 14 So they decided they needed to do a little 15 more work and look at a few more things. So 16 that's what they're doing now. 17 MS. JENNINGS: One more thing about the 18 economics analysis; I've asked several times 19 and I don't think I've gotten -- I apologize if 20 it's in my inbox. I really do. I wouldn't 21 swear at this table that it's not, but I'm 22 interested in the evaluation of the expansion 23 of the LNG plant in the economic analysis. 24 MR. BAILEY: There is an LNG analysis in 25 the whole economics. They didn't look -- I 15 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 don't think they looked at the expansion -- I 3 don't think they looked at the effects of the 4 expansion of the LNG terminal. I think they 5 took it as a given. It's already been approved 6 and under construction. 7 MR. DYSART: Hope, do you have a comment, 8 clarification? 9 MS. MOORER: Yes. From what I remember, 10 it did look at a current with and without 11 project condition for LNG, the fleet that's 12 expected, I think, and the benefits were 13 impacts, I guess, of the channel to LNG and LNG 14 operations, how a deeper channel would play 15 into LNG's operations and overall harbor 16 operations. 17 So it is -- and I think it went back for 18 review just recently or went for review just 19 recently, but as soon as it's through review, I 20 think it can be posted. I'll check with the 21 Corps, but I don't think it's through the 22 review process yet. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. Because it is 24 something I've asked about several times. 25 MS. MOORER: It is, yes. 16 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 MS. JENNINGS: I've often called the 3 project quicksand. The thing about LNG, you 4 know, that's commissioning expansion expansion 5 expansion. 6 We've been shifted three times literally 7 in a short amount of time, by comparison to as 8 long as we've been sitting here. So I don't 9 know what you evaluated, and I'd like to know 10 how it fit into the benefit cost -- benefit 11 cost analysis. 12 MR. BAILEY: They looked at the number of 13 just vessels calling at the harbor, and then 14 they -- which includes the LNG vessels. Then 15 they looked at if you deepen the harbor what 16 effect will that have, LNG vessels and kind of 17 traffic. 18 MS. JENNINGS: I guess what I'm getting at 19 is that the LNG traffic, it depends on whether 20 you looked at the day that we were commissioned 21 or the day we were FERC approved the first 22 expansion or the day FERC approved the 23 second expansion. 24 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure. I haven't seen 25 the analysis. I would expect that they would 17 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 have used the without project condition which 3 is for the rest of the project year 2014. 4 I would expect they would use the latest 5 project that has been approved, whatever FERC 6 said the fleet would be with that, since 7 they're already approved and under 8 construction. I haven't seen it either -- 9 haven't seen the analysis. 10 MS. JENNINGS: There's no way to pull that 11 out before we get the whole economics analysis? 12 MR. BAILEY: I don't know if we can 13 release that LNG analysis first or not or 14 release that separate. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Can we ask them? 16 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 17 MS. MOORER: I was going to say, we'll be 18 happy to ask them whenever it's finished with 19 review. I think it's because of all these 20 expansions, I think they're looking at what 21 needs to be updated within the report, so -- 22 but I'll ask that for you too. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Thank you. 24 MR. DYSART: Ed. 25 MR. EUDALY: The workshop near the end of 18 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 June, does that strictly deal with mitigation, 3 monitoring and adaptive management or what's 4 the scope of that meeting? 5 MR. BAILEY: Yes. That would be it. We 6 wouldn't have had the plan selection, wouldn't 7 know what the recommended depth would be. So 8 it would just be mitigation plans for the 9 different -- for four different depths. 10 MR. DYSART: Judy. 11 MS. JENNINGS: I'm sorry. I think Dave 12 had the jump on me. 13 MR. KYLER: Go ahead. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Going back to the locally 15 preferred plan, do you guys do, the Corps, does 16 the Corps do the same cost benefit analysis for 17 the locally preferred plan, that it would for 18 any of the other plans that have been 19 considered? 20 I mean, I'm just assuming the locally 21 preferred plan would be one that you looked at, 22 but I don't know that. You see what I'm 23 saying? 24 MR. BAILEY: I don't know either because I 25 don't know what the plan may be. I mean, it 19 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 could be some other feature. If the project -- 3 for example, if the project doesn't require 4 deepening all of the berths, the GPA terminals, 5 then GPA wants to deepen them all as part of 6 the project, then that could be the locally 7 preferred plan. 8 Instead of deepening whatever, instead 9 of deepening five, we're going to deepen seven, 10 seven berths. So the added cost of those two 11 different berths would be a GPA cost. 12 So I don't know what features they may 13 want to add into it. You know, it could just 14 be like happened years ago where we want a 15 greater depth. It could be that or it could be 16 adding different features in. 17 MS. JENNINGS: And I guess at that point 18 in time when they decide they want something 19 else, what's the Corps' role? 20 MR. BAILEY: Then we have to look at the 21 impacts of doing that, any mitigation required. 22 The cost, I'm not sure since they would be 23 bearing the full costs, if they gave us the 24 costs we'd probably just put it in and say 25 that's the cost for that feature. Since it 20 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 wasn't our money, we wouldn't -- 3 MS. JENNINGS: But you also wouldn't be 4 responsible for going back and making sure that 5 you have looked at all the impacts? 6 MR. BAILEY: Yes, we would. 7 MS. JENNINGS: You would. 8 MS. MOORER: Yes. 9 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 10 MR. REES: I think the last minute of the 11 conversation here addressed the point that I 12 was going to make. No matter what comes out of 13 the end of the process, if the locally 14 preferred plan is different from the NED plan, 15 it still has to have all the full analysis, 16 full compliance with everything. 17 It's not like the sponsor can come in at 18 the last minute and say oh by the way, we want 19 to go to 60 feet, you know. It's got -- the 20 quality of the analysis has to be there and all 21 the environmental requirements have to be met, 22 even in the locally preferred plan. 23 If they're not there in the document the 24 Corps has, then somebody, the port, the sponsor 25 has to go back and produce additional 21 1 STATUS UPDATE 2 information to meet all those requirements. 3 MR. DYSART: David. 4 MR. KYLER: Yeah, just a comic note here 5 to start with. I notice in the whole business 6 it's GRR/EIS. GRR sometimes is a way of saying 7 grrr. A lot of people who have gone over EISs 8 have growled. It's kind of interesting that 9 the acronym suggests you might do it. 10 Did I miss any mention of Jasper County in 11 that analysis of Jasper County port? At the 12 last meeting you said you would be looking into 13 that, and I wonder how that factors into the 14 GRR/EIS. 15 MR. BAILEY: I didn't say anything in the 16 status because we haven't done any work 17 recently on that. There will be an analysis of 18 that in the GRR. 19 MR. KYLER: Okay. 20 MR. DYSART: Judy. 21 MS. JENNINGS: I think maybe following on 22 Dave's question is that the last time you 23 reported on it was that headquarters had 24 decided to treat Jasper as a long-term 25 possibility. That's the way I interpreted what 22 1 MILESTONES 2 I heard, and so there's been no change to that 3 decision? 4 MR. BAILEY: Correct. 5 MR. DYSART: Further comments or questions 6 or growls or any of that? Okay. Hope, how 7 about milestones and schedule updates, please. 8 MS. MOORER: Bill took them all from me. 9 I guess we've got a lot coming soon, and 10 within the next couple of months you heard Bill 11 saying. 12 The one thing that the Corps -- we asked 13 for the Corps to do, the SEG did, and the Corps 14 committed to doing is that workshop on impacts 15 at all the depths, and mitigation at all the 16 depths from that -- those impacts. 17 That workshop, we're trying to -- the 18 Corps is trying to schedule that in June 19 sometime, and we don't know exactly when. It's 20 looking like later in June. 21 So we'll take that into account trying to 22 schedule an interim SEG meeting or SEG meeting. 23 It looks like maybe a workshop in June and 24 maybe a SEG meeting the following month, 25 because there will be a lot of things, the air 23 1 MILESTONES 2 quality, the sediment quality report, those 3 will be coming available at the end of May/June 4 time frame. Those could be discussed at like a 5 July meeting. 6 So those are things that are coming up 7 that we'll need to try to schedule for. Since 8 we don't have an exact date yet, I think what 9 we're going to have to do is send that out as 10 soon as we can get it scheduled with the Corps, 11 that public workshop. 12 We'll send it to the SEG. This is going 13 to be a public meeting. There will be a notice 14 posted, and we'll try to work with media to get 15 it out there so that it can be advertised ahead 16 of time. 17 But it's a public workshop -- the Corps 18 didn't want to shut anybody out which is real 19 good. So that's kind of up in June. 20 Like Bill said at the end of June time 21 frame, they will be doing plan selection. 22 That's where you take the benefits and the 23 costs and the various plans at the various 24 depths and the Corps does their plan selection. 25 Bill did a presentation on it a couple of 24 1 MILESTONES 2 months ago, and I'm still confused, but that 3 will take place near the end of June. 4 The alternatives formulation briefing, 5 Bill mentioned that, that's kind of a 6 checkpoint within the Corps saying the draft 7 document is ready for release to the public, or 8 what's being put into the draft document is -- 9 that's what needs to be there and everything is 10 included. That's in late August time frame. 11 And the draft GRR and EIS out to the 12 public, and starting external review in 13 October. So those are the big milestones 14 coming up. 15 These are listed on the SEG -- the 16 Stakeholder's website, so those are things that 17 we're trying to keep current. 18 Although they have changed a little bit 19 between now and October, dates within that time 20 frame, it's stayed pretty consistent lately. 21 So I think look for an e-mail as soon as 22 possible about when we can work with the Corps 23 to get that public workshop scheduled. 24 And this is extra, and I really appreciate 25 the Corps doing this, in that they will have at 25 1 MILESTONES 2 each incremental depths the impacts that have 3 been identified, as well as the mitigation 4 plans for each of those incremental depths. 5 That's what they will take into the NED 6 plan selection. You'll have a chance to 7 comment on it and send your comments to the 8 Corps about that too. 9 I have one other thing. Bill asked me to 10 mention and I don't have the website, but we 11 can post it on the website is that the draft 12 TMDL is out -- not the TMDL, sorry, draft 13 Georgia water quality standard for DO is out 14 for public comment right now. 15 Mary Landers had an article on it this 16 past weekend, and we'll try to remember to post 17 the website. So if anybody's interested, going 18 to look at that, you can get to it. 19 I think the comments are due pretty soon 20 -- the 16th. So we'll try to get that posted 21 today. I'll send that to you. 22 That's all on the milestones and the 23 schedule updates near term. I think the July 24 meeting will be big, because a lot of data -- 25 and that's what I propose is probably the next 26 1 MILESTONES 2 meeting be a July meeting, if we can get the 3 workshop scheduled in June. 4 Also working, Judy, with the Corps to try 5 to get an Economics Working Group meeting 6 scheduled around those time frames, and don't 7 know exactly when Kim Otto in Mobile will be 8 finished with the work, so it's going to be 9 tight on trying to get her in here, but maybe 10 we can try to get her in around either the 11 public workshop or the SEG meeting. 12 And we'll get that date out as soon as we 13 can too, but one of those two times, I think, 14 would be a good time for her to come and have 15 an Economics Working Group meeting. 16 So she was suggesting sometime in June, 17 but that -- I don't know how her work is timing 18 out right now. So hopefully, we'll be able to 19 do that in June. We did ask her and she said 20 yes. 21 MR. DYSART: Questions, comments? Okay. 22 Proceeding on to the next item, recommendations 23 to the Corps prepared by David Kyler -- Judy. 24 MS. JENNINGS: I just want to make sure I 25 understand, public workshop in November, that's 27 1 MILESTONES 2 after the draft report has been through and 3 finished external review? 4 MS. MOORER: No. The external review will 5 be running concurrently with public review. 6 And so it will be an external review of the 7 draft document running concurrently with public 8 review. Then all of that will go into the 9 final document. 10 MS. JENNINGS: And I guess just one great 11 big question about the SEG is, you know, here 12 we are down to the draft report. You know, 13 we're talking mitigation plans, selection, a 14 possible locally preferred plan, you know. 15 Where does that second mission of the SEG 16 fit in any of this to have a consensus on a 17 mitigation plan? I didn't hear that in the 18 milestones. 19 MR. DYSART: Hope. 20 MS. MOORER: I guess we were, I think we 21 discussed it at several Operating Guidelines 22 Committee meetings and even had a draft 23 document that's posted on the website -- a 24 start of a draft document. 25 But that kind of gives the history of the 28 1 MILESTONES 2 SEG but not to the consensus part. We likely 3 need to schedule another Operating Guidelines 4 Committee meeting, in conjunction with an 5 interim SEG meeting possibly, to revive that 6 discussion. That's what I would suggest. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I guess I might ask 8 this to Bill, I know this is not a normal Corps 9 process, but it is part of this project, and 10 does the Corps talk about it, is the Corps 11 aware of it, does the Corps give a damn, with 12 all due respect? 13 MR. DYSART: Bill 14 MR. BAILEY: The Corps -- we've taken the 15 recommendations that you have given the GPA, so 16 I guess what you have done up to this point has 17 been useful in the project. 18 I think nearly everything that you -- that 19 the SEG asked for, as far as studies being 20 conducted, like nearly everything was -- was 21 done. 22 The Corps -- the Corps has a process laid 23 out, and we've laid out the schedule to follow 24 that process to complete the report. So if you 25 have, if the SEG comes to some consensus on the 29 1 MILESTONES 2 mitigation plans -- well, if you have a 3 mitigation plan now, we'll look, we'll consider 4 it and put it in the report and talk about it. 5 If you have one now, great. If -- I don't 6 think you do, so if you comment on the one that 7 goes out in the draft report, then we'll 8 address those comments as we change the report 9 from a draft to a final. We'll incorporate it 10 then, so -- 11 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 12 MR. DYSART: Hope. 13 MS. MOORER: Judy, I think we discussed 14 within the PDT 2, the project delivery team 15 within the Corps of Engineers, it's where an 16 SEG document might be very useful for the 17 decision-makers. 18 If it goes up with the final, if it goes 19 up as a comment to the final, because I know we 20 had discussed within the Operating Guidelines 21 Committee meeting that it would be difficult to 22 have this document done, unless everybody 23 accepts what's in the draft, it would be 24 difficult to have it done on the draft 25 document. 30 1 MILESTONES 2 But if the SEG would probably like to wait 3 to see the final document, to see if there are 4 changes between the two, or have the 5 opportunity to use that report to comment on 6 the draft document, and that's something I 7 think the SEG needs to work out; where do you 8 -- where does this group want to fit into the 9 process, as a group voice. 10 Do you want fit into it with a consensus 11 on the mitigation plan as a comment to the 12 draft, if you accept it, or as waiting to see 13 what's in the final, and then at that point to 14 send up a comment on the final document. 15 MR. DYSART: David. 16 MR. KYLER: A question I hadn't thought 17 about before, but it seems logical for the same 18 reason the public has a benefit of responding 19 to a draft and influencing the direction of the 20 draft before final, that would be a benefit for 21 the SEG as well. 22 Of course, final comments could -- may 23 include the response to the initial comments if 24 inadequate, further comments about that, a lack 25 of accommodation to the original. 31 1 MILESTONES 2 MS. MOORER: I think that's a good idea. 3 I think that would probably be at the next 4 Operating Guidelines Committee. Then as the 5 draft comes out, that's something the SEG 6 should certainly consider. 7 MR. DYSART: Further comments, questions? 8 MS. JENNINGS: Just before we leave 9 milestones, I had a question about the air 10 quality. And Ed, you asked about that June 11 meeting. You said yes, it would be the 12 mitigation plans and the monitoring and 13 adaptive management plan. Will that include 14 air quality? 15 MR. BAILEY: It can. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Depending on what; on 17 whether it's ready, on an internal Corps 18 process, or whether we as an SEG ask for it to 19 be included, what does can depend on? 20 MR. BAILEY: We will talk about that at 21 that. We'll include air quality in the June 22 public workshop. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. That's a good 24 answer. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. Okay. Next item. 32 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 David. 3 MR. KYLER: Yeah, this is getting to seem 4 like an archived matter because it's been on 5 the agenda so often for so long, if there's a 6 history to the extent I remember it, and Judy 7 may want to fill in since Will is not here, 8 back I think in February, the Op Guidelines 9 Committee recommended this one page summary 10 that I put together which was intended to 11 address how the SEG passes on information to 12 the Corps and GPA for use in evaluating the 13 project. 14 And so I guess our recommendation goes to 15 the GPA and the GPA has a discussion of whether 16 to forward it to the Corps. I would assume in 17 good faith they would. Hope has copies. 18 MS. MOORER: I have a couple of copies if 19 anybody wants it. 20 MR. DYSART: Okay. How many do you have? 21 MS. MOORER: I have about 10, I think. I 22 have about 10. 23 MR. KYLER: The people here in March have 24 seen -- 25 MR. DYSART: Sprinkle them around to the 33 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 people. 3 MR. KYLER: Or if you look at the website, 4 Hope, it's been posted on the website? 5 MS. MOORER: Yes, it's been on there for a 6 while. 7 MR. KYLER: This whole thing came as a 8 result of some extended discussion, I guess, 9 back in January about passing on -- and maybe 10 some at the last meeting in '07 -- about how 11 the SEG should pass on information coming from 12 these study committees, and just applying that 13 information in analysis of the project. 14 And it was concluded that there wasn't 15 enough expertise or to some extent historical 16 memory on the SEG to properly confirm whether 17 or not a study itself was complete enough and 18 up to date; and therefore we concluded -- we 19 managed to say something about the use of 20 information in general, recognizing that we 21 were as a group unable to confirm or deny the 22 accuracy and completeness of all information, 23 being passed on by these study committees, 24 through the SEG to the Corps and GPA. 25 So my suggestion was to come up with some 34 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 ground rules with how information in general 3 should be used. That's what led to this one 4 page document. 5 As I recall, it is mostly intended to deal 6 with the inevitable uncertainty and risk 7 associated with impacts of the project and 8 analysis of the impacts and the mitigation. 9 To ensure that systemic impacts are 10 properly evaluated, that it's not just the 11 first order impacts of a given course of action 12 on the project or their mitigation -- 13 mitigation of those impacts, but also other 14 consequential relationships in the complex 15 environment that the project will be built in. 16 And then provisions for monitoring and a 17 means of paying for unpredicted, adverse 18 impacts either caused by the project itself or 19 attempts to mitigate predicted impacts of the 20 project. 21 That's essentially the gist of what the 22 purpose of this guideline document is, and it 23 got, I'm going to say a unanimous 24 recommendation for consideration by the SEG in 25 the February meeting of Op Guidelines 35 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 Committee. 3 MR. DYSART: Comments on this, reactions? 4 David, what would you and Hope, or whoever has 5 been most involved in this, like from this 6 body? Is this being passed on for information, 7 do you want it to be it to be adopted or -- 8 MR. KYLER: Yeah. I think the proposal on 9 the table from the last meeting was for it to 10 be adopted by consensus of the SEG and 11 forwarded as a recommendation of the SEG to GPA 12 for use by the Corps in evaluating the project. 13 MR. DYSART: My recollection is that this 14 has been discussed on several occasions. It's 15 sort of got almost to the point -- 16 MR. KYLER: Yes. 17 MR. DYSART: -- and somebody would say 18 let's think about it a little bit more, let's 19 read it, so forth. It seemed like this has 20 been kind of a process waiting people out -- 21 MR. KYLER: As I recall, the last 22 meeting -- 23 MR. DYSART: -- and seeing if any 24 objections actually materialized, and there 25 were not really any on the table. 36 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 MR. KYLER: At the last meeting, Bob 3 Perry, South Carolina DNR, was not familiar 4 with the document. Because of that, he was 5 reluctant to voice yea or nay on consensus. So 6 I think that was the only snag at the last 7 meeting. 8 MR. DYSART: Right. You were sitting 9 right over there. 10 MR. PERRY: Right over here. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. We'll keep each other 12 honest. 13 MR. PERRY: Having read it, we have no 14 objection. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy, do you -- I feel 16 that this is very ripe. Do you want to help 17 that along or do you want -- what do you wish 18 to say? 19 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I can see how some of 20 these things are probably covered under 21 adaptive management, but I'm wondering, and it 22 may be covered in other places, if they are? 23 Maybe Bill can tell us, I'm wondering if risk 24 analysis is dealt with in any other place other 25 than the sensitivity analysis? 37 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 MR. BAILEY: We are looking at risk in 3 each of the different analyses that we're 4 doing, the different technical analyses talking 5 about risk in each one of those. 6 I'm not sure, does that answer your 7 question? I'm not sure exactly what you're 8 looking for. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Well, when you talk about 10 risk analyze, I said what kind of risk analysis 11 do you do; you said -- I mean, do you talk 12 about the risk analyze in the economics 13 analysis, or do you talk about risk analysis in 14 the marsh secession report, or do you go to the 15 level -- how far down do you drill? 16 Do you say, you know, what is the risk 17 that we have badly anticipated the world fleet, 18 or do you just simply say the economics 19 analysis, or do you simply go to the 20 statistical calculation and say, you know, with 21 a standard deviation plus or minus, yada yada. 22 I don't know how you do it. 23 MR. BAILEY: I think it may vary in the 24 different pieces, the level detail that they're 25 able to go into. On some of them, I think 38 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 there are statistical analysis. When they 3 developed the model they did some of that. 4 So I'm not sure. It hasn't all been put 5 together yet, so I'm not sure. Each different 6 expertise is writing their own section. 7 I'm not sure how much detail each of those 8 folks have gone into. The different -- the 9 bank stability analysis is supposed to talk 10 about the risk of that analysis being wrong, or 11 what factors they used in there. 12 And the economics is supposed to talk 13 about that as well. Right now I can't tell you 14 how much detail is in each one of those. I 15 haven't seen them. 16 MS. JENNINGS: I guess one of my concerns 17 is when we use the word risk, you can either be 18 talking about the way poker player counts 19 cards, if he's counting on a royal flush, or 20 you can be talking like a statistician when he 21 is calculating standard deviation. 22 I don't know how you -- you know, I don't 23 know where you point. Is my question clear? 24 MR. BAILEY: That card thing a little 25 more. 39 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 MS. JENNINGS: I don't count cards, but if 3 I were to play cards I would certainly count 4 them all. 5 MR. BAILEY: I think the information is 6 not available to do statistics on each -- each 7 analysis. That's not available to have to talk 8 about it on the more general level. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Well for instance, when you 10 made the decision about Jasper being a 11 long-term, still treating it as a gleam in the 12 eye, what kind of risk analysis -- I mean, did 13 you consider any risk to that decision? 14 MR. BAILEY: Those things will have to be 15 talked about. 16 MR. DYSART: Hope and David. 17 MS. MOORER: Okay. This -- the Corps is 18 really focusing a lot on risk and uncertainty 19 being included within reports now post-Katrina. 20 And so headquarters has requested that that be 21 included in looking at all the different types 22 of analyses, for the decision-makers, as 23 they're trying to make their decision. 24 From being a part of the project delivery 25 team, what's done for one engineering study may 40 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 be different from what's done for economics. 3 Economics may need a sensitivity analysis, but 4 in engineering they might look at it a 5 different way. 6 In modeling they looked at it as well, 7 and then in marshes, in the wetlands they had 8 some sensitivity runs looking at that too. I 9 think that Bill, what he is saying it's 10 different for each analysis, it really is. 11 A lot of the times you do see either 12 sensitivity analysis, or where there is not a 13 standard deviation more general of how 14 something is constructed, if it doesn't work 15 what else can you do, those kind of things. 16 But the Corps is very -- I mean the 17 directive has come down from headquarters that 18 that has to be included in the document too. 19 MR. DYSART: David. 20 MR. KYLER: I want to be very clear about 21 this, if anybody is on the margins of paying 22 attention, you can rise to the level of 23 actually paying attention, please do so. 24 This stuff is all fairly subjective. I 25 mean, everyone has their own interpretation of 41 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 what is the sufficient analysis of risk, what 3 is sufficient detail and protocol for gathering 4 and assessing information, and the criteria to 5 be used for triggering a contingency plan, what 6 consists of rigorous monitoring and assessment. 7 So obviously, it seems obvious to me that 8 this would be applied with a good faith by the 9 Corps. That good faith effort may not measure 10 up to some of the opinions around the table 11 here, either members of the SEG or representing 12 their respective organizations. 13 So this should be, I think, considered 14 as a supplement to whatever kind of analysis 15 you would normally be doing anyway to try to 16 clarify and classify you're thinking to comment 17 further on documents related to the project as 18 they're delivered. 19 So consider this not just to forget about 20 it after we pass it on, if we do, to the GPA, 21 but also keep it in mind when you yourselves 22 review it as members of the SEG, or 23 independently any of these project documents, 24 and be ready to comment on the sufficiency to 25 which they have measured up to what you have 42 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 interpreted these items to be. 3 MR. DYSART: My understanding is that 4 there has been a good deal of good faith 5 thorough discussion on this. This captures 6 some constructive suggestions, recommendations 7 and guidance from this body, and that there has 8 been a full discussion on this. 9 The record is adequate and we all look 10 forward to risk being well-treated, and is 11 there any objection? If not, I will declare 12 that by consensus this body has adopted the 13 brief document that has just been discussed and 14 has been posted on the Internet. Okay. Thank 15 you. Hope. 16 MS. MOORER: and GPA will formally 17 transmit this to the Corps of Engineers for 18 their consideration. 19 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Must be grinding 20 fine and thoroughly, since we've ground that 21 slowly, something to that effect. 22 Committee reports, Bill said they did not 23 have Beach Erosion. Does anyone else have a 24 committee report today? Lou Off, please. 25 MR. OFF: Not a committee report, I just 43 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 wanted to reiterate some of the things that are 3 in coordination with Tybee. 4 Some of the good news, although it's not 5 pertinent to the subject at hand, is that we 6 were -- did not get a budget for beach 7 renourishment as we requested for this year; 8 however, at the end of year a supplemental 9 funding came to Tybee of approximately 6.3 10 million dollars from Congress, and that's 11 allowing us to do our shore projection program 12 renourishment. 13 Some of you may remember we did one in the 14 winter of '99 and 2000. The Corps has been 15 working on the plans and specifications, 16 possible bid opening in July, and start October 17 and November. 18 Obviously, depending on a lot of things 19 being worked out and contractor availability, 20 we're hoping that we can do somewhere between 21 800,000 cubic yards and 1.2 million cubic 22 yards. 23 It all depends on the cost of the sand. 24 Obviously, we have got a fixed amount to spend, 25 and we have five options, five alternatives of 44 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 what we can do. 3 More appropriate to our discussion here, 4 the study that was done as far as beach erosion 5 was that any deepening of the harbor would not 6 affect Tybee any further. However, there's a 7 spoils plan that Bill Bailey presented a while 8 ago which has not been approved. 9 We talked about it several times when Bill 10 Farmer was here and brought it up. There's a 11 number of pages that came from DNR 12 approximately a year ago. 13 It has not been approved. The main reason 14 for this is that in January of 2007, in other 15 words, almost 14 months ago, the Corps worked 16 out a plan to meet with the coastal zone 17 management requirements that were set into law 18 between NOAA, and the Corps, and the State of 19 Georgia about three years ago. 20 This -- this is supposed to define what 21 happens to the spoils of both maintenance and 22 harbor deepening, channel deepening, for the 23 Tybee nearshore and beaches. 24 This plan that the Corps of Engineers 25 which they can't release to anybody outside the 45 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 Corps went to the division office, I believe, 3 somewhere in January and February of 2007 with 4 subsequent changes and requests. 5 About a month ago, the general in charge 6 of the division office in Atlanta along with 7 colonel Curtis had a meeting with the mayor of 8 Tybee, the city manager, myself, and a few 9 others, and promised they would find out why 10 this action hasn't been taking place in 11 Atlanta. 12 The general was unaware of it even being 13 there at the time. Like I say, he was going to 14 shake up the tree a little bit. For 15 approximately about a month we have not yet 16 heard anything on that. 17 So where does this affect SEG, and what's 18 going on? It basically affects the Corps plan 19 of where they're going to spoil somewhere in 20 the neighborhood of 8 to 10,000,000 cubic yards 21 which is in the intertidal zone of Tybee and 22 also the nearshore. 23 We're still waiting for the comments from 24 DNR to be answered, and there has been no 25 comment yet from Tybee itself. So just -- this 46 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 is just kind of an update as to where this is, 3 as it is another outstanding thing not decided 4 upon, as to where approximately I guess 20% of 5 the spoils from the deepening are going to go. 6 And essentially that's where it stands. 7 (Whereupon, there was a 8 discussion off the record.) 9 MR. DYSART: Put that on the record -- Lou 10 is glad they got their money. 11 MR. OFF: We hope that the bigger chunk of 12 money will be forthcoming with the deepening of 13 the channel. 14 MR. DYSART: Pie in the sky and the by and 15 by. Okay, yes. Ed Eudaly. 16 MR. EUDALY: I got a question. Either 17 Bill or Lou can answer it. I know that the 18 plan -- well, there is a proposal to use the 19 new material in the intertidal zone. 20 I can't recall whether there was any talk 21 about O and M material from the harbor; is that 22 beyond the scope of deepening? 23 You mentioned O and M, I think, when you 24 were making some comments. I'm just a little 25 confused about what the current proposal or 47 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 plans are. 3 MR. OFF: Well, for the SEG the proposal 4 is strictly on harbor deepening, but the 5 federal compliance in the CZM requires the O 6 and M maintenance material also be used for the 7 benefit of Tybee. How has not been figured out 8 yet. 9 MR. DYSART: Further comments? Okay. No 10 more committee reports. That gets down to the 11 next meeting. Sounds like you're talking in 12 terms, Hope, of thinking toward July as 13 something to kind of pencil in. 14 MS. MOORER: Yeah. If I can, I'd like to 15 suggest maybe an interim SEG meeting on June 16 3rd. 17 MR. DYSART: Sure. 18 MS. MOORER: And then we'll get out a date 19 as soon as one's established for the workshop 20 via e-mail, and then hopefully, Mary, we can 21 work with you to get some publicity in advance 22 for the workshop for the general public. 23 And then July, I don't know what to 24 suggest for the SEG meeting, whether it's the 25 1st, a lot of people are going to be gone 48 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 around the 4th, or if the 8th would be a better 3 date. 4 MR. DYSART: It's just kind of a straw 5 poll or any particular preferences. It just 6 kind of falls in the middle. 7 MS. MOORER: Oh, you're going to be gone. 8 MR. REES: I won't be here the following 9 week, not that it matters. We can certainly go 10 on without me. My preference is the 1st. 11 MS. MOORER: Is anybody gone that you know 12 of, vacations or anything; would we have people 13 here around the 1st. I think the 4th is a 14 Friday and Tuesday is the 1st. So the 1st is 15 all right. We'll tentatively say the 1st. 16 MR. DYSART: Unless there's some kind of 17 reason otherwise, and it seems like it's a 18 preference or no particular strong objection. 19 Okay. What else do we have for the good of the 20 cause. 21 Let's see now, we did for introduction 22 purposes, I think Carl slipped in after we 23 introduced ourselves. 24 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia Wildlife 25 Federation. 49 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 MS. BOWERS: Gail Bowers, League of Women 3 Voters. 4 MR. KYLER: I was present but making 5 phone calls, so I didn't weigh in. 6 MR. DYSART: David Kyler is definitely 7 here. Okay. 8 MR. DYSART: I appreciate the discussion 9 taking place. We will reschedule the 10 scientific briefing and hope the presenter can 11 be here next time. With that we will adjourn 12 with the thanks of everybody concerned. I 13 might add Cathy has some excitement in her life 14 coming up. 15 MS. MOORER: That's right. 16 MS. VAUGHN: I'm getting married. 17 MR. DYSART: It's a blessed event. She's 18 getting married on the 23rd. It's a small 19 family event, but it is hoped maybe she will 20 bring some wedding cake for us next time. 21 MS. VAUGHN: No. It's a small cake too. 22 23 24 25 50 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 G E O R G I A : 5 CHATHAM COUNTY : 6 7 I hereby certify that the foregoing 8 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 9 caption, and the questions and answers thereto were 10 reduced to typewriting under my direction; that the 11 foregoing pages 1 through 49 represent a true and 12 correct transcript of the evidence given upon said 13 hearing, and I further certify that I am not of kin 14 or counsel to the parties in the case; am not in 15 the regular employ of counsel for any of said 16 parties; nor am I in anywise interested in the 17 result of said case. 18 This the 29th day May, 2008. 19 20 _______________________________ 21 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 22 Reporter, B-2041 23 24 25