1 2 3 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 4 STAKEHOLDERS' EVALUATION GROUP 5 6 7 8 MEETING 9 OF 10 JANUARY 8, 2008 11 12 13 MIGHTY 8TH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 14 POOLER, GEORGIA 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 I N D E X 4 5 Q & A MITIGATION PLANNING STATUS REPORT 6 By Bill Bailey ----------------------- 3 7 JASPER COUNTY SCENARIO ANALYSIS UPDATE 8 By Bill Bailey ----------------------- 10 9 INTRODUCTIONS ---------------------------- 36 10 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN SELECTION METHODOLOGY 11 By Bill Bailey ----------------------- 42 12 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 13 By Bill Bailey ----------------------- 88 14 COMMITTEE REPORTS ------------------------ 93 15 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION ------------- 95 16 NEXT MEETING DATE ------------------------ 115 17 CERTIFICATE ------------------------------ 117 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 Q & A MITIGATION 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 (10:14 a.m.) 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Now we're ready to 15 move on to the next item -- Joel. 16 MR. FLEMING: I have some questions about 17 the river mileage on that bend in regards to 18 the proposal seven. You may have done this at 19 the last meeting; are you going to go over the 20 fisheries mitigation at this point or just -- 21 MR. BAILEY: Don't have anything else to 22 say with that. We're looking at mitigation for 23 sturgeon and striped bass. 24 MR. FLEMING: Is plan seven, has that been 25 evaluated for fisheries -- 4 1 Q & A MITIGATION 2 MR. BAILEY: No -- 3 MR. FLEMING: -- habitat? 4 MR. BAILEY: -- it's not. 5 MR. BERSON: Has 6-A? 6 MR. BAILEY: No. 7 MS. GRAINEY: That was my question. 8 MS. JENNINGS: I'm not sure -- Karen? 9 MS. GRAINEY: Oh, I was just going to ask 10 about 6-A. So you're recommending 6-A at this 11 point, but you haven't really finished all the 12 studies like for fisheries and all that? 13 MR. BAILEY: Correct, yes. 14 MS. GRAINEY: So the recommendation could 15 change? 16 MR. BAILEY: That recommendation, the one 17 to address the impacts to wetlands probably 18 will not change. That's where we see -- that's 19 where the information is pointing us now. 20 That's the best plan for that. 21 MR. DYSART: Joel. 22 MR. FLEMING: So that won't go into the 23 comprehensive plan; I mean certainly fisheries 24 and the other cogs of that wheel have a -- so 25 wetlands is going to drive this is what you're 5 1 Q & A MITIGATION 2 saying? It's not going to be one of the 3 others? 4 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 5 MR. FLEMING: The only reason I ask, I 6 mean there is a situation. Obviously, sturgeon 7 habitat is negatively impacted no matter what 8 mitigation option we look at at this point. 9 MR. BAILEY: Right. 10 MR. FLEMING: Not looking at seven, I 11 don't think -- it hasn't been run yet -- 12 MR. BAILEY: Right. 13 MR. FLEMING: -- but if you added that 14 back, you would gain potentially some sturgeon 15 habitat back that we wouldn't -- I guess what 16 I'm saying is yeah, the cost is high per acre 17 of wetland, but you would also be gaining 18 fisheries habitat if it were done. So I think 19 there are -- 20 MR. BAILEY: It may gain and it may not 21 gain. I don't know. That area may be -- I 22 don't know right now. I don't remember what 23 the data says, whether that loop now shows as 24 being acceptable habitat now for sturgeon or 25 whether it's unacceptable now, whether 6 1 Q & A MITIGATION 2 deepening it would make it acceptable or not. 3 MR. DYSART: David and then Will. 4 MR. KYLER: Let me clarify the 5 implications of the point Joel just made. I 6 think one of them is that since you're assuming 7 the per acre rate of option seven is being four 8 times what it is for the preferred option, it 9 makes seven unfeasible -- infeasible. 10 Then implicitly assuming if there are 11 fisheries advantages of using seven, even 12 though there are endangered species that are 13 involved, that the marginal additional cost of 14 achieving those benefits is not worth it. 15 MR. BAILEY: You're assuming that you can 16 mitigate for the sturgeon impacts -- 17 MR. KYLER: Right. 18 MR. BAILEY: -- at a lower cost? 19 MR. KYLER: Well, I'm just -- I'm saying 20 presumably it's projected or anticipated 21 possibly that seven would achieve greater 22 sturgeon protection benefits, regardless of 23 cost, but the cost would be much greater and 24 therefore it's not considered feasible. 25 It seems to me it's an implicit 7 1 Q & A MITIGATION 2 calculation or unsteady calculation that if the 3 cost of mitigation is beyond a certain point, 4 regardless of the resource and the benefits, is 5 not worth it. 6 MR. BAILEY: That's not the assumption I 7 have. That's not the assumption I'm working 8 under. 9 MR. KYLER: But didn't you say that the 10 reason why seven has not been run on some of 11 the other scenarios is because it already has 12 such high per acre costs? 13 MR. BAILEY: Correct. The assumption is 14 that you can't mitigate for the other things at 15 a lower cost. 16 MR. KYLER: To the same degree of 17 sufficiency as would be obtained by seven? 18 MR. BAILEY: Yes, which you don't know if 19 it will have any benefits for sturgeon. 20 MR. KYLER: It seems to me we need to 21 explore that, and implicitly state that in 22 order to make the recommendation fully 23 understood, or the implications of it fully 24 understood. As it is, it seems to me there's a 25 lot of vague assumption and implications. 8 1 Q & A MITIGATION 2 MR. DYSART: Karen. 3 MS. GRAINEY: Yes, if -- I assume you are 4 going to go ahead and study the impacts on 5 fisheries, how you can mitigate for fisheries. 6 So let's say you run model seven or scenario 7 seven and it did have the anticipated benefits 8 for sturgeon, would you reevaluate your 9 recommendation for 6-A? 10 MR. BAILEY: We won't be running it -- we 11 won't be running seven for fisheries. We would 12 -- probably would not. Well, we won't do that 13 unless the mitigation costs to separately -- to 14 separately mitigate for sturgeon and striped 15 bass. It would come to more than the 200,000 16 an acre. That total which is 100 and something 17 million. 18 MS. GRAINEY: Don't you think it's worth 19 it to run the model and find out? Your answer 20 to the question is we don't know if it would 21 help the sturgeon, but the only way to find out 22 is to run the model, isn't it? I mean, how 23 long would it take to run the model? I mean, 24 it's an endangered species. It seems kind of 25 important. 9 1 Q & A MITIGATION 2 MR. BAILEY: Right. We have -- I have 3 been talking to National Marine Fisheries who 4 is responsible for managing that species. 5 I've been talking to them about 6 mitigation, so they are involved. They will be 7 making the call, making the call on whether 8 mitigation for that species is acceptable or 9 not. 10 MS. GRAINEY: NOAA Fisheries is going to 11 make that call? 12 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 13 MR. HALL: For sturgeon? 14 MR. BAILEY: For sturgeon. 15 MR. DYSART: Will. 16 MR. BERSON: I don't want to pick 17 mitigation topics one over the other in saying 18 this, but how is it that the marsh ends -- the 19 marsh impacts ends up being the driver here? I 20 mean, is that a choice? 21 MR. BAILEY: It was a choice because marsh 22 is affected by salinity, which salinity affects 23 everything else. 24 MR. BERSON: Agreed and -- 25 MR. BAILEY: So that's the one we chose to 10 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 start with. 3 MR. BERSON: I was just wondering if it 4 was policy or choice. 5 MR. BAILEY: No, no. 6 MR. DYSART: Further questions? Will. 7 MR. BERSON: At some point, probably 8 another day, are you going to discuss what kind 9 of modeling you would -- I mean what kind of 10 monitoring you would envision to go along with 11 these mitigation strategies? 12 MR. BAILEY: Yes. There will be 13 monitoring. There would be a post-construction 14 monitoring program that we haven't developed 15 yet. 16 MR. BERSON: I appreciate that -- just 17 asking. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you, Bill. 19 Let's now proceed to the next item which is the 20 Jasper County analysis update, please. 21 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Giving you some 22 background you already have before you, but 23 it's been a while, and then we'll go into what 24 -- some new information. 25 We did evaluate the terminal in Jasper 11 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 County as a preliminary alternative, and it was 3 part of the formation of alternatives report. 4 It was produced in '05. It went out for public 5 comment, and we did get some comments back on 6 it. 7 The conclusion of that report, developing 8 a terminal there, and deepening up to there 9 would not be the most economically efficient 10 environmentally acceptable project. 11 So that was the area that they were 12 talking about in '05, the area in yellow. That 13 was what South Carolina was proposing to 14 condemn. 15 Presently the governors are making 16 progress. The Corps doesn't believe it's yet 17 altered what we would term our most likely 18 future without project condition. So we're now 19 evaluating the terminal, a Jasper County 20 terminal, for the potential effects on the 21 economics of deepening up to the Garden City 22 terminal. 23 You know as -- if the governors make more 24 progress, then we have to go back -- then we 25 would go back and reevaluate that most likely 12 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 future scenario, see whether -- whether we're 3 at that point where yes, it does look like 4 something is going to be there and that it 5 would be there. 6 If it's in the most likely future, you're 7 saying that is what we think is going to 8 happen. Right now the Corps doesn't -- it's 9 not at that point. 10 Presently there's still a lot of unknowns, 11 where a terminal would be, how big it would be, 12 when it would come online, the effect on Garden 13 City existing cargo movements, that effect; so 14 we're using a scenario-based approach to look 15 at those, look at a range of values for each of 16 those unknowns. 17 What we're trying to do with this approach 18 is to respond to this line of reasoning that 19 says, what if your most likely future condition 20 is wrong; what if someone builds a terminal 21 there anyway; would deepening to Garden City 22 still be economically justified, and we're 23 trying to answer that set -- that set of 24 questions. Yes, Steve. 25 MR. WILLIS: My understanding has been 13 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 that all along this entire project is driven on 3 the concept that it's a demand-based expansion 4 of GPA, and not an attraction to GPA. 5 In other words -- in other words, it's 6 growing. The whole idea is the need to deepen 7 the channel in order to allow for the future 8 demand that will be placed on the port, because 9 of trade. 10 Okay. If that's true, if there's a fairly 11 fixed amount of trade coming in to the port, 12 and all the statistics and analyses you're 13 doing are based upon that anticipated amount 14 coming to GPA, if part or most of that is taken 15 by the Jasper port, doesn't that mean that all 16 your numbers are double, triple too high? 17 In other words, if there's apples this big 18 and this is the apple you've got to deal with, 19 and all of a sudden you take half the apple and 20 you put it over here, it means that you've got 21 half an apple, right? 22 So it seems to me that that's just -- that 23 that -- I don't think that was an important 24 thing to consider. 25 MR. BAILEY: One of the things I have 14 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 listed on unknowns is the effect on the Garden 3 City terminal. That's one of the things we're 4 looking at in our evaluation. As we get a 5 little further in here, I'll show you how, but 6 you're right. 7 MR. DYSART: Judy. 8 MR. BAILEY: If we do -- we would expect 9 it to have some effect. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Would you go back to your 11 first line on this? 12 MR. BAILEY: That one? 13 MS. JENNINGS: No. Corps believes their 14 progress has not yet altered the most likely 15 future without project condition. That -- that 16 blew me away. The Corps believes their 17 progress has not yet altered the most likely 18 future without project condition. 19 MR. BAILEY: In our analysis, we have to 20 -- our analysis is based on not only what's 21 there now, but our projection of what's going 22 to be there in the future without a project. 23 MS. JENNINGS: You know, personally I 24 agree with you, Bill, but I'm not a governor. 25 You know, these guys keep taking off their ties 15 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 and I'm just astounded by that. 3 So I agree with you, you know, I don't 4 mean to be flippant, but give me a break. They 5 need to do it or keep the clothes on or 6 something here. 7 They don't seem to be doing it either, but 8 that statement kind of blows -- I mean, surely 9 you've got to agree with me that it's been 10 altered. That, I guess, is the bone I want to 11 pick with you. It has been altered. 12 MR. BAILEY: I guess I'm saying the first 13 one, they are making progress. 14 MS. JENNINGS: I don't know if they're 15 making progress at anything. I will not argue 16 that or agree to it. 17 MR. BAILEY: Okay. 18 MS. JENNINGS: But all I'm arguing at is 19 that it's been altered. Now progress or not, I 20 will not go for that. 21 MR. DYSART: David and Will. 22 MR. KYLER: Yeah, every time I raise any 23 questions about the economic analysis, Morgan 24 reminds me about the present value effects on 25 future costs and benefits. And although the 16 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 project analysis, period of analysis under law 3 is 50 years, the effects beyond about 15 or 20 4 years in present value terms are relatively 5 minor. 6 So I'm just reminding everybody that the 7 future they're talking about is not the 50 year 8 future in all practical terms. It's a shorter 9 future than that. 10 So I would assume, I don't know the facts, 11 I don't have the facts in front of me to 12 compare of present value analysis, but I would 13 assume that 10 or 15 years out that we're the 14 maximum amount of cost benefits brought to the 15 present, during which time those have the 16 greatest effect on the decision. So it's a 17 much shorter future period than what we would 18 normally consider it to be. 19 MR. DYSART: Will. 20 MR. BERSON: If you'll pardon me, I just 21 wanted to make a correction. I have been away 22 for the last three weeks, and judging by the 23 number times I have been in the newspaper, I 24 think I'm going to away more often because I 25 was in the newspaper all over the place. 17 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 I wasn't even here to do it. Last week I 3 was quoted in an editorial by the Savannah 4 Morning News as representing the Conservancy's 5 position that deepening to Jasper is a 6 preferable environmental alternative to 7 deepening to Garden City. 8 I think everybody in this room has heard 9 me say enough times I want Garden City 10 evaluated in a rigorous fashion. 11 I have not said what the paper attributed 12 to me which is that that is the preferred 13 alternative. I don't think we know enough to 14 say that that's the case. 15 In the interest of full disclosure, I just 16 thought I'd mention that. We have written to 17 the Savannah Morning News asking them to 18 correct that particular representation. You 19 know, it's great that they feel free to quote 20 me, but I just wish they would get me right. 21 And it may be in the newspaper today. I'm 22 not sure. I haven't seen it yet. 23 MR. DYSART: Judy. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Just to say I fully agree 25 with Will, not that I -- I haven't even read 18 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 the newspaper in two weeks. If I'd been in 3 there, I surely wasn't -- I'm out of touch, but 4 Bill how can we talk to you about that 5 statement has not yet altered. 6 MR. BAILEY: It hasn't changed it. It may 7 have altered it, but it has not got to the 8 level where we would change what we believe is 9 going to happen in the future. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I believe it should. 11 How can I talk to you about that? 12 MR. BAILEY: Let me go a little further. 13 We'll show some of this stuff that we need to 14 have answers on. 15 MS. JENNINGS: All righty. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. 17 MR. BAILEY: And those unknowns, some of 18 them are basically the big ones; location, size 19 and timing. Can you tell me where it is, where 20 it is going to be, how big it is, and when it 21 is going to start? 22 MS. JENNINGS: Both governors seem to have 23 a pretty good -- 24 MR. BAILEY: No, they don't have those 25 things. They don't know where, they don't know 19 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 when. 3 MS. JENNINGS: They're politicians. They 4 don't have to have answers. 5 MR. BAILEY: For me to analyze it, I need 6 to know. They haven't decided those things 7 yet. The last document that I saw said they 8 would get together to see if a terminal was 9 feasible. 10 That's still a long ways from saying when, 11 where and how much. It's a long ways. They 12 still don't know if it's a good -- we've been 13 at this project for a number of years to find 14 out if it's feasible. 15 MS. JENNINGS: I think this meeting is 16 number 10 years. 17 MR. DYSART: Gail. 18 MS. BOWERS: I thought that if it was 19 determined that the terminal was feasible, they 20 keep saying across from LNG, which is what has 21 had so many of us alarmed. That's not true? 22 MR. BAILEY: They have looked at a number 23 of locations. I don't think they have ruled 24 out any of them. My understanding is they 25 haven't -- they're still trying to figure out 20 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 where, where to put it. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Are you talking about where 4 far away from the Jasper 1,770 -- 5 MR. BAILEY: Where between Highway 17 and 6 the ocean, where along that shoreline. 7 MR. DYSART: Will. 8 MR. BERSON: I'm sorry. The idea that it 9 could be anywhere between Highway 17 and the 10 ocean is really not a very credible statement. 11 It just -- they were standing on the sight 12 taking off their ties where they proposed to 13 have it. So I really -- I have said it before 14 and I'll say it again, I urge the Corps to do 15 a rigorous alternative analysis on this. 16 And proposing that it could -- a statement 17 that says it could be anywhere from 17 to the 18 sea undermines that whole idea. 19 MR. BAILEY: Will, since you put it in 20 those terms, I will respond. I disagree. 21 Because someone stands on a piece of ground 22 doesn't mean that particular piece of ground is 23 what the politicians is talking about. A lot 24 of times people will stand in front of 25 something to get a nice photo shot. 21 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 MR. BERSON: Well, in their signings -- 3 MR. BAILEY: The South Carolina -- they 4 have not identified a particular piece of 5 ground to ask the Corps to release the easement 6 on. They have talked about -- 7 MS. JENNINGS: Wait. I'm sorry. I think 8 that's a misstatement of fact, kind of like the 9 newspaper says, please let us know if there is 10 -- I think there's a misstatement of fact. I 11 think they have identified the exact acreage. 12 MR. BAILEY: As far as I know, they have 13 not. I may be wrong. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Can anyone -- can anyone 15 speak to that other than Bill? I believe they 16 have identified an actual piece of ground. 17 That's my understanding. If it's not, I would 18 like to know it. 19 I really thought the governors stood and 20 said here. Are we -- am I wrong? I don't mind 21 being wrong. 22 MR. WILLIS: They certainly indicated a 23 particular area that they thought it was going 24 to be in, but -- 25 MS. JENNINGS: In fact -- in fact, we know 22 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 that, Bill, because part of their statement 3 says that both governors will put their back -- 4 their shoulders to the backbone there and get 5 the Corps to release the federal easement. 6 So we know that they are talking about 7 that 1,776 acres. We know that beyond a shadow 8 of a doubt. They have written it down on 9 paper. 10 MR. DYSART: Hope. 11 MS. MOORER: Go ahead, David. 12 MR. DYSART: David. 13 MR. SCHALLER: To my knowledge, no site 14 has been selected. To my knowledge, one of the 15 tasks going forward is to study the entire 16 spoil area, roughly as Bill portrayed it, from 17 17 to the ocean -- probably just a little 18 slightly more narrow than that, because I think 19 beyond Jones Oyster Bed Island is part of the 20 refuge, if I'm not mistaken, isn't it? 21 In any event, to my knowledge a site has 22 not been selected. That's going to be part of 23 a study going forward. 24 MR. DYSART: Will. 25 MR. BERSON: One of the benefits of a 23 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 stakeholder group like this is to give -- is to 3 have everybody understand where everybody's, 4 you know, what everybody is feeling and where 5 they are standing right now. I've said it 6 before and I'll say it again; I think that this 7 needs to be a very rigorous analysis or you're 8 headed into something that could be legally 9 challenged. 10 I'm not saying it would be the Georgia 11 Conservancy, but I'm saying that there's a fair 12 amount of information out there that is going 13 to be, I would think, very convincing in a 14 court case discussing whether or not the Corps 15 has done due its diligence on evaluating this 16 alternative. 17 I just want to put that up as a warning. 18 I think it's plain as day that this is an 19 alternative. It needs to be evaluated in a 20 really exhaustive fashion. 21 MR. DYSART: Judy Jennings. 22 MS. JENNINGS: Yes. I want to say too 23 right after Will, I've sat here for 10 years in 24 good faith. The word court never entered my 25 mind, but I ditto what Will just said that -- 24 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 that that's a fact. 3 MR. DYSART: Go ahead, please. 4 MR. BAILEY: So with that, the intent was 5 to answer those questions -- those line of 6 questions. The four scenarios we're going to 7 use, the most likely future, and then a 8 reasonably high impact, we're calling it a 9 mid-range impact, and then something we're 10 calling a forensic scenario. 11 Most likely future has no terminal being 12 built in Jasper County in the near future -- in 13 Jasper County. 14 The next two assume that a terminal will 15 be there before a deepening occurs. The last 16 one assumes the deepening occurs first. You 17 have a deepening and then someone builds a 18 terminal in Jasper County. 19 So we had those unknowns, so what we're 20 doing is we're looking at two different 21 locations. We're looking at two different 22 sizes of terminals, three different periods in 23 time of when a terminal would come online, and 24 three different effects of cargo in the Garden 25 City terminal. Cargo go that's presently going 25 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 to Garden City, so it would be a transfer from 3 Garden City to a Jasper terminal. 4 So for a given location and a given size, 5 it would look like this. We would have 6 different amounts of cargo being transferred to 7 Garden City, and different years when the 8 terminal would come online. 9 So I think there's nine scenarios, nine 10 numbers here. I think it ends up being 36 11 different combinations, when you have all those 12 things together. 13 MR. DYSART: Will and Steve. 14 MR. BAILEY: Let me continue on this time 15 and then we'll come back. We're looking at the 16 cost to deepen from a Jasper terminal, from 17 those locations to the Garden City terminal. 18 We're going to look at the economic benefits 19 that would be gained by a new terminal, 20 economic benefits that would be lost, and the 21 mitigation required for deepening from a Jasper 22 site to Garden City. It would -- this analysis 23 will address both conditions; if the Jasper 24 terminal is built first, and if the channel is 25 deepened first. 26 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 What we're trying to do is answer the 3 question, what's the economical effect of a 4 terminal in Jasper County on the harbor 5 expansion project. It won't address the 6 feasibility of a terminal in Jasper County or 7 the adverse impacts of a terminal in Jasper 8 County, so -- 9 MR. DYSART: Steve, Will. 10 MR. WILLIS: I think that part of the 11 analysis of the benefits should definitely be 12 like these humongous cranes being shipped in 13 right now, to estimate if there is a fixed 14 amount of trade you're dealing with, if those 15 cranes would be physically moved from the 16 existing port facilities to the Jasper port 17 facilities; in other words, not just the 18 benefits and cost of having a different port 19 and different unloading, but the actual savings 20 that might accrue from physically moving 21 infrastructure from the existing Georgia port 22 to the Jasper port, rather than buying all new 23 stuff for the Jasper port and leaving all these 24 cranes and things at the Georgia port. 25 In other words, there seems to be hundreds 27 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 of millions of dollars in savings that could be 3 accrued by physically moving stuff that's way 4 up the river down to the Jasper port and 5 utilizing it there, rather looking at it as 6 everything's fixed in place where it is now. 7 MR. DYSART: Judy. 8 MS. JENNINGS: Well, this wasn't an 9 original question, but piggy-backing on what 10 Steve said, you can move those cranes around. 11 They got here on a boat probably, so you move 12 them anywhere you want. 13 You talked about gains and losses and that 14 plays into that. Are you talking about gains 15 and losses on what, if we build Garden City or 16 if we don't, or for instance -- for instance 17 what Steve said. I know we can pick those 18 cranes up and move them anywhere we want to -- 19 my backyard if I cared to, I guess. 20 But we can't move Container Berth 8, I 21 don't think. I was a little confused in terms 22 of the economics, the gains the loss. 23 MR. BAILEY: The gains would be if you 24 have another terminal, another container 25 terminal, the total capacity to come through 28 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 the Port of Savannah would increase. 3 There would be -- could be a gain of 4 moving more containers through the port. If 5 you have two terminals, you could gain that 6 way. You could lose by part of the analysis is 7 Jasper -- one of the scenarios or two of the 8 scenarios was a terminal in Jasper being built 9 first. 10 There are different points in times. If 11 you have to wait, if you do wait 20 years until 12 a Jasper terminal is on the ground and working, 13 if you wait that long to deepen up to Garden 14 City, you've lost some benefits of cargo going 15 up to Garden City. There are other benefits 16 and losses that are included in this analysis. 17 MS. JENNINGS: But the baseline is 18 deepening to Garden City. 19 MR. BAILEY: There were -- two of the 20 scenarios have the baseline, the baseline is a 21 terminal in Jasper County first, so the 22 deepening will only go to a Jasper terminal 23 under two of those scenarios. 24 MS. JENNINGS: How do you calculate the 25 economic benefits, when you realize that it 29 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 sounds to me both governors are advocating a 3 large, private component? So how do you 4 calculate the public benefits? 5 I mean, that's a little different from 6 what we're doing here. So I'm just -- isn't it 7 or is it not? 8 MR. BAILEY: We were just -- I'm not 9 exactly sure. We were looking at it as an 10 increase in numbers of containers that could be 11 moved. There are, I guess -- 12 MS. JENNINGS: My question is depending on 13 the private component, how would you calculate 14 an NED for example, and I don't -- I'm asking 15 because I don't know, because I know that we're 16 a little odd on the East Coast. 17 MR. BAILEY: I could -- I think I'd rather 18 not give you an answer because that's getting 19 into more details of economics. That's really 20 not my area. 21 MR. DYSART: Will and then Morgan. 22 MR. BERSON: You had a matrix up, and it 23 seemed to suggest that -- 24 MR. DYSART: Would you identify it; that's 25 the 25, 50, 75 -- 30 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 MR. BERSON: Yes. Are those percentages 3 based on the assumption that cargo is going to 4 stay static, cargo levels will stay static or 5 is the pie growing? 6 MR. BAILEY: We are projecting the pie to 7 grow with or without the deepening or with or 8 without a Jasper County terminal. We except 9 more containers to come through the port in the 10 future. 11 MR. BERSON: Okay. So I'm a little -- how 12 is it you're going to evaluate 75% of what 13 level of cargo? 14 MR. BAILEY: There will be a projection of 15 so much cargo in a given year. We're saying 16 25% of that cargo that under one scenario goes 17 to Garden City, it all now goes to Garden City, 18 25% is going to go to Jasper County. 19 MR. BERSON: That was the question. Of 20 course I have to have a statement. When you 21 talked about evaluating the mitigation 22 requirements, I just want to throw in another 23 wrinkle here. 24 Under the best of all circumstances, 25 mitigation will work as it is outlined. That's 31 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 not at all a fact. I mean, I think that 3 there's an element that needs to be brought up 4 which is the mitigation you don't have to do is 5 the one that won't go wrong. 6 So I think there's an important element 7 there that needs to be said; that is, if one 8 alternative were to require you to do less 9 mitigation, it's not that you save X dollars, 10 it's that you save potential mistakes because 11 you never had to mitigate for the mistake in 12 the first place. I don't know how you quantify 13 that, but it's an important element that we 14 need to think about. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. After Morgan, I'm 16 going to hold prospects of a break. 17 MR. REES: I just wanted to comment on 18 Judy's question, whether the NED benefits are 19 affected if there's a private terminal, and 20 based on the economics no, they are not 21 affected. But there are different ways of 22 handling it in a federal project. 23 Now, I've been out of the federal 24 government for a number of years. John, if I 25 misstate it, please correct me. The Corps 32 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 policy was and I haven't heard it's been 3 changed, if there's a private facility, and 4 it's what the Corps calls a single user, the 5 Corps won't entertain a project there. 6 If it is one private facility, the 7 facility operator has to do the dredging to get 8 the channel there. 9 But if it's a publicly-owned facility and 10 the operation of the facility is conducted by a 11 private entity, but under a lease or some sort 12 of contract with a public agency then -- then 13 it's okay for the Corps to participate in that 14 kind of project. 15 But the economic calculations that you do 16 for the NED benefits are the same, because 17 you're looking at the savings in transportation 18 costs, and those savings are the same 19 regardless of who owns and operates the 20 facility. Is that right, John? 21 MR. GRANDISON: That's correct. 22 MR. DYSART: You've got a quick comment? 23 MR. WILLIS: Very quick. Going back to 24 what Will just said, normally economics 25 analysis, I know that's not your specialty, 33 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 an economics analysis would consider a do 3 nothing alternative. 4 I don't know if you're doing that or not. 5 What would the economic impact of doing nothing 6 be, including the cost of mitigation, the cost 7 of dredging and all that? I mean, that's the 8 normal, routine way these kinds of studies are 9 done. Is that being done? 10 MR. BAILEY: We have that, yes. 11 MR. DYSART: John, looks like he has 12 something that he's been waiting to say. John. 13 MR. ROBINETTE: Along those lines, can you 14 do the analysis like we were talking about the 15 air quality analysis after you presented that 16 and said that the amount of cargo TEUs coming 17 into the Garden City, and the number of ships, 18 and the number of trips, the difference between 19 what you have projected to come in there in the 20 future with the deepening was the exact same as 21 without the deepening, correct? 22 MR. BAILEY: I think so, yeah. 23 MR. ROBINETTE: So you have the same 24 number of ships, same number of trips, and same 25 number of TEUs coming to Garden City whether 34 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 you deepen or not. It would make the do 3 nothing alternative pretty economical. I just 4 -- that's why I can't understand what would 5 make it economically feasible. 6 MR. DYSART: Last comment -- you have a 7 comment, David. Last comment before we move 8 on. If there's any question remaining, we'll 9 do it after the break. 10 MR. KYLER: I certainly don't want to 11 appear to be an agent of the Corps in answering 12 that question, but as I recall from previous 13 discussions at this table, the answer to your 14 question, John, is the increased efficiency 15 gain by shipping with larger, more fully-loaded 16 ships that can be obtained with a deeper 17 channel. 18 So it's not the greater volume, it's the 19 efficiency with which that volume is moved. 20 It's supposed to provide a net benefit from a 21 cost standpoint to a consuming public. The 22 last time we discussed this, my point was when 23 we have the trade deficit as we do, then we're 24 just enhancing the degree to which China can 25 sell us stuff cheaper and further imbalance our 35 1 JASPER COUNTY 2 trade. 3 But as Morgan pointed out, that's not a 4 question that can be raised at this level of 5 analysis. 6 MR. WILLIS: Are we going to talk about 7 economics analysis later on in this meeting. 8 MR. DYSART: That is on the agenda. 9 MR. KYLER: I wanted to underscore what 10 Will said, and maybe clarify something about 11 the sequence in mitigation is to avoid first. 12 So by not deepening beyond the Jasper 13 County facility as Will said, you're avoiding 14 the impacts, but also the kind of analysis you 15 seem to be suggesting on your Powerpoint here 16 would imply that all mitigation is effective, 17 as Will pointed out, and that everything that 18 is worth considering from an environmental risk 19 standpoint is fully compensated by the 20 mitigation plan which is not at all obvious. 21 So again the preference for avoiding those 22 risks and costs and uncertainties would seem to 23 give high preference to the opportunity to 24 avoid having to deepen beyond Jasper. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. While we've got 36 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 everybody here. I want you to reintroduce 3 yourself quickly for the reporter. Let's start 4 right down here. 5 MR. WRIGHT: Tom Wright, local citizen. 6 MS. COLLINS-RAHN: Lucille Collins-Rahn, 7 Georgia Sierra Club. 8 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, the Georgia 9 Conservancy. 10 MR. DYSART: Ben Dysart, SEG facilitator. 11 MR. KYLER: Dave Kyler, Center for a 12 Sustainable Coast. 13 MR. WILLIS: Steve Willis, Sierra. 14 MS. GRAINEY: Karen Grainey, Savannah 15 Riverkeeper. 16 MR. SAWYER: John Sawyer, City of Savannah 17 MR. LLOYD: Heath Lloyd, City of Savannah. 18 MS. LANDERS: Mary Landers, Savannah 19 Morning News. 20 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 21 Authority. 22 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant for 23 Georgia Ports Authority. 24 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for 25 GPA. 37 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 3 Authority. 4 MS. MALLOY: Andrea Malloy, Coastal 5 Conservation League. 6 MS. BOWERS: Gail Bowers, League of Women 7 Voters. 8 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia Wildlife 9 Federation. 10 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 11 Service. 12 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, Fish 13 and Wildlife Service. 14 MS. GRIESE: Jane Griese, US Fish and 15 Wildlife. 16 MR. FLEMING: Joel Fleming, Georgia DNR 17 Coastal Resources Division. 18 MS. COLVIN: Elizabeth Colvin, Georgia 19 DNR. 20 MR. MIKELL: Next to me who just stepped 21 out a minute ago is Kelie Moore from Georgia 22 DNR Coastal Resources Division, and I'm Rob 23 Mikell also with Georgia DNR, Coastal 24 Resources. 25 MR. GRANDISON: I'm Johnny Grandison, 38 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 Corps of Engineers, Mobile. 3 MR. DIAMATIDES: Jerry Diamatides, 4 consultant to the Corps. 5 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia 6 Sierra. 7 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, citizen. 8 MS. COVINGTON: Ellie Covington, Corps of 9 Engineers. 10 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Island. 11 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of 12 Engineers. 13 MR. DeSCHERER: Chris DeScherer, Southern 14 Environmental Law Center. 15 MR. DYSART: We also had Mr. David 16 Schaller, who is Deputy Executive Director of 17 the Georgia Ports Authority. He stepped out 18 right before we started this. Let's take a 19 10 minute break. 20 (Short Break) 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's resume and let 22 me just make a comment on the record here that 23 our court reporter joined the meeting, and that 24 we are pleased that she arrived safe and sound 25 with our great appreciation. 39 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 We couldn't have one of these meetings 3 without her, but she arrived during the Q and A 4 on the mitigation planning status portion, and 5 let me just clarify -- state on the record that 6 we started about 9:15 this morning. 7 The body agreed that Cathy Vaughn would 8 take notes until our trusty court reporter got 9 here. That was acceptable to the group, and we 10 indicated that anybody who had notes on 11 particular topics that they would like TO 12 appended to this, provide them to Cathy. 13 And I would say that the court reporter 14 arrived about 10:14, and I would invite you if 15 you have your own notes that you want appended 16 give them to Cathy now, or fax them to her by 17 close of business today. 18 MS. VAUGHN: Or e-mail. 19 MR. DYSART: Or e-mail. The reason I say 20 that is not necessarily just now. Some of you 21 probably write like Will here, and I'm sure she 22 would like for it to be readable. 23 We are not inviting people to prepare 24 statements for the record, but we do -- there 25 were some significant topics discussed, and we 40 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 do want a fair reflection of the discussion 3 that took place. So anyway, are there any 4 further questions or comments concerning what 5 Bill was talking about when we took the break? 6 Joel. 7 MR. FLEMING: I would just like to comment 8 on what David followed up with before we left, 9 as far as the risk assessment. I think I would 10 just like to say I agree with what David said. 11 The risk assessment I think is just as 12 valid as the economic assessment really. If 13 you look at what should be incorporated into 14 the amount of error associated with these 15 calculations, we have a huge amount of error 16 for one thing in the model, a huge amount of 17 error, more than likely, with the mitigation 18 actions working not to mention how they're 19 modeled to work. 20 And then certainly -- and there's error 21 associated with everything. I have error 22 associated with what we prescribed, or we all 23 from a biological perspective with a minimum 24 criteria of these species where we're saying, 25 basically, if we meet these criteria the 41 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 species will be okay. 3 Well, we know that's not fact. I mean 4 things have been done in the past where we 5 totally eliminated populations. For example, 6 some of the things that happened that impacted 7 striped bass was in this system, not to mention 8 some of other systems, that basically wiped out 9 the population. 10 So there are those risks that should be 11 incorporated as well. I think the evaluation 12 and the consideration of these risks, in some 13 way -- I'm very naive to this whole process, 14 but I would think they need to play a huge 15 role, along with the economic assessment. 16 With the economic assessment mentioned, I 17 know we've talked about it in this group, ways 18 in which the economic impacts need to be 19 updated, but we can't really keep them updated 20 as quickly as they need to be. 21 I mean, we're working on this original 22 assessment which basically declared the Jasper 23 County port infeasible, but that was based upon 24 the original mitigation cost of the Garden City 25 port. 42 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 I think, correct me if I'm wrong, I think 3 it was like $1,000,000. Obviously, we have 4 surpassed that by orders of magnitude at this 5 point. 6 I would assume those mitigation costs 7 would have to be reevaluated. The whole 8 economic -- all the economic figures have to be 9 updated. But I guess we have to think about 10 how these mitigation costs are going to 11 increase over time as well. I guess the 12 biggest one is just go on and assess this risk. 13 It is certainly out there. 14 MR. DYSART: Morgan, did you have some 15 comments that you wanted to make before we took 16 the break? 17 MR. REES: No, it's overtaken by events. 18 MR. DYSART: Seeing no other cards up, 19 Bill, we would invite you to move on with your 20 plan formulation, plan selection methodology. 21 Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers. 22 MR. BAILEY: The overall goal of our study 23 is to identify whether harbor deepening is 24 economically justified and environmentally 25 acceptable, looking at the benefits to the 43 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 nation, determine if there are significant 3 environmental impacts that can be acceptably 4 mitigated. 5 And then we need to obtain the approval of 6 the heads of the four federal agencies. So 7 typical steps that we go through, look at 8 alternatives to meet the project objectives, 9 evaluate the impacts of those alternatives, 10 look at the -- determine which plans are 11 cost-effective and environmentally acceptable, 12 and then look at and identify the best plan. 13 As I mentioned before, the formulation of 14 alternatives report, that looked at the 15 problems to be solved, the opportunities that 16 could be addressed, develop some planning 17 objectives. 18 It had some goals of the cooperating 19 agencies. Those goals are both process related 20 and outcome related. For process, they wanted 21 to make sure that the study determined the 22 specific and differential effects of each 23 alternative. 24 They wanted the studies to be technically 25 acceptable, to clearly identify all the 44 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 benefits and costs for the decision-makers, and 3 also to recommend actions that could be taken 4 outside the expansion project to compensate for 5 impacts in the past. 6 Those are the process-related things that 7 the agencies wanted, those federal agencies. 8 The outcome we wanted, to look for a project 9 that had a positive economic benefit for the 10 port community and beneficial environmental 11 effects. 12 They want a mitigation plan that addresses 13 the unavoidable impacts to critical natural 14 resources, post-project monitoring. We talked 15 about that. We want it to be supported by most 16 stakeholders. 17 So those are the goals. We started the 18 project. We started this effort. That report 19 identified -- also identified the items of 20 inventory and forecast. It looked at potential 21 management measures, ways to solve the 22 problems, both structural and non-structural. 23 We combined those measures into 24 preliminary alternatives. Those alternatives 25 were reducing under-keel clearance, modifying 45 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 the Garden City terminal, alternate terminal 3 locations, one of which was a terminal in 4 Jasper County, looked at the regional port, 5 offshore facility, modifying the existing 6 navigation channel and then deepening the 7 channel. 8 The results of those alternatives, 9 reducing under-keel clearance. That was not 10 going to be effective. Modifying the Garden 11 City terminal, there was nothing else we could 12 do there GPA wasn't already going to do. 13 Alternate terminal locations, that was not 14 going to be as economically efficient as the 15 other things we looked at. The regional port, 16 that's part of the economic analysis. That's 17 not done yet. Offshore facility, that -- that 18 didn't appear that that was going to work out. 19 Deepening the channel, that might be -- it 20 might work. Improving the channel, we've got 21 some listed because there are some ways you 22 could improve the channel that may be able to 23 enlarge a turning basin, or some minor, minor 24 things like that. 25 So this is kind of identifying ways to 46 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 solve -- first you had to figure out what your 3 problem is, what are trying to solve. And then 4 what are the different ways that you can solve 5 it, and then trying to narrow that down to 6 identify the best way. 7 This is a narrowing down -- decided to go 8 into detailed -- using detailed plans to no 9 action. Steve, you mentioned that. That is 10 one of the things we're going to be looking at. 11 We'll look at different amounts of 12 deepening. These are some of the different 13 other aspects of maintaining the existing side 14 slopes. They would be some bend wideners, 15 meeting area, kind of a passing area where 16 ships could go past each other, near old Ft. 17 Jackson. 18 So those are the things we were going to 19 look at in detail. What we have completed so 20 far is the channel design, looked at where we 21 would -- if we were to deepen, how much 22 material we would have to dig up and then where 23 we would put that material, both out in the 24 entrance channel and in the inner harbor. 25 The entrance channel, we talked about 47 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 that, most of that going most of it in front of 3 Tybee. In the inner harbor it would go to 4 existing confining disposal areas. 5 We completed looking at impacts to Tybee 6 Beach from an additional deepening of the 7 navigational channel. We looked at impacts to 8 the river shorelines, impacts to the aquifer, 9 hurricanes. As John mentioned earlier, impacts 10 to the city, the city's intake. 11 Nearly completed, kind of a refinement to 12 the DO systems, hydrodynamic modeling. These 13 pieces are almost done model. 14 Future steps, complete mitigation plan for 15 each depth and then estimate the cost for each 16 alternative. You combine those costs to 17 determine the net benefits for each plan. 18 This is a diagram of it. The net benefits here 19 are your positive. Judy, put you on the spot. 20 MS. JENNINGS: All righty then Bill. 21 MR. BAILEY: Is this -- do you always have 22 positive net benefits? 23 MS. JENNINGS: I don't think so. I mean 24 my answer would be no. What do you think? 25 MR. BAILEY: When would that not happen? 48 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 MS. JENNINGS: When you don't have 3 positive net benefits? 4 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 5 MS. JENNINGS: I think there's a blind 6 spot situation when there are no positive net 7 benefits. I mean for instance, what if we 8 can't completely mitigate? What if our 9 estimates of thru-put are wrong and the 10 economics aren't there? That would be an 11 example on both sides of no positive net 12 benefits -- reckon? 13 MR. BAILEY: Benefits can have negative 14 net benefits where your costs are higher than 15 your benefits, that's all. So all the projects 16 are not good projects -- are not economically 17 justified projects. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Let's go back; is this 19 exactly the same as an NED analysis? 20 MR. BAILEY: We'll get to that. This is 21 net benefits is what we'll be calculating for 22 each depth. For a generic project, there are 23 some numbers. Average annual benefits, we'll 24 be developing tables like this. 25 So for a generic project, we've got 49 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 average annual benefits for one plan of 3 $660,000 a year. The other plan is 805,000 a 4 year. So you get higher benefits with plan Y. 5 You go down the next line, average annual 6 costs are also higher with plan Y. When you do 7 the net benefits, when you subtract those two 8 net benefits are higher than plan -- with plan 9 Y. If you look at a benefit cost ratio, the 10 plan X has a higher benefit cost ratio. 11 Benefit cost ratio can be -- one way you 12 can look at that, for each dollar you put into 13 it, how many dollars in benefit do you get out 14 of it. So for this scenario, for this generic 15 project which -- Will, which one would you 16 recommend, if you recommend any, which of these 17 two would you recommend; which is the best one? 18 MR. BERSON: I would want to check your 19 math on the benefits of cost before I choose. 20 MR. BAILEY: If the math is correct, do 21 you get the one with the highest benefit cost 22 ratio or the highest net benefits? 23 MR. BERSON: Well, plan Y has the best 24 benefits for the least cost. I'm sorry. Plan 25 X, plan X, right -- yeah, yeah two to one 50 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 assuming your math is correct. 3 MR. BAILEY: Well, you're supposed to pick 4 the one with the highest net benefit, so we 5 don't pick the plan on the highest benefit cost 6 ratio. 7 MR. BERSON: Okay. Except I'll put a 8 caveat in there since you asked me the 9 question, the costs are borne locally, the 10 benefits occur nationally. 11 MR. BAILEY: Well, unless the costs come 12 from the national government which costs would 13 be borne nationally also -- economic costs. 14 MR. BERSON: Not the environmental costs. 15 MR. BAILEY: Correct. 16 MS. GRAINEY: Is this only economic costs 17 you're calculating? 18 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 19 MR. REES: No, doesn't it include the 20 mitigation costs? 21 MR. BAILEY: It would include mitigation, 22 yes. 23 MR. REES: And this all presumes that the 24 project is satisfactorily mitigated and all, 25 right? 51 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 3 MS. JENNINGS: I want to make again the 4 point that the sponsor does not have to choose. 5 MR. BAILEY: We're still going to get 6 that. It still happens. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Okay, lordy, lordy. 8 MR. BAILEY: The Corps is to identify an 9 NED plan, a National Economic Development plan, 10 one that reasonably maximizes net economic 11 benefits. 12 So up here, net benefits kind of the one 13 that's reasonably maximizes consistent with 14 protecting the nation's environment, so we have 15 to be able to mitigate for the things you need 16 to mitigate go for. 17 So we would have -- you may have plans 18 like this where we have different -- different 19 plans for different sizes of a project. You 20 would have different amounts of net benefits 21 for each one of them, some of which may go 22 below zero. Plan F, so you have to identify 23 the NED plan, the one that reasonably maximizes 24 the net benefits. 25 So we would -- we would most likely 52 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 identify plan D as the one that reasonably 3 maximizes it, depending on the scale. And then 4 you may -- you don't know how close C, D and E 5 are to each other, so there may be reasons -- 6 you don't have to pick the one with the highest 7 actual number. That's why I say reasonably 8 maximizes. 9 So the NED, the Corps has to identify the 10 NED plan. We'll get to other things that can 11 come in. 12 MR. DYSART: Will, comment? 13 MR. BERSON: Just one caveat if you go 14 back to that. Every time this comes up I 15 intend to say something. I know there's 16 nothing that can be done for this project. You 17 evaluate this vis-a-vis other Corps projects. 18 But when you are looking at the primary 19 benefit being efficiency of transportation, the 20 Corps assumes -- we use the VCR maybe we should 21 use DVD players now, but for every dollar saved 22 in transportation costs, the Corps assumes that 23 that dollar shows up at the local Target when I 24 go to buy the DVD player. 25 I have a real problem with that. I know 53 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 that that's the way the Corps evaluates 3 projects. The shipping company could take that 4 dollar. The manufacturer could take that 5 dollar. 6 It is not at all clear that the efficiency 7 realized by the project accrue to the national 8 economy in the way the Corps assumes that it 9 does. That's just my caveat on this. 10 MR. DYSART: Judy. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Just to say, Bill, almost 12 -- I'm not aware of many dollars in the NED 13 analysis that is not exactly what you say. I 14 mean, the public benefit only -- the way I have 15 read it -- the public benefit flows through 16 private almost always, and that's where the net 17 figure comes from. There's almost no public 18 benefit that isn't filtered through a private 19 benefactor. 20 MR. BERSON: Well that's true -- 21 MS. JENNINGS: Morgan, help me. 22 MR. BERSON: That's true but Maersk is not 23 an American company. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Good point, good point. 25 MR. BERSON: Neither is Hitachi nor Sony. 54 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 MS. JENNINGS: Good point. Most of the 3 shipping companies are not at all, but most of 4 their -- I mean K-Mart is marginally speaking 5 and -- well, Morgan -- 6 MR. REES: I would just say very briefly 7 if somebody is interested in pursuing these 8 economic concepts, join us when we reenergize 9 the Economic Working Group. But just the 10 bottom line of all this, it is fairly 11 fundamental economic theory, based on a free 12 market and competition, that these benefits 13 will flow to the general American public, even 14 though there are other people involved. 15 If you go step by step through the 16 economic analysis process, considering 17 unconstrained competition, then there's nowhere 18 else they can go but to the consuming public, 19 which reminds me, I did have my card up 20 earlier. 21 I said it was overtaken by events, but the 22 thing had to do with our discussion earlier 23 about a private operation versus a 24 publicly-owned terminal. 25 The reason why the federal government 55 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 won't participate in that private terminal is 3 that there's an assumption that there's not a 4 free market competition for stuff that goes 5 through that terminal, whereas if it's 6 publicly-owned then the assumption is it is an 7 open free market competition; that is, if you 8 have what the Corps calls a single user 9 facility, the owner of that single facility 10 that has a channel can sequester some of the 11 benefits of its operation. But if it's 12 publicly-owned, and other potential operators 13 of the facility have to compete for the 14 contracts to operate it, then those savings as 15 a result of the dredging and improvements at 16 the facility do get passed on to the public. 17 Anyhow, this is the pretty fundamental 18 economic theory. We can deal with that in the 19 Economic Working Group, if there are still 20 issues. 21 If I may, one other question; Bill, on 22 your graph up there you said you don't have to 23 select the maximum net benefits and that's 24 true, but you cannot select an alternative -- I 25 don't know if you said this, you can't select 56 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 an alternative that goes beyond the positive 3 slope of that curve. 4 It has got to be on the up slope of the 5 curve. It can't be on the down slope. If it 6 is on the down slope, that means for an 7 increment you are losing money on your 8 investment, whereas if it is on the up slope 9 you're still gaining money, even though it may 10 not the maximum that you can get. You are 11 still gaining for each increment of cost 12 investment. 13 MR. GRANDISON: What I was hearing was 14 that we couldn't recommend another plan. Well, 15 the study identifies the NED plan. Should the 16 sponsor choose to select, in this case plan E, 17 then we could participate in that plan with the 18 sponsor paying the incremental differences, 19 what we would pay for plan D versus the cost of 20 plan E, maybe more. They pay 100% of that 21 increment. 22 MR. REES: Right. 23 MR. DYSART: David. 24 MR. KYLER: At the risk of sounding like a 25 theorist or something, despite the requirements 57 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 of the Corps, there are also -- what disturbs 3 me among many things in this whole type of 4 analysis is that there are uncompensated, 5 unrecognized, uncalculated externalities that 6 are part of shipping globally that are never 7 part of the calculus of the individual 8 projects. 9 Prime example being emissions, atmospheric 10 emissions above the shipping channels, which we 11 all know climate change issues recognize as a 12 significant adverse effect of literally global 13 proportions affecting all people in the world, 14 especially coastal areas. Those are totally 15 out of the calculations of this kind of 16 assessment. 17 MS. MOORER: Can I follow up with that 18 comment? I want to ask a question because if 19 there is an impact, and it has to be mitigated 20 for in some other way, that cost is factored 21 into the analysis then; is that correct? 22 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 23 MS. MOORER: So if there is an impact by 24 this project, then that has to be included, the 25 cost of that, mitigating for that has to be 58 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 included in the project, right? 3 MR. BAILEY: All the mitigation costs will 4 be part of that economic analysis. 5 MR. DYSART: Judy. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah. Hope, the issue that 7 you would find, I think I can say throughout 8 the environmental community, is that there are 9 costs we feel that should be addressed that are 10 never addressed. 11 For instance, we could just take for 12 example the non-point source pollution at the 13 port now, and how much of it goes into the 14 river that has to be cleaned up by John before 15 he can sell it to drink. 16 There are lots of those. I mean, we could 17 make a list of those kinds of costs that aren't 18 in -- I mean, Dave and I rale all the time 19 about add all the costs in. We don't think all 20 the costs are added in from a -- from a social 21 -- but from a very strong economic point of 22 view too, apparently we just haven't made our 23 case well enough to win the day. So -- 24 MR. KYLER: In addition to the point Judy 25 made, my larger point was as I understand the 59 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 Corps' requirements for analyzing projects such 3 as this, there's no requirement to analyze the 4 impacts that are not domestic, and yet which 5 have domestic and global impacts, adverse 6 impacts. 7 It may seem as though emissions over Guam 8 have no effect on it, but they do have an 9 effect on it, and cumulatively those are more 10 significant, and yet totally ignored by this 11 kind of analysis. 12 MR. DYSART: Will. 13 MR. BERSON: Must be feeling sore right 14 about now. Mitigation is an important 15 component. I sort of alluded to this before, 16 the degree to which you can design a program 17 that doesn't require mitigation is an important 18 element in all of this. 19 Mitigation is a very large assumption that 20 what you're doing is going to even out the 21 impact you're going to have. And avoidance is 22 always preferable, so there's a certain -- to 23 the extent that there's uncertainty that's not 24 necessarily quantifiable in every mitigation 25 proposal, that's something that is lost in the 60 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 overall calculation of a cost benefit analysis. 3 I mean, we think that plan 6-A is going to 4 mitigate the impacts, and we can put a price 5 tag on that so you can put it into this 6 formula, but in truth it might not work. 7 I mean, nature tends to be a finicky 8 thing. It often reacts in ways we can't 9 account for. So I guess I wanted to say that 10 the thing you don't have to mitigate for, the 11 option you don't mitigate for has probably an 12 inappropriately valued X factor in it. 13 MR. DYSART: Steve. 14 MR. WILLIS: Yeah. I think in the same 15 line, you know, when you are considering 16 uncertainty and risk, of course some things can 17 be very uncertainty. Your calculations are 18 based on very shaky, not bad but just 19 uncertain -- you don't know what's going to 20 happen. 21 So some projections can be very uncertain. 22 You don't know what's going to happen, so your 23 predictions are not as solid as if they were 24 certain. Same with risk. You can have some 25 things that have very little risk up to a 61 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 certain point and then a vast risk. 3 I mean, all these things are not -- not 4 linear. But I think one particular piece of 5 information that I don't hear discussed here 6 very much which is absolutely vital to this 7 whole project, and that is a real simple thing; 8 in 2000, what portion of the port's trade was 9 with China, and right now what portion of the 10 port's trade is with China. 11 And in 2015, what portion of your 12 projected trade is with China, and the reason 13 that's so important is that right now we're 14 approaching a trillion dollar a year loss in 15 our balance of trade with China. Almost all 16 reputable economists believe that is 17 unsustainable. 18 There's no way we're just going to 19 continue not just growing the way we've grown 20 in the last five years, seven years, but just 21 to sustain the current level of trade with 22 China. It seems not feasible. You can't just 23 keep running approaching a trillion dollar a 24 year deficit. 25 And so I'd like to know what those numbers 62 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 are, and I'd like to know what reputable 3 economist in the United States think about 4 projecting those numbers out to 2015 or 5 whatever you want to project them out to. Is 6 that being considered, is that available? 7 MR. BAILEY: I think the economic analysis 8 shows the vessels by trade route. I'm not sure 9 -- I'm not sure how much it goes beyond that. 10 I know they are going to have a report 11 reviewed by external reviewers. I don't know 12 if they're going to get into national economics 13 and priority setting like you're talking 14 about. 15 MR. WILLIS: I know the last election in 16 Panama that issue was the main issue in Panama 17 in their national elections. I mean it's not a 18 mystery to the people in Panama that that's a 19 significant issue. 20 MR. DYSART: Judy. 21 MS. JENNINGS: Thanks Ben. Bill, about 22 the cost and benefits of each alternative, is 23 the oxygen injection relatively the same with 24 each alternative? 25 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure. I think it 63 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 goes -- the oxygen requirement goes up with 3 each -- 4 MS. JENNINGS: I assume, but I don't know. 5 MR. BAILEY: As you go deeper, I think you 6 need to add more oxygen. 7 MS. JENNINGS: And that's of course 8 figured in. 9 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Now, are you cost sharing 11 that with the State of Georgia for the TMDL 12 issue or not, or is all of that being costed to 13 this project? 14 MR. BAILEY: This project will look at 15 removing the effects of this project. So it 16 will -- this project would add oxygen just to 17 get back to where it is right now. So far with 18 that other study we had to improve conditions 19 out there, we have no -- we have no non-federal 20 sponsor to move forward. 21 MR. DYSART: Bill. 22 MR. FARMER: In the quantification of the 23 benefits and the costs, the various impacts on 24 like the fish and the wildlife and so forth, 25 are those quantifiable in the benefits and the 64 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 costs, or are they just separate like a 3 footnote; the benefits are so much here, then a 4 footnote well, the fish get benefited or hurt 5 by certain percent or something? 6 MR. BAILEY: They're quantified through a 7 mitigation cost. If there is something else 8 where there is -- where it is not mitigated or 9 you end up with a benefit, it will just say so 10 many acres of habitat benefits. So you'll have 11 different -- different things to compare, 12 different things to include in your assessment 13 of an alternative. 14 MR. FARMER: If net benefits are good for 15 plan A, a little bit better for plan B, but the 16 environmental impacts are worse for everyone, 17 someone makes a judgment as to whether that 18 additional worseness is worth it? 19 MR. BAILEY: Right. 20 MR. FARMER: Okay. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. 22 MR. BAILEY: So we would then look, after 23 we calculate our net benefits, we would 24 determine the NED plan. Then we get into the 25 locally preferred plan, which y'all talked 65 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 about it may be the sponsor, the port authority 3 would like a different plan. 4 We have to identify the NED plan. We 5 don't have to recommend it. We have to 6 identify it. We can also put in the report a 7 locally preferred plan. The sponsor would like 8 this plan. 9 That locally preferred plan is supposed to 10 -- it would have all the same analysis that the 11 other ones did. Basically, it would just be I 12 like number three instead of number two. You 13 would still have all the analyses done, both 14 economic costs and environmental would be the 15 same on -- on that plan as well as the other 16 ones. 17 You would then identify a tentatively 18 recommended plan, write it up in a report and 19 sent it out for comments to agencies and the 20 public. You would also have that draft report 21 reviewed by someone outside the Corps. 22 I'm not sure, John, do you know who that 23 -- we're going to contract out to some big 24 company? 25 MR. GRANDISON: We're postured right now 66 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 to contract with the Battel Mooring Institute, 3 to identify the external peer review report, 4 B-A-T-T-E-L, Battel. 5 MR. BAILEY: After the draft report, then 6 we would address the comments on that report, 7 prepare a final, identify a selected plan, go 8 back out for comment again, and then the 9 federal agencies would make their decisions. 10 Back where we said at the beginning, we 11 had to have approval of the four federal agency 12 heads, so that would come kind of at the end of 13 that agency review. 14 MR. DYSART: Judy. 15 MS. JENNINGS: I'm not real sure of the 16 process. I know at the last harbor deepening 17 GPA chose a plan other than the federally 18 recommended NED plan. 19 MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh, right. 20 MS. JENNINGS: So I wasn't watching then. 21 At what point do you step out, step in; what's 22 the Corps' role in that, and I'm assuming the 23 money stops at the Corps' recommended plan or 24 not? I mean just -- 25 MR. BAILEY: John mentioned a little bit 67 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 earlier. The way it could work, the way it 3 works in some projects like Morgan mentioned, 4 if plan C was the -- well, if plan D was the 5 Corps' -- if that was the NED plan and GPA 6 would like a bigger project, they would like to 7 move out to plan E, there are more costs to go 8 out with plan E. 9 The port authority would have to pay all 10 those costs, 100% of that difference between D 11 and E in size or in cost. And it would still 12 then go through the same -- the report would be 13 finished, and you would put that in the report. 14 The NED plan is D. The locally preferred 15 plan is E. The cost sharing would be this and 16 this. The port authority would pay, with plan 17 E the port authority would basically pay all 18 the costs after that they would have above D, 19 that's what they want to do. 20 It's environmentally acceptable, and then 21 the agencies, and then that would be what's in 22 the final report. 23 In this case, the four agencies would say 24 yes or no on that. And in the last, like you 25 said the last, the previous deepening, was a 68 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 four foot project, a four foot deepening, and 3 the NED plan was for a two foot deepening. The 4 port authority paid all the costs to go from 5 two to four. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I guess a couple of 7 questions that that brings up. I guess the 8 only reason the sponsor would choose E as 9 opposed to D is if they're making the bet, I 10 mean you got to figure they're making the bet 11 you've under estimated the benefits. 12 How does the public -- where is the 13 assurance to the public that E didn't have more 14 environmental cost? See, it doesn't take that 15 into effect -- into account. It just takes the 16 costs that you put on the table, or do you do 17 a different analysis? 18 MR. BAILEY: The analysis is supposed to 19 be the same for plans A through F. It's 20 supposed to be the same level of analysis on 21 all of them. 22 MS. JENNINGS: Also the NED is not always 23 the -- the highest benefit cost ratio? 24 MR. BAILEY: Correct. 25 MR. DYSART: Joel and then David. 69 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 MR. FLEMING: Yeah, I guess I have a 3 question I believe I know the answer to. Is 4 there any way in this process that the Corps 5 evaluates the increase in feasibility, and more 6 relevant to this case, the likelihood of future 7 development based on the actions of this 8 process? 9 For example, obviously, by increasing the 10 depth of the port to Garden City, I'm trying to 11 put all these pieces together that we've talked 12 about this morning. 13 The increase in the depth of the port to 14 Garden City, it makes the feasibility of the 15 Jasper County port go up, I mean tremendously, 16 and the likelihood of it going up tremendously 17 has economic benefit which I think, going off 18 with what Judy said, probably if someone were 19 to select somewhere on the right-hand side of 20 that curve, that's what they're betting on, 21 however, if it's not properly evaluated, you're 22 betting on that based on the economic 23 potential, I guess, but you're certainly not 24 evaluating if both ports go in what the 25 environmental impact would be past that point. 70 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 Am I right by saying like we're looking at 3 this project with blinders on once again? If 4 we could go back in history and show how in the 5 Savannah River, it's been done over and over, 6 when we look at a project like that we don't 7 tend to look at what the potential development 8 that allows for, I guess. 9 For example, if we were looking at this 10 thing back in 1700 and we proposed this 11 activity, and said okay, we're now going to 12 allow salinity all the way up to past Pt 13 Wentworth, we would probably be looking at a 14 little bit of a different decision. 15 I would think whether those past 16 activities were mitigated for properly or not, 17 the cumulative effect of those compromised 18 ecosystem or the areas. I think it would 19 eventually come back to bite us all. 20 So am I correct by saying this does not 21 include or does not take into account the 22 increase in of feasibility or the likelihood of 23 certain other actions happening? 24 MR. BAILEY: The economics don't include 25 that because we're not -- because they're not 71 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 certain enough for us to calculate. They 3 should get included in the cumulative impact 4 assessment where you could look at what things 5 may happen in the future, and to help you 6 assess the value of the environmental resource. 7 You know, is this the last acre or are 8 there still millions of these acres just like 9 this. That's hard for us to put a value on the 10 resource that you are impacting. 11 But as far as saying if you do this, it's 12 going to make this other project more likely, 13 that normally doesn't. That's hard to figure 14 in because you don't how likely you're talking. 15 MR. FLEMING: Well, I mean, it's kind of 16 like let's take a reservoir, for example. If 17 you build a reservoir, the likelihood of a 18 hydropower facility going on a reservoir is 19 pretty darn high. 20 You would be pretty short-sighted to say 21 okay, I'm going to make a drinking water 22 reservoir, but think that a hydropower unit 23 wouldn't go in on top of that is being very 24 short-sighted. 25 The cumulative environmental impacts from 72 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 those things are pretty major. Taking one 3 thing that impedes fish passage, potentially 4 putting a dam there and now you're talking 5 about something that can actually entrain fish 6 or impinge fish, or crunch fish through either 7 way, pump back systems that get put on. 8 Certainly, the environmental impact just 9 keeps building. I guess I was just stating the 10 point I don't think it is properly evaluated. 11 You would see the benefit and select something 12 to the right. 13 There's certainly a carrot care out there 14 dangling, whoever is the making the decision 15 saying these future activities could happen to 16 impact us economically. 17 MR. BAILEY: Another aspect is the Corps 18 figures, calculates national benefits. There 19 could be a regional benefit here and a regional 20 loss somewhere else. So from the Corps' 21 perspective that's zero. It's of no value to 22 the Corps, but someone locally may say I can do 23 this, make a value here locally. So they want 24 to proceed, even if someone in another state 25 loses a job to get a job here. 73 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 MR. DYSART: David. 3 MR. KYLER: To me in addition to what Joel 4 illustrated about the effects of this project 5 on the feasibility and probability of Jasper's 6 development, the larger question in there to me 7 is to what extent will the increase in trade 8 change disproportionately, increase 9 disproportionately if at all, and if it doesn't 10 increase disproportionately, what is any effect 11 in moving Jasper forward that could detract 12 from Garden City because it would go to Jasper 13 instead. 14 The question I had originally when I put 15 the card up, in this scenario where a larger 16 project may be chosen by the local entity, GPA, 17 and the additional margin costs paid for by 18 GPA, does that include unanticipated costs such 19 as mitigation plans that don't work, and any 20 other consequences that weren't anticipated in 21 the original analysis? 22 MR. BAILEY: You have a mitigation plan 23 and monitoring plan with all the plans. 24 MR. KYLER: Yeah, the marginal effect of 25 the larger project, GPA would be under this 74 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 presumption of selecting and paying for may 3 have consequences that these mitigation costs 4 are greater than anticipated, or the 5 environmental damage is greater than 6 anticipated due to that marginal increase; 7 would they also be responsible for paying for 8 that? 9 MR. BAILEY: I think no. I think it 10 becomes part of the project. 11 MR. KYLER: Even though it would not occur 12 except for the increased size -- 13 MS. JENNINGS: Dave, would you please 14 restate that? I'm sorry. 15 MR. KYLER: The project here D, which 16 would be recommended by the Corps would have 17 certain mitigation impacts and costs, according 18 to E would have greater impacts and costs, 19 which initially would be paid for under the 20 agreement by GPA. 21 If, in reality, once constructed those 22 costs are greater, the marginal costs are 23 greater, would GPA also have to cover those? 24 MR. BAILEY: I think the answer is no. 25 MR. WILLIS: Is that basically the same 75 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 thing as talking about an overruns? If there's 3 an overrun in costs, what's the usual 4 procedure; does the Corps cover that or the 5 client? 6 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure. 7 MS. MOORER: The project itself is cost 8 sharing, but on that monitoring piece I think 9 is what Dave's talking about, after mitigation 10 is put in, monitoring is ongoing for seven 11 years out, five years, whatever it is out, if 12 it is different and higher, is that cost shared 13 or is that money already -- is it federal or is 14 it cost shared state and federal? 15 I think it's already been put aside as 16 part of the total project cost. Any 17 additional, you have to go back for federal. I 18 may be wrong, Johnny? 19 MR. GRANDISON: I think during the signing 20 of the project cost share agreement, the costs 21 of plan D, in this instance, would be 22 identified as a federal cost and a federal 23 share of that plan. 24 That agreement would state that all costs 25 in excess of that value for D would be borne by 76 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 the sponsor. 3 My opinion, based upon what I know, is 4 that those incremental costs that may flare up 5 in plan E are going to be locally borne. 6 MR. KYLER: Even if greater than 7 originally anticipated? 8 MR. GRANDISON: Yes. 9 MS. MOORER: You're getting to basically 10 whatever is written in the feasibility cost 11 share agreement at the time the local sponsor 12 signs with the federal government's going 13 forward at construction 14 MR. GRANDISON: Right. If you think of 15 what is being said at that point is that these 16 are the facts as we know them at that point in 17 time. We are agreeing and contracting with 18 GPA to cover X percentage of the cost for D. 19 Anything in excess of that is locally, and 20 that's just the way contract is written. Now, 21 because of extenuating circumstances, and I 22 hate to get into speculation, but if things pop 23 up during monitoring, there's always an 24 opportunity to go back and get a modification, 25 get a modification approved to cover those 77 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 existing costs. 3 But upon completion of a project, the 4 agreement is going to be all costs in excess of 5 D will be borne by the local sponsor. That's 6 just the bottom line. What happens beyond that 7 is a Congressional matter which I can't speak 8 to. 9 MR. DYSART: Joel and then David. 10 MR. FLEMING: I don't want to extend this 11 discussion any further. I think we can look at 12 an example just slightly down the river from 13 where we're talking about. The tide gate is a 14 perfect example of an action that certainly had 15 mitigation tied to it but didn't appropriate 16 for the resource properly. And there's -- 17 obviously, we're still paying for what was done 18 with the tide gate, and it's still not 19 compensated for. 20 MS. MOORER: Wouldn't it be a different 21 situation since that was a federal project. 22 I mean there's not a cost share local 23 government sponsor for that, or is there, or 24 was that the county at the time or the DOT at 25 the time? The tide gate, I thought that was 78 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 part of O & M. 3 MR. BAILEY: I think that's a different 4 issue than what we're talking about here. 5 MS. MOORER: Yes. 6 MS. JENNINGS: However -- different, I'm 7 kind of with Joel. I'm not sure it is a 8 different issue. I think its' the same issue. 9 MR. DYSART: John. 10 MR. FLEMING: Maybe I'm confused on what 11 David was trying to state. I thought we were 12 talking about the cost benefit and things 13 accounted for and not accounted for in the 14 equation. 15 MR. KYLER: What I was talking about was 16 were those additional marginal costs which 17 greater than anticipated, and therefore would 18 the project sponsor have to pay for those as 19 well as the anticipated marginal costs. 20 I think the big issue underlying the 21 question is how would one possibly make the 22 distinction in monitoring between those 23 additional costs being incurred because of the 24 project at level D versus those at project size 25 E. I don't know that that could be done, how 79 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 accurately and acceptably to the participants. 3 MR. DYSART: John Robinette, please. 4 MR. ROBINETTE: Doesn't matter because 5 they're not covered in the first place. The 6 tide gate is a perfect example like Joel was 7 saying. 8 The water delivery system did not work. 9 The salinity impacts were far greater than what 10 we thought. To repair those, that water 11 delivery system, we've had to go back and 12 request funding which hopefully we will get 13 soon. But they were not covered by that 14 project. Unanticipated impacts are not 15 covered. It doesn't matter whose going to pay 16 for them. It goes back to that risk factor. 17 when we -- when the Fish and Wildlife 18 Service signed off on that tide gate, the 19 Department of Interior signed off on that tide 20 gate, there were people in Fish and Wildlife 21 Service that told everybody, you know, this is 22 an environmental nightmare. 23 You're going to eliminate striped bass 24 spawning, you're going to impact huge acres of 25 tidal fresh marsh. The impacts were far 80 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 greater than predictions, and there was no 3 mechanism to go back and correct that, to turn 4 more water into the Back River and those sorts 5 of things. 6 There was no funding there. There was no 7 avenue to get it. So it's taken us years and 8 years to correct that problem. 9 MR. FLEMING: To link it all back, look at 10 our mitigation option. One of the mitigation 11 options is to fill the basin behind the tide 12 gate. The other mitigation option for sturgeon 13 is to create passage and style up a bluff lock 14 and dam, both of which probably had mitigation 15 attached to them originally -- well, I don't 16 know it was so long ago. 17 Just to bring it full circle, in my 18 comment about the cumulative impacts, we're now 19 mitigating for things that happened which 20 originally had mitigation attached to them 21 which did not work. 22 So we're essentially coming full circle 23 again. Just add once again the uncertainty and 24 unforeseen costs associated with mitigation 25 options not working certainly needs to be 81 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 incorporated. There need to be a fudge-back, I 3 guess, to put it in general terms. 4 MR. ROBINETTE: On this project that needs 5 to be addressed going in. We don't want end up 6 in that situation. 7 MR. DYSART: Will Berson. 8 MR. BERSON: Following up on what Joel 9 said, if there -- sorry to go into the 10 hypothetical -- if there were unanticipated 11 impacts, then would the Corps address it as 12 part of the deepening project, or would you 13 have to go for 317 -- what's the restoration? 14 MR. REES: 216. 15 MR. BERSON: Is that the route we have to 16 go or would it be assigned as costs of this 17 project? 18 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure. I think if you 19 can -- if you can point, if you can demonstrate 20 it was the result of this project then -- well, 21 I'm still not sure. 22 MR. BERSON: I think that's a really good 23 -- that would be an important question to just 24 going forward, it seems address a lot of what 25 people were just talking about. 82 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. 3 MR. BAILEY: I guess our current schedule 4 is we have the draft report this coming summer, 5 the final about a year from now, and agency 6 decisions about year from now, a little over a 7 year from now. 8 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, how are y'all going 9 to react to changes in plans for Jasper? I 10 mean in that year, I mean I know you have got a 11 job to do. I don't know envy you. 12 MR. BAILEY: We'll see what they are. 13 We'll adapt. If it needs changing, we'll 14 change them. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Change what they are 16 apparently -- vote for me, change. I guess 17 that's the only answer you can give, but we're 18 just going trust you to do that. You're not 19 going to need get letters or phone calls or 20 requests, even though you're not subject to 21 requests from the SEG. 22 MR. BAILEY: On that issue we'll continue 23 to monitor the actions, not the progress, the 24 actions of the government. 25 MS. JENNINGS: Must we -- lord, I'm sorry, 83 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 but -- 3 MS. BOWERS: Could you put the schedule 4 back up again? 5 MS. JENNINGS: For instance, both general 6 assemblies are convening. Do you anticipate -- 7 what if action comes out in the next three 8 months? 9 I mean do you have any specific notion in 10 mind of what you might do to react to 11 legislative action? 12 MR. BAILEY: Things would have to be 13 decided, those unknowns; the location and size 14 and the date. I mean those have to be -- what 15 the Corps has looked at is kind of contracts. 16 So if this entity who would -- who may get 17 together to build this project, if they have a 18 permit from the Corps of Engineers to construct 19 the project, if it's permitted, then we'll 20 probably -- and that would be well down the 21 path to actually being constructed. 22 MS. JENNINGS: As longs as they're just 23 exchanging ties, you're not going to look at 24 it any differently, is that right? 25 MR. BAILEY: Correct. It doesn't 84 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 exchanging ties doesn't give us certainty to 3 make a large financial decision. 4 MS. JENNINGS: You know I'm empathetic 5 with that. A month ago I wouldn't have said 6 Huckabee was going to win Iowa. At some point 7 you've got to realize something changed. 8 MR. BAILEY: But is that one event, is 9 that one change going to affect anything else? 10 MS. MOORER: Bill, before you -- 11 MR. DYSART: Will, do you have a question 12 before we transition to economics? 13 MR. BERSON: I think Hope had a question. 14 MS. MOORER: I was going to ask a question 15 while he had to dates up there, give the 16 milestone, kind of update, to get into that 17 August '08 date -- just go a little out of 18 order. 19 MR. DYSART: Yes, please. 20 MS. MOORER: Larry has posted -- if y'all 21 tried to access the website over the past 22 couple of weeks, we had problems with the 23 server and some of the links weren't working 24 right. The website, you couldn't get to it. 25 We couldn't get to it for a couple of day. 85 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 We apologize for that. We think we have got it 3 worked out now. Larry posted yesterday the 4 milestones, the update of the date. 5 As you can see, it's extended a lot, by 6 six months or so, so things are taking longer 7 than we anticipated them to take. The air 8 quality analysis is taking a lot of time to 9 pull together the information for it. 10 So things are just taking longer and it 11 has pushed it out. The NED plan selection 12 isn't scheduled until late April, early May. 13 Then the final mitigation plans are complete 14 around that same time. All that plays in 15 together. 16 The draft EIS isn't finished until the 17 May/June time frame, and then it has to go to 18 through internal review and Corps' acceptance 19 before it is released to the public in August. 20 You see all that has pushed out a lot. 21 I've posted the updated dates. Those will be 22 updated as it changes. Those are on the 23 website, those dates. 24 Yes, these are more detailed. There's a 25 lot more detail we put into it than previously. 86 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 We just kind of had a draft report, mitigation 3 plan, and we've added in when individual 4 components are scheduled to be completed too. 5 Those are on there. Dates, subject to change 6 again, but that has been posted. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. John 8 Robinette, question, comment? 9 MR. ROBINETTE: The report on the DO test. 10 MS. MOORER: Okay. We should get the 11 report from them this month, January, so we'll 12 be able to send that out and, hopefully, get 13 them maybe back here to present what they 14 found, talk about results, things like that. 15 MR. DYSART: Bill Farmer. 16 MR. FARMER: Bill, these dates for the 17 draft report and so forth, anything this body 18 does, if we write a report, for instance, when 19 do you need to have that or is it not included 20 or what? 21 MR. BAILEY: It won't included if you 22 don't write one. If you want it to be part of 23 the draft report, then you have to do it before 24 that goes out. 25 Now, I would I guess it depends upon the 87 1 PLAN FORMULATION/PLAN METHODOLOGY 2 purpose of your report. If your report is for 3 the final decisions, then you could put your 4 report together once you see the draft report. 5 In that period of commenting on the draft, 6 if the SEG, you know, chose to write a report 7 then we could include that in our final report 8 going up. 9 MR. FARMER: Ben, I think that's sort a 10 key issue. If we are going to do anything, 11 what is it and when, you know. I mean, he has 12 a schedule for everything he is going to do. 13 Do we give him something to add in there or 14 don't we? 15 MR. DYSART: I presume that we might be 16 speaking to that to some extent in a subsequent 17 agenda item. Larry. 18 MR. KEEGAN: I just want to point out that 19 there's been an initial draft of an SEG report, 20 and it's been posted for quite a while now. 21 Will, have you received any feedback or 22 suggestions for where that ought to go? 23 MR. BERSON: No, and we've discussed it in 24 SEG meetings for some time. I would very much 25 value people looking at it online and giving 88 1 ECONOMICS STUDY 2 it, you know, your opinion. 3 Ultimately, it has to be more general than 4 individuals might prefer. I mean, it tends to 5 be more narrative than it is critical or 6 probing, because of the diversity of the people 7 around the table. I certainly don't think that 8 it is intended to supplant any individual 9 comments that organizations or individuals that 10 have been at the SEG table would want to make. 11 That's one of the sort of push-me pull-you 12 about writing the report, doing it in a way 13 that is representative but not binding or 14 speaking for someone. It's kind of a 15 challenge. It's really herding cats. 16 MR. DYSART: Bill, are you going to be 17 doing the economic report or up update or 18 whatever. 19 MR. BAILEY: Yes, for what this is. 20 MR. DYSART: Do you have a comment before 21 the economic report? 22 MR. BERSON: I can wait till after. 23 MR. BAILEY: Work is still underway on 24 economics. They think they're scheduled to 25 have something by the end of this month. It 89 1 ECONOMICS STUDY 2 then goes -- then goes into review. They're 3 still working on it. We don't have anything, 4 any product to share yet. So that's my report. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy Jennings. 6 MS. JENNINGS: I'll just skip ahead on the 7 agenda, Ben, if that's okay with you to the 8 Economics Working Group. I reckon we can have 9 a meeting next month or not, or would that be 10 pushed out? 11 MS. MOORER: I would -- knowing these 12 review periods for the Corps, I would not 13 recommend trying to schedule one in February. 14 I would wait to schedule one until the report 15 has gone through internal review and 16 acceptance. 17 I don't think they will feel comfortable 18 talking about whatever the report shows until 19 that time. So that's what I'd recommend. If 20 it's not done until the end of this month or 21 middle of next month, it won't be ready for -- 22 it's at least a month or a month and a half 23 review. 24 It can be longer depending on if any 25 issues are raised with the analysis. If I were 90 1 ECONOMICS STUDY 2 you, I would wait to schedule. 3 MS. JENNINGS: I agree with you, and did I 4 miss -- it flew by me I guess; when is the 5 Corps going to have their public meeting? 6 MS. MOORER: The one for after mitigation 7 and impacts are known, I would say in that 8 schedule it shows -- the schedule shows that 9 the mitigation plan and all of that is 10 complete, I'd say end of May/June, prior to -- 11 this talked about having it prior to the draft 12 being finalized, but after all the work had 13 been done. One part impacts another as has 14 been talked about today. I think you are 15 safely looking at May or June. 16 MS. JENNINGS: I guess my only, Bill, 17 about the Economics Working Group, if we could 18 possibly have that before. 19 MS. MOORER: I'm sorry. 20 MS. JENNINGS: If we could have the 21 Economics Working Group meeting before the big 22 Corps impact mitigation meeting, can we work on 23 that? Can that be a goal? 24 MS. MOORER: We can request that, yeah. 25 MR. DYSART: Will. 91 1 ECONOMICS STUDY 2 MS. JENNINGS: I don't care when. 3 MS. MOORER: Right. 4 MR. DYSART: Steve then. 5 MR. WILLIS: I just wanted to reiterate, I 6 asked earlier about the consideration of the 7 China trade, what the China trade volume is and 8 how that fits into our projections. 9 Bill, I think you said, well, you know 10 you're really just looking at shipping routes. 11 I have got to say I think that that -- I cannot 12 imagine that this projected will go through the 13 completion route without seriously thinking 14 about what impact China's trade has had on the 15 current level, volume of productivity, and what 16 that plays into in all of your projections on 17 future activities. 18 You know, it just -- it just is absolutely 19 unacceptable to go forward without having that 20 thought out. 21 MS. MOORER: I'm not going to speak for 22 the economics folks who are not here, but from 23 what I understand that is included; the routes 24 and growth from different regions are included 25 within the economic study. 92 1 ECONOMICS STUDY 2 MS. JENNINGS: Well, have a full day 3 briefing on that, right? 4 MS. MOORER: Right. 5 MR. BERSON: I have a question not related 6 to what we are talking about. It came up 7 during sort of the break. Is it true that were 8 Jasper were to be realized that it would have 9 an impact on the ability, because of the dredge 10 disposal question, it would have an impact on 11 the harbor deepening project as proposed? 12 If you have Jasper, do loose disposal 13 capacity such that you don't have the necessary 14 disposal capacity? Size and location figure -- 15 MR. BAILEY: The Corps' position has been 16 the Corps wants to be made whole, if we give 17 up disposal area, whoever is asking us to give 18 that up will give us a new one. 19 In that scenario there would be no effect 20 on disposal capacity. That's what the Corps is 21 asking for. 22 MR. BERSON: Okay. That's a nuanced 23 answer. The other thing I was going say, Bill, 24 I really appreciate -- I should get you a tie 25 with little targets on it. You take all this 93 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 questioning in really good humor. 3 It's not -- it can't be fun, but it is 4 much appreciated from my point of view. So I 5 just want to say thank you very much. 6 MS. JENNINGS: I agree. Thank you, Bill. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. How about some 8 committee reports. Aquifer, Bob Scanlon is not 9 here. Beach Erosion, Bill. 10 MR. FARMER: We have not met, but Lou Off 11 has given me a note. Apparently the disposal 12 plan that the Corps developed has been sent off 13 somewhere for outside review. And also, the 14 DNR has made a five page letter comment on that 15 report or on that plan. 16 And the question was basically whether the 17 Corps has -- is going to respond to those 18 letters and question, and when the review comes 19 back from wherever it went to, and when will 20 all that occur; that's a question from Lou Off. 21 MR. BAILEY: The Corps will respond to the 22 agency letter. We're still waiting for 23 guidance on that, and we expect -- I've said it 24 before, but we expect to have it soon. That's 25 all I can say. 94 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 MR. FARMER: Okay. No further Beach 3 Erosion report activity. 4 MR. DYSART: Dredging and Disposal. 5 MS. MOORER: Ben, one more thing on that. 6 That letter has been posted to the Internet. 7 That was one of the links that wasn't working, 8 so that letter has been posted, if anybody 9 wants to look at it. The link is fixed -- 10 MR. KEEGAN: No, not yet -- 11 MS. MOORER: Not yet. It's there. We're 12 working on trying to get it back together, so 13 keep checking is what I'm saying. 14 MR. DYSART: Dredging and Disposal, Fred 15 Beason isn't here. Judy, anything to add on 16 the Economics Working Group? 17 MS. JENNINGS: Except to schedule between 18 Hope and Bill on our meeting. If I could make 19 another comment. All this talk about Jasper, 20 there's a white elephant in the room that we 21 don't talk about, and that is the LNG facility 22 that's sited there, one of only four landside 23 LNG regasification facilities in the whole 24 country. 25 And every time we talk about Jasper, we're 95 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 talking about a major port within a baseball's 3 throw, and I just no one has mentioned that 4 today. It seems to me like an incredible white 5 elephant. 6 MS. BOWERS: I did, I did. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Thank you. 8 MS. BOWERS: Talking about the location. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Ditto, it's -- 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Fisheries and Aquatic 11 Resources, Will. 12 MR. BERSON: Nothing to report. 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's interim -- how 14 about Striped Bass Committee? Elizabeth, we're 15 going to skip over and have all of Will's stuff 16 lumped right down below. 17 MS. COLVIN: Nothing to report. 18 MR. DYSART: Are we to the Will Show now? 19 I mean you need all morning? Okay. I think 20 we have kind of lumped things here. We've got 21 some guidelines, so forth, from Dave Kyler, and 22 we have referred things back to the Operating 23 Guidelines folks on the matter of are we going 24 to respond, are we going to take positions or 25 not, so forth. We look for wisdom and guidance 96 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 from -- 3 MR. BERSON: Oh, me -- all right. Y'all, 4 I did this morning. 5 MR. DYSART: The snickers were off the 6 record. 7 MR. BERSON: I managed to walk out of the 8 house without my briefcase, without my wallet, 9 without my phone, without everything including 10 the notes from the meeting that we had. So I'm 11 going to call on my fellow folks in the room to 12 help me just a little bit. 13 We were discussing, just to frame it again 14 for everybody, the question we were dealing 15 what is what is the SEG's role in terms of 16 reports that have been prepared, requested by 17 the SEG and subsequently prepared and 18 delivered, and are now part of the analysis 19 that's ongoing. 20 The issue came up because of the Beach 21 Erosion Committee having a report that they 22 were asking the SEG to make sort of an 23 affirmative statement about. So the question 24 is -- Bill Farmer correctly pointed out if you 25 look at the SEG guidance, there is a suggestion 97 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 we ought to be affirmatively approving these 3 things, or making recommendations. 4 That has some problem with it, not the 5 least of which is many things have been done 6 and incorporated into reviews, and were we to 7 find fault with them what would do about it in 8 any case? 9 And the -- after considerable discussion, 10 the basic question is do you change the 11 operating guidelines language, or do you abide 12 by it. And the decision was to change the 13 operating guidelines language so that we 14 weren't going to retrospectively look back at 15 things that have been prepared at the request 16 of the SEG. 17 And Dave Kyler suggested language, that we 18 could suggest to the Corps, to help deal with 19 that in terms of the uncertainty that might 20 come out of those particular reports. Dave, if 21 you don't mind, I'm going to -- 22 MR. KYLER: Do you have anything in print? 23 MS. MOORER: I do. 24 MR. KYLER: These were mentioned, just off 25 the top of my head at the last meeting. I 98 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 elaborated at my computer for the purposes of 3 the OP Guidelines meeting. 4 They have to do with the risk and 5 uncertainty of the various issues analyzed by 6 these reports from the various committees, and 7 the systemic implications for other issues 8 looked at by other studies and reports and 9 other aspects of the project, and then 10 establishing some matrix and methods for 11 comparing those with impacts that were 12 anticipated. 13 The Corps' people tell me that this 14 stuff is in concept at least already 15 incorporated into what's required, but all I 16 can say is I'm going to be looking for a higher 17 level standard than what I am familiar with in 18 past Corps' projects. 19 So I hope that's the general agreement as 20 to the implications of this recommendation. 21 This was online? 22 MS. MOORER: I don't know. 23 MR. KYLER: Has this been put online? 24 MS. MOORER: Will, did you send something? 25 MR. BERSON: I did not, no, so I guess 99 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 what we're suggesting then is that the 3 preferred alternative is to change the 4 operating guidelines language, so that we're 5 not obligated to go back and do a retrospective 6 review of those materials, and incorporate 7 Dave's guidance. 8 And we felt as if it was more appropriate 9 for the SEG to make that decision. That's the 10 recommendation of the Operating Guidelines 11 Committee. We felt if it was something that 12 deserved discussion and approval by the full 13 SEG, we better do it fast because we're 14 dwindling in numbers. 15 MR. DYSART: We also, just as another fact 16 here, we have the room here another 25 minutes, 17 so if people want to pace themselves, feel 18 free, whoever. 19 MR. KYLER: I'm a bit surprised that this 20 wasn't on website because I thought the action 21 we were going to recommend today, people would 22 want to be familiar with in order to be 23 somewhat confident in taking action on. I 24 would just recommend it be made available 25 before we vote or take -- 100 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 MR. BERSON: I think that's a really good 3 idea. I apologize. It's almost entirely my 4 fault I'm sure that it wasn't done. 5 MR. DYSART: Better beat up on you than 6 the court reporter I say. 7 MR. BERSON: Or Bill Bailey. 8 MS. MOORER: I don't recall from the 9 meeting, I'm sorry, what that action was out of 10 the meeting, whether it was to rewrite that as 11 a separate document, I just don't recall. 12 MR. BERSON: I think we were just going to 13 do a red line on the operating guidelines' 14 language, and then we were going to present 15 Dave's language. I say we just sort of stick 16 with that, unless someone has another 17 alternative, which I'm definitely open to. 18 MS. MOORER: Do you want us to, once that 19 is done just post that for everybody to see and 20 consider for the next SEG meeting? 21 MR. BERSON: If that is amenable to the 22 group, I think that is probably the best 23 way to go and most efficient way to go. 24 MR. DYSART: Bill Farmer. 25 MR. FARMER: Point of clarification, Will, 101 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 there's reports that have been given in the 3 past, and there will, of course, be final 4 drafts and all that sort of stuff. 5 Are you recommending we don't make 6 decisions on past reports in addition to future 7 reports? 8 MR. BERSON: No, my interpretation of 9 the discussion we had was that we changed the 10 language such that we're not obligate, the SEG 11 as a body is not obligated to make a 12 determination, either about the sufficiency or 13 there wasn't going to be any kind of judgment 14 made by the body. 15 MR. FARMER: On anything? 16 MR. BERSON: On any of the reports. 17 MR. FARMER: Including the draft final 18 report. 19 MR. BERSON: Yeah. I mean, our initial 20 draft of an SEG letter on the project didn't 21 contemplate a thumb up or thumb down on the 22 project proposal, in part because we represent 23 such a broad group of people, and in part 24 because there were folks at the table that 25 could not speak for an agency decision-making 102 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 body on their own. 3 So that would leave -- if you start doing 4 the math, you cut that down to a pretty small 5 group of people, and even within that group 6 many people would have very different takes on 7 the same report. 8 MR. FARMER: Okay. To summarize then, the 9 SEG got involved in recommending studies, and 10 then according to the guidelines we were 11 supposed to evaluate the studies, and then we 12 were supposed to evaluate a proposed mitigation 13 plan, and give our recommendations to the GPA. 14 You're recommending we do none of that. 15 MR. BERSON: Actually, the Operating 16 Guidelines Committee in addition to myself was 17 recommending that; isn't that your recollection 18 of what we discussed? 19 MR. FARMER: That's exactly right. I find 20 that rather dramatic of a change that we go 21 from consensus decisions to no decisions and no 22 recommendations. I just find that a rather 23 large change; in other words the Stakeholders 24 Evaluation Group are sort of taking out the 25 word evaluation. So we're now just a 103 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 stakeholders group -- 3 MR. BERSON: Actually, with the exception 4 of the mitigation plan, our charge was to 5 suggest studies to be done and evaluate the 6 mitigation plan. 7 There wasn't any formal approval loop that 8 was suggested in our charter. The Operating 9 Guidelines Committee language certainly did 10 suggest that, and that's why we're proposing to 11 change it so that we're consistent. 12 MR. FARMER: Okay. So just to summarize, 13 then overall the committee's recommendation is 14 we don't provide any evaluation? 15 MR. BERSON: Not individually groups or 16 members of the SEG couldn't do that on their 17 own, that's certainly appropriate, but as far 18 as -- one of the issues is do you do some but 19 not all. 20 And the decision was if you do some you 21 should do all, and no one is prepared to go 22 back and reevaluate something from 2001, nor is 23 it clear that if they did and found something 24 that was questionable what could actually be 25 done about it at this stage. 104 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 MR. FARMER: Okay. So I don't know if 3 that was a yes or no; is the committee 4 suggesting we do no evaluation of anything? 5 MR. BERSON: Yes. That is what the 6 committee is suggesting. 7 MR. WILLIS: I think that -- that a 8 different way of looking at it is that the 9 committee doesn't plan on putting out any 10 formal evaluation. To discuss it and to offer 11 our suggestions and have it recorded here, 12 hopefully, has some value. I'm not saying 13 your points are not well taken. It is a 14 change, but I think just because we're not 15 having a formal evaluation report doesn't mean 16 that we're not evaluating anything. 17 MR. FARMER: Yes, it does. Are the 18 minutes -- 19 MR. DYSART: David Kyler. 20 MR. KYLER: Yeah. It's my understanding, 21 my distinct impression, that the reason why the 22 shift from what Will describes is because we 23 were probably overly ambition, and maybe naive 24 in anticipating the level of expertise that 25 would be needed to make a competent 105 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 recommendation on these very studies, at least 3 enough uniformity around the table for it to be 4 a consensus, because without that uniformity of 5 expertise, it would have to be a great leap of 6 faith, based upon the credibility of whoever 7 around the table was recommending. 8 So given that that hasn't obtained, we 9 can't do what we had anticipated. But 10 likewise, in backing what Steve just said, I 11 think do exercise evaluation at every meeting 12 where we raise issues, questions, and express 13 concerns about limitations or flaw or other 14 gaps in information or analysis as presented to 15 date, in attempts to strengthen the outcome of 16 the decision. 17 MR. FARMER: What you are saying is 18 individuals do that during these meetings -- 19 MR. KYLER: Yes. 20 MR. FARMER: -- but the group is not going 21 to do anything. 22 MR. KYLER: We are evaluating and 23 improving the product on an ongoing basis, 24 but nothing formally, nothing as a group. 25 MR. FARMER: There probably is no need for 106 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 an SEG final report, because we aren't going to 3 decide anything. We aren't going to advise the 4 GPA or evaluate anything as a group. 5 MR. BERSON: Have you read the draft? 6 MR. FARMER: I have and I have some made 7 recommended changes to it. If we are not going 8 to evaluate, if we are not going to recommend, 9 you know, all we're doing is listening and 10 commenting as individuals, and I'm not sure 11 that that's very fruitful. It might be 12 sufficient. 13 MR. KYLER: As I recall part of the reason 14 for that is, the SEG report was to illuminate 15 any future endeavors which might include a 16 stakeholder group, what we did, how we did it, 17 and why we did it. 18 Part of what's just discussed here about 19 the limitations of the group falling short of 20 what we anticipated our objectives to be would 21 be worth some future group knowing about it, so 22 that in itself justifies a report in my mind. 23 MR. FARMER: Well, I think what the report 24 will say is, basically, we licensed for 10 25 years and individuals made comments for 10 107 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 years, but as a group there were no group 3 decisions. 4 MR. KYLER: Yeah, but there also could be 5 -- I don't remember this being in the report, 6 but it could be groups of summary comments, or 7 the types of comments that came up around the 8 table which we feel were significant and 9 channeled the analysis in the direction that 10 improved it, which would not necessarily have 11 occurred had there not been an SEG conversation 12 around the table. 13 MR. FARMER: No argument there. It's just 14 a question of whether or not the group provides 15 output or input or whether or not just 16 individuals provide that. 17 The SEG operating guidelines say the group 18 does it, and the committee wants to change it 19 to say the group doesn't do it, just the 20 individuals do it as they please, either here, 21 in writing, whatever. 22 MR. KYLER: I don't see there is any 23 actual solution to the group doing it, no way 24 to ensure that that happens, but likewise the 25 comments of individuals -- there was a dialogue 108 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 and the comments of individuals was -- those 3 comments were enriched by the exchange of 4 ideas around the table. 5 It's not as if individuals made the same 6 comments here they would have made independent 7 of being in dialogue with other stakeholders 8 around the table. 9 MR. FARMER: I'm just trying to clarify 10 what the committee was suggesting and they're 11 suggesting no group decisions. Okay. 12 MR. DYSART: Will. 13 MR. BERSON: That's it. I would just add 14 that I would venture to guess Bill Bailey feels 15 he has been publicly evaluated by the SEG 16 today. And I guess the other issue that Dave 17 was trying to get at is that in -- there are a 18 broad variety of studies, of various complexity 19 and scientific depth that -- and there's not 20 one person -- well, there might be one person 21 but it isn't me that could evaluate them 22 meaningfully and make reliable comments. 23 Even if I were that person, I wouldn't 24 necessarily expect everyone at this table to 25 take my word for the fact that I found 109 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 discrepancies or problems with the report. 3 I think you would be deficient if you did. 4 And so the question is, how would the SEG bring 5 in the necessary expertise to provide it with 6 impartial analysis that it could rely on in 7 making how many studies? 8 MS. MOORER: Say a lot. 9 MR. BERSON: We'll just say a lot. And so 10 then I mean what are the logistics of how that 11 would happen even prospectively, forget 12 retrospectively? There's no budget for this. 13 This is on GPA's nickel, and I don't think -- I 14 don't think that it is reasonable for us to 15 expand what was asked of us on their nickel at 16 this point. 17 Now maybe this is something that should 18 have been done back before the earth cooled and 19 we started this process. I think we're past 20 that now and the issue is what do we do going 21 forward. 22 I certainly -- if you want to make a 23 distinction between all of the various studies 24 that have gone -- that have been done to date 25 and will be done prior to the GRR and the GRR 110 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 itself; in other words, do you want the SEG to 3 comment on the GRR that's probably something we 4 can discuss again. 5 I would suggest you're probably in the 6 same boat; that is, there is no one with the 7 technical expertise to evaluate all of the GRR 8 in such a way and have standing to provide that 9 information to the SEG in a way that it would 10 be acceptable to everybody sitting around the 11 table. 12 Furthermore, I wouldn't expect Kelie Moore 13 to speak for DNR on whatever that person said. 14 So we're sort of left with -- I mean, we're 15 chasing our tails here, and we have for three 16 or four meetings at least. 17 I appreciate your point that the amount of 18 time we've spent on this process would seem to 19 indicate that we ought to be making some 20 judgments on these things. I would submit the 21 amount of time we spent on these -- on this 22 issue has generated the kind of reports that we 23 feel need to be in there. 24 Now -- and that's sort of where I stop. 25 Whether they were as good as they could have 111 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 been, whether they were exhaustive, whether 3 they are correct, is a tall order for a 4 consentual body without a budget to address. 5 MR. DYSART: A comment here as 6 facilitator, we're getting close on time. 7 We'll probably talking about this the next 8 time. 9 From a practical point of view I think you 10 and the committee, there's a lot of practical 11 wisdom there. I think my view is that Bill has 12 a proper concern about whether GPA is getting 13 -- has gotten the kind of advice and review and 14 discussion and input that it wanted and needed. 15 I presume -- that is my impression. That 16 is what is motivating your concern here, to 17 make sure that the value that was sought and 18 the input from the NGO community, the 19 individual citizens and so forth has been 20 brought to the table to benefit directly GPA, 21 and indirectly then the Corps; is that pretty 22 much it? 23 MR. FARMER: Surely. 24 MR. DYSART: I'm not summarizing anything. 25 I think this is proper for us to have a 112 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 comfortable feeling here to make sure that 3 everybody knows where we're going. 4 MR. FARMER: That's exactly it. In other 5 words, I think we had a function to perform. 6 We didn't do it perfectly, and the question is 7 do we try to do it the best we can, or do we 8 just back off and say we're not going to do 9 anything kind of a thing. 10 MR. DYSART: Or say we did. 11 MR. FARMER: Will'S point that we don't 12 have the expertise to evaluate all this and so 13 forth; as a member I would be comfortable like 14 if John Robinette says as far as the fish are 15 concerned he's happy, I know of nothing that 16 would make me say I'd be unhappy, you know. So 17 I'd go along with his recommendation because I 18 know no better to disagree with it. 19 I would think that same kind of logic 20 would apply to any little area of concern. 21 Like if Judy says she's happy with the economic 22 analysis that goes into the report, I would 23 have no reason to argue with her and say I 24 don't think so. So I would go along with it 25 sort of thing. 113 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 So that would be the approach I would use 3 as a group, if no one disagrees, then we agree 4 or we're silent. But to say we should not even 5 listen and decide, as a group, that's just a 6 big step. I don't think we would be doing 7 justice to the GPA in our role as advisors. 8 We're not going to be an advisor if we follow 9 the recommendation. 10 MR. DYSART: Let's hear from Hope. 11 MS. MOORER: I am so sorry, but I don't 12 recall exactly the actions out of that last 13 meeting. I'm uncomfortable with the no 14 decision total, particularly on the mitigation 15 plan because I remember discussing that. I 16 just don't recall what we talked about and came 17 up with out of it. 18 MR. BERSON: The mitigation plan is 19 different from the other studies, but consider 20 the number of studies that are implicit in the 21 mitigation plan. That's the level of detail 22 you're asking to drill down to. 23 I would make the point the mitigation plan 24 is the 800 pound gorilla, not the letter from 25 USGS on the sufficiency of the AFDC model, for 114 1 OP GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION 2 example. I mean, how far down do you want to 3 go? 4 I am not, with all due respect to Judy, 5 I'm not going to sign off a report based on her 6 say so. I'm just not, not for the Georgia 7 Conservancy, not for me. And I wouldn't 8 expect her -- I would expect her to be equally 9 -- I mean otherwise, that's not actually being 10 any more rigorous than what your accusing us of 11 in a sense. 12 MS. MOORER: May I make just a suggestion, 13 since we haven't seen what language we had 14 discussed or whatever, if we could see the red 15 line, maybe that will give us a discussion 16 point. 17 Maybe the wording will be acceptable to 18 everyone and maybe it won't, but if we could do 19 that, if SEG will consider that, looking at the 20 language based on the minutes from the last 21 meeting, and then maybe keep it at the same 22 location in the agenda so we get some science 23 and project information first, that we do that 24 because we are closing down on time. 25 MR. BERSON: Just as -- Bill, you're 115 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 absolutely right. It's a change and that's why 3 we brought it back to the SEG. We, as a body, 4 the SEG has discussed this for several meetings 5 The Operating Guidelines Committee has 6 spent a significantly amount going around it. 7 If someone else has a third course I'm happy to 8 hear it. In the meantime, my suggestion is you 9 look at this material online, in preparation 10 for the next meeting. 11 And if you have -- in the interim, if you 12 have comments, please let me know. 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's think about the 14 potential next meeting. Hope. 15 MS. MOORER: I'm looking at the things 16 that are on those upcoming milestones. I don't 17 see anything -- I see some things completing. 18 I don't see anything that's going to be 19 complete for review for discussion, essentially 20 for February in a month. 21 And knowing how many people have -- on our 22 team have not been working on this project 23 during the holidays, I would suggest that the 24 next meeting maybe be March, and that we have 25 an interim one in February. There was not a 116 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 lot of activity on the project in December. 3 MR. DYSART: Any objection? I sense a 4 consensus. It is so declared, tentatively the 5 4th of March. 6 MS. JENNINGS: I'm sorry. 7 MR. DYSART: I think we've reached the 8 end of the agenda. 9 MR. BERSON: We will look at an interim 10 meeting on the 5th? 11 MS. MOORER: Yes. I would suggest an 12 interim meeting February 5th and an SEG meeting 13 on March 4th. 14 MR. DYSART: We will declare that to be 15 tentative and you will be updated on the actual 16 SEG meeting. 17 MS. MOORER: Judy, if the economics if 18 through the review before the 4th, we'll 19 discuss it at interim what it looks like and 20 talk to you about that then. 21 MR. DYSART: Thank you. I declare the 22 meeting adjourned. I appreciate the good humor 23 and the good discussion. 24 25 117 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 116 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 12th day February, 2008. 19 20 _______________________________ 21 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 22 Reporter, B-2041 23 24 25