1 2 3 4 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP MEETING 5 6 OF 7 8 JANUARY 9, 2007 9 10 11 12 MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 13 POOLER, GEORGIA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 I N D E X 4 5 6 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS -------- 3 7 8 9 10 PRESENTATION BRIEFINGS BY BILL BAILEY 11 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION ------------ 6 12 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION -------- 52 13 SEDIMENT QUALITY PRESENTATION -------- 71 14 15 16 COMMITTEE REPORTS ------------------------- 82 17 18 19 CERTIFICATE ------------------------------- 87 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 (THE REPORTER: I am appearing today on 3 behalf of my employer, Tom Crites & Associates. 4 My office was requested by Georgia Ports 5 Authority to provide a court reporter today at 6 9:00 a.m. at this address. 7 Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well 8 as at the instructions of my employer, I wish 9 to disclose that, other than accepting to serve 10 as your reporter, we have not entered into any 11 other contractual agreement with any party 12 involved in this case.) 13 MR. DYSART: Let's call the meeting to 14 order. It's nice to see all of you here this 15 morning. We have the agenda in front of you. 16 And if you'll be looking at that, and as 17 usual the first thing, my name is Ben Dysart. 18 I'm the SEG facilitator, and I'd like to go 19 around the table and introduce yourselves, and 20 indicate, speak distinctly so the court 21 reporter can get your name, and indicate what 22 affiliation or affiliations you might care to 23 attach by your name, and then we'll proceed 24 with the agenda. Starting on my right -- 25 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, US Fish 4 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 and Wildlife Service. 3 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 4 Service 5 MR. GRIFFIN: David Griffin, Georgia DOT. 6 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line 7 Echo. 8 MR. WRIGHT: Tom Wright, I'm a local 9 citizen. 10 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of 11 Engineers. 12 MR. MICHAELS: Ron Michaels, Georgia 13 Department of Natural Resources. 14 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia Wildlife 15 Federation 16 MR. PARSONS: Keith Parsons, Georgia 17 Environmental Protection Division. 18 MR. FLEMING: Joel Fleming, Georgia DNR, 19 Fisheries Management. 20 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Brent Rothschild, 21 National Park Service. 22 MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of 23 Savannah and also the Savannah Harbor 24 Committee. 25 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 5 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 Authority. 3 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for 4 Georgia Ports. 5 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports. 6 MS. BOWERS: Gail Bowers, League of Women 7 Voters, excuse me. 8 MS. PROCOPIO: Maria Procopia, Savannah 9 Riverkeeper. 10 MS. GRAINEY: Karen Grainey, Savannah 11 Riverkeeper. 12 MS. LANDER: Mary Lander, The Savannah 13 Morning News. 14 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Anyone who joins 15 us a little bit later, we'll get them on the 16 record also. Let's take a look at the draft 17 agenda before you. 18 Is there any change that you would like to 19 make to it, anything you would like to add, 20 anything you would like to move around, or put 21 in a different order or anything? 22 MR. BAILEY: Probably a different order. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. 24 MR. BAILEY: But the same still. 25 MR. DYSART: What page are we on -- what 6 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 page are we looking at? 3 MR. BAILEY: The presentations, I had laid 4 out the wetland impact evaluation first and 5 then the dissolved oxygen, so that's all. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. We'll take the wetland 7 first and then the DO then. Okay. Any other 8 changes? 9 If not, we'll consider this to be how we 10 will operate the meeting today. And in case we 11 have any new faces here, sort of the rules are 12 that everybody who walks in the room is 13 considered an important stakeholder in the 14 process with standing. 15 Anybody sitting at the table can say 16 anything they want to as long as they're civil 17 and constructive and helps move the mission of 18 the SEG forward. 19 I come from a long history of stakeholder 20 engagement, and frequently the best questions 21 and some of the better comments tend to come 22 from non-experts. And sometimes some of the 23 vaguer comments tend to come from experts. 24 So when we have good meetings which is 25 often it's because the variety of shakeholders 7 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 here are engaged in open, honest, free 3 interchange. 4 So anyway, I welcome you all and encourage 5 you to speak up and move things along. You 6 have had the opportunity to review the 7 transcript of the last meeting. It has been 8 posted, and our custom is if there is any error 9 of fact of any significance, we correct it on 10 the record at the subsequent meeting as 11 opposed to going backwards. 12 Any problems with the November '06 13 transcript? Seeing no comments we will assume 14 -- we will conclude that is acceptable. I'll 15 also say it's good to see Keith Parsons back 16 here. 17 I told him whenever the water quality of 18 Georgia, and the Southeast, is being dealt with 19 and managed, at risk, what not; Keith is at the 20 table, I feel a lot better. 21 Anyway, we welcome him back. He's been 22 involved for a long time. He's been busy doing 23 other things the last few meetings. It's nice 24 to have him back. 25 How about let's move forward with some of 8 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 the briefings here, and Bill Bailey, why don't 3 you give your wetlands briefing first. 4 MR. BAILEY: Okay. 5 MR. DYSART: And then when we get through 6 with questions, discussions, so forth, we'll 7 proceed with the DO briefing. 8 MR. BAILEY: All right. I'm going to 9 start off reminding you of some things you've 10 heard before, just to put some context to what 11 I'm going to -- the new information I'm going 12 to give you. The analysis -- 13 MR. PARSONS: Can you speak up, Bill? 14 MR. BAILEY: I will try. The analysis 15 that we're doing concentrates, essentially, 16 between Old Ft. Jackson and 95, Interstate 95. 17 That's the area that we're looking at. 18 This you've seen before, just reminding 19 you that the types of wetlands change, 20 depending on the salinity that they receive, 21 and that that salinity can shift with drought 22 conditions and that affects the wetlands. 23 As I said before, the way we're looking at 24 things is coming from the rivers going up into 25 the salt, then going on up into the tidal 9 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 creeks, and then into the water that floods 3 over the marsh, and then gets taken up by the 4 -- gets down to the root zone of the plants and 5 taken up by the plants. 6 So those are the things that are important 7 in looking at impacts to the wetland plants. 8 We've got a hydrodynamic model that looks at 9 one part of that process. We've got a model to 10 marsh linkage that looks at another part of it, 11 and then a marsh secession model. That's the 12 last piece. 13 So we have three different pieces, and we 14 have -- what we're going to be using is three 15 different ways of looking at wetland impacts. 16 And it's this first one, salinity contours, 17 that we're going to be talking about here. 18 The other -- the other work is underway 19 and is not done yet. So what we've done is 20 we've used the hydrodynamic model, looked at 21 existing conditions, looked at different depth 22 conditions, looked at different flow 23 conditions, and looked at a couple different 24 sea level rise conditions. 25 We looked at five different mitigation 10 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 plans, and I passed out a map, and it has -- 3 that you can use to try to remind you of where 4 some of these things are. 5 McCoys -- first one says deepen McCoys 6 Cut, deepen upper back and Middle Rivers and 7 the diversion structure. All that is in the 8 upper part of this diagram. All that is up in 9 this section. 10 We have a diversion structure to try to 11 pull some water off the Savannah River and down 12 into in these -- the Back River and Middle 13 River. 14 Then another piece of that alternative is 15 to deepen -- deepen these creeks so that water 16 can flow down in there easier. That's the 17 first one. 18 The next one is fill the sediment basin 19 down at the bottom down here on this map. 20 That's presently used to collect sediments and 21 then pumped over into disposal areas. 22 One of the options we're looking at here 23 is filling that or allowing that to fill and 24 not using it anymore. 25 The next one shown here is close Rifle 11 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 Cut, and that is right here, right in the 3 middle. There is salt that goes from Savannah 4 River, goes through here, and gets in the 5 Middle River and then comes across the Back 6 River. 7 So one of the things we're looking at is 8 closing that to stop that movement of salt. 9 The next one is close Middle River at Houston 10 Cut and open new cut. That's down in here. 11 Essentially, right now, Middle River comes down 12 and enters into Savannah River. 13 With this plan, we'd block that off and 14 have the river tie into Back River instead. 15 We'd also close this off so the salt could not 16 get from the Front River over into Middle 17 River. So Middle River would then be fed by 18 water from Back River coming up. 19 So we have looked at these things and 20 shown these results to the agencies, and there 21 was this stuff. So y'all wouldn't have to read 22 it, I'm going to tell you a summary of what's 23 there, and we will be posting it on the SEG 24 website. If you want to download it and look 25 at it all yourself, it will be there. 12 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 These are many of the same things, the 3 bottom adds a couple of things, restoring flow 4 through Steamboat River and some other things 5 we don't need to model. And go back to this, 6 Steamboat River is through here. Right now the 7 river is -- this is the main river channel. 8 With this alternative, we'd block the 9 river here and we'd dig out around this old ox 10 bow. 11 There are some other things we don't need 12 to run the model for. One of them, we have a 13 confined disposal area here. We're looking at 14 that grading that back down to marsh as 15 mitigation. That would restore marsh to that 16 area, but it won't affect all these flows. So 17 we don't need to run that through the model, 18 the hydrodynamic model. 19 So we have all these different measures 20 that are on this drawing, and in the Corps' 21 system we have to show that, essentially, each 22 dollar spent, the next dollar you spend is 23 worth it. 24 So we have to figure out a way to look at 25 all these in some kind of system. This is what 13 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 we came up with. Looking at the preliminary 3 results, we try to pick -- tried to identify 4 what was the most cost-effective, provided the 5 most benefit for the fewest dollars, and then 6 add things on to that until, at some point, in 7 theory at some point you find well, with this 8 next action it costs more than you're going to 9 get out of it. 10 So in that process, you will reach some 11 point where it is not worth doing the next 12 step. 13 So this is how we arranged it, and these 14 are the mitigation plans that we're looking at. 15 We're starting with McCoys Cut options which 16 are up at the top, the diversion structure and 17 deepening down those creeks, and then we're 18 adding -- we have two different paths here, 19 because we're not sure which one is going to be 20 most cost-effective, which path is going to be 21 better, so we had two of them. 22 So on mitigation plan two, we're going to 23 add the sediment basin, fill in the sediment 24 basin, add that to McCoys Cut. And then plan 25 three is adding Rifle Cut to the other two. 14 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 Down here we would look at both of these 3 options. These, from the preliminary results, 4 these did not look like they would be 5 cost-effective. We still wanted to look at 6 them to make sure, look at them in the full 7 analysis of all the resources. 8 What we're going to do is we're going to 9 make a decision, at this point, find out which 10 one of these paths is the better path and then 11 do these analyses just on that one path, and 12 that's just trying to cut down on the work and 13 the cost. 14 Okay. This is one of the outputs that we 15 have. It's just a salinity distribution in 16 this system. And what we're looking at -- 17 since we're looking at wetlands, what we've 18 done is gone in the model and picked out the 19 surface salinity because the surface water is 20 what floods over on the marsh. 21 For the wetlands we look at surface. For 22 other resources, we look at other depths, but 23 for this one, which is wetlands impacts, this 24 is surface salinity. 25 I have a whole gradation of colors. 15 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 Basically, the darker colors is the more salt. 3 There is a -- I guess one of the things that's 4 important in this analysis what we're using is 5 a movement of 0.5 ppt contour of salinity. 6 A certain level of salinity generally is the 7 determining factor between a freshwater 8 marsh and a saltwater marsh, and then 0.5 parts 9 per trillion -- thousand, parts per thousand 10 salinity. 11 So that's this color, so that's about 12 through here. So, in general, the existing 13 conditions, you know, a general statement would 14 be the freshwater marsh occurs upriver of 15 Highway 17, Houlihan Bridge -- 17A Houlihan 16 Bridge, general statement. That's where the 17 color shows that contour exists. 18 What we're going to do is we'll look at 19 this type of thing, where does that change. 20 And the expectation is as you let more 21 salt come up the river that that's going to 22 move further up in the estuary. So instead of 23 having all those colors, we tried to narrow it 24 down to just looking at just that -- just what 25 changes from less than .5, 0.5 to greater than 16 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 0.5. 3 These colors don't come out well. Gray is 4 greater all the time. And this color, pink, is 5 less than .5 all the time. What's changed are 6 the green cells. 7 You can't read it all, but in there we 8 also have the acreage of each of those blocks. 9 Those blocks are a volume of wetlands that are 10 fed by water at that location. 11 You remember that with the rice culture 12 around here, there are a lot of rice -- a lot 13 of canals dug and ditches, and those ditches 14 are what feed the wetlands, are primarily what 15 feed the wetlands now, rather than just water 16 that comes feeding the banks. 17 Most of it will come up some creek, up 18 some ditch and then out. So these blocks, 19 these square blocks are just a -- just to 20 represent a volume of wetlands, an acreage of 21 wetlands, that's fed from the river at that 22 location. 23 So the upper block says 299 acres. The 24 lower block says 345 acres. So that's for two 25 foot of deepening. This is with no mitigation. 17 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 And the next one is four feet, we've got 3 a six feet, and they're pretty much the same, 4 the same two blocks of wetlands, if -- flipping 5 back through these back and forth, but you can 6 -- there is some small movement within the 7 rivers. There are a few extra cells that 8 change, but there aren't any additional big 9 blocks of wetlands. 10 Again, that's two foot, and then I'll go 11 back through the four and six. Okay. So then, 12 besides the pictures, then we have them put the 13 stuff into numbers, and then into a table. 14 Here I want you to kind of see the format 15 of how we're looking at things. Acres and 16 acres of impact, so these are when we have 17 impacts, this is where they're going to show 18 up acres positively impacted with mitigation 19 options. 20 Some things will show up here. This is 21 just the net impact. Over here, the basic 22 evaluation of 1997 flows, average flows in the 23 river. We'll do the sensitivity analysis using 24 2001 drought flows, look at what's the average 25 river flows, drought conditions, two other 18 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 sensitivity runs, different sea level rise, 25 3 centimeter sea level rise and 50 centimeters. 4 These are on average flows. We look at 5 different depths, and then we also are showing 6 them with different, different exceedance for 7 salinity. 8 The model calculates what the salinity is, 9 I think, every five minutes, something like 10 that. 11 Over in this on wetlands, we're looking at 12 -- I'm not sure. I think it's like four 13 months, like a summer growing season, it's 14 every five minutes for four months, so they 15 have lots of numbers. 16 For each grid cell that calculation is 17 made, lots of numbers for each cell. Then 18 they'll stack all those numbers up and say 19 well, for that cell the surface salinity -- you 20 can't just ask the model what's the salinity at 21 that cell, because it's going to say I have 22 lots of numbers, lots of calculations. 23 So they arrange them in a frequency 24 distribution. So 50% is kind of the average 25 surface salinity for that cell over that period 19 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 of time. The 10% exceedance -- it's only 3 exceeded -- it's a different number. It's 4 higher up. That's the value of salinity that's 5 only exceeded 10% of the time over that four 6 months. So it's a higher level of salinity in 7 that cell. 8 So that's the format. You can see the 9 numbers, 645 acres, and it didn't change by 10 depth. If you look at drought conditions -- 11 okay. So if somebody asked well, what's the 12 wetland impact from deepening, you can just 13 pick a number there. All those numbers are 14 correct. 15 So this is pretty complicated, and it's 16 pretty involved, and it all depends on the 17 conditions that you ask what the results are 18 going to be. 19 These are average river flows, with 20 drought flows. With drought flows the salinity 21 is higher up in the estuary. Already it's 22 higher up, and then with deepening you expect 23 it to go up even further. So those are numbers 24 are 469, 768. 25 You ask why this is less than this one up 20 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 here; the estuary apparently is not linear. 3 The elevation change going upriver is not a 4 linear -- it's not a uniform one, so that when 5 you go half mile up, you can't say that's going 6 to be a half foot higher. It's not quite that 7 uniform. 8 So if -- so apparently, you can have a 9 certain salinity, you can have a certain 10 upriver movement of salinity and it won't have 11 the same effect per mile of moving it up river. 12 Okay. I'll leave that. We'll look at 13 salinity, that exceedance thing, and see what 14 the differences are. I want to show you, on 15 this map, where the salinity occurs and pretty 16 much what happens. 17 So with a 50% exceedance, you can see that 18 green in the rivers, it's just north of 19 Houlihan Bridge, and then with a 10% we said it 20 was a higher salinity, and it's further up -- 21 up the river. It's up in here now, and 50% is 22 down here, which is -- the .5 is higher up, the 23 50% again and then the 10%, which is what we 24 thought so it's good to see that happening. 25 I want to show you the differences in 21 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 river flow. This is the six foot, six foot 3 deepening with average flows, and then with 4 drought flows. 5 I'll flip back and forth. Drought flows 6 is higher up in the river system, higher up in 7 the estuary; average flows, and then drought 8 flows. 9 So here you can see there are different -- 10 these blocks are changing now. You have 11 different areas affected, drought conditions 12 and average conditions. Okay. Do you have 13 questions? 14 MR. FLEMING: I got one -- 15 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 16 MR. FLEMING: With exceedance values 17 between 10 and 50%, why were they 18 flip-flopping? Like on the 10%, I assume that 19 means you would have to meet the criteria 90% 20 of the time, right? Is that some salinity 21 value, .05 90% of the time, and then the other 22 you just have to meet the criteria 50% of the 23 time, is that correct? 24 MR. BAILEY: No, I don't think so. 25 MR. FLEMING: Anyway, when you go back to 22 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 those values you had on the chart, they 3 flip-flop. I was just wondering why that would 4 occur. It seems like they should be -- one 5 should always be larger than the other. 6 MR. BAILEY: One is larger. 7 MR. FLEMING: Your 50% value should always 8 be larger or smaller than the 10%. They seem 9 like -- 10 MR. BAILEY: This is the same number. 11 This is what we're looking at, where is the 12 location for that number, the .5. 13 MR. FLEMING: Okay. 14 MR. BAILEY: This one with a 10% is higher 15 up, higher up in the river. 16 MR. FLEMING: All right. That's -- 17 MR. BAILEY: With a sea level rise, here's 18 a six foot deepening with an existing sea 19 level, 25 centimeters of additional sea level 20 rise, not a lot, not very much difference, 50 21 centimeter rise there is a difference. It is 22 further upriver, upper Back, up the Middle 23 River it shows up there. 24 All right. Now mitigation plans, again 25 this is how we're looking at things. And the 23 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 sheet that you have shows the different 3 options. So these are the numbers. This is 4 the same table you've seen before. This is 5 without mitigation. 6 I guess I want you -- I guess I would 7 recommend you -- I'm going to show you this 8 table with the different plans. I guess I 9 would encourage you to just look at one set. 10 What we're looking at primarily is this 11 50% exceedance and the net effect. Start there 12 and then you can look at other things to see 13 how that's made up. 14 So with no mitigation, this is what you 15 have, about 645 acres. Now with plan one, 645 16 negative becomes a 299 positive for a couple of 17 the channel depths. The 645 negative is only 18 345 negative. 19 So with plan one, there is a benefit. 20 That mitigation plan does produce something. 21 It is effective. 22 Look back, go back again, if you want to 23 pick out some other part of this table to 24 compare, you could look at the drought plan, 25 the sensitivity analysis on 469 and 768. 469 24 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 stayed the same. 768 dropped some, down to 469 3 again. 4 You go to plan two, again the way we 5 arranged these, hopefully, these numbers will 6 be -- will become positive. The more things, 7 the more mitigation pieces you add, hopefully 8 the more the impacts go away, hopefully, but 9 this one didn't change a lot. 10 That's plan one, plan two, so these first, 11 these first two blocks, anyway, didn't change. 12 That was plan one and then plan two. 13 MS. LANDER: Bill, I have one just for an 14 overall clarification; when you say 345 acres 15 mitigated under this scenario, it's just trying 16 to show trends, correct? 17 It's not saying, overall this is the 18 number that would actually be mitigated or not 19 mitigated? You haven't looked at everything 20 correct? You're just looking at certain 21 blocks -- 22 MR. BAILEY: That's the number -- well, it 23 doesn't show color a whole lot. Sorry. That's 24 that 345 -- 25 MS. LANDER: Uh-huh. 25 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 MR. BAILEY: -- is the area that's the 3 acreage that would still be impacted. Without 4 mitigation it was 645. When you do these 5 pieces, the total, the net impact drops down to 6 345. 7 MS. LANDER: But are those actual 8 numbers. Overall in the whole river, this is 9 the number of acres that would be impacted, or 10 are you saying this is what we've looked at and 11 what we've looked at is what will be impacted? 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. Can you identify those 13 345 acres you're talking about; is that what 14 you are saying? 15 MS. LANDER: Not only can you identify 16 them, but are you just saying these are the 17 examples we've looked at, so we're trying to 18 find trends or this is the absolute, overall 19 number. We know it's going to be greater than 20 345 acres. 21 MR. BAILEY: Okay. I'll go back. I'll 22 just use this one is an example. Through this 23 analysis we're looking at movement of that 24 contour, so a change from freshwater marsh to a 25 brackish one. That's showing this is the area 26 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 of the estuary that would change. 3 MS. LANDER: I guess I'm asking, are 4 those blocks the only ones you've looked at or 5 are those blocks the only ones that would 6 change? 7 MR. BAILEY: They're the only ones that 8 change. Nothing down here, nothing else 9 crosses that threshold. 10 MS. LANDER: Okay. So all the blocks -- 11 all the areas not blocked off, it's not that 12 they've been ignored, it's just they didn't 13 change? 14 MR. BAILEY: Right. We looked at -- we're 15 looking from here, basically, up to Highway 95 16 and that's the only area of change. 17 MR. DYSART: Hope. 18 MS. MOORER: Bill, I think it's important 19 to make the distinction that the only area that 20 changed, and go over that .5 ppt line, that 21 there are ranges below .5 ppt that would 22 change, potentially, maybe approach .5 ppt, but 23 not go over it. And then there are areas that 24 are already above .5 ppt that might get higher, 25 but they're already above .5 ppt. 27 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 MS. LANDER: That whole grade? 3 MS. MOORER: Right. 4 MR. BAILEY: This type of analysis is just 5 looking at that movement of that one point, .5. 6 Other areas -- so one of the things that this 7 analysis won't give you is an area that changed 8 from a salinity of one to three. It doesn't 9 show you that. 10 So you can't tell that change from this 11 analysis. The other -- the other approach that 12 we were using, we were going to use two other 13 marsh secession models. Those will show the 14 gradations are changed. 15 MR. DYSART: Keith. 16 MR. PARSONS: I think maybe what Mary is 17 getting at is do we know the complete acreage 18 of all the freshwater wetland marsh, north of 19 the Houlihan Bridge, which we're calling the 20 demarcation of the freshwater marsh? 21 I think what Mary is trying to get at here 22 is if we know the total acreage of that, all 23 that freshwater marsh north of Houlihan Bridge, 24 what she is, is that 645 acres the total impact 25 for that entire marsh system north of Houlihan 28 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 Bridge -- is that what you're asking? 3 MS. LANDER: Uh-huh. 4 MR. FLEMING: Or is it a sample? 5 MR. PARSONS: Or is it a sample? 6 MR. BAILEY: The 645 is the total. 7 MR. PARSONS: Okay. 8 MR. BAILEY: We haven't -- I don't know 9 the number of all the freshwater -- intertidal 10 freshwater marsh in the system, because to do 11 that I would have to count the acres all the 12 way up to Clyo, and I don't know that. 13 I do know what changes, what the impact of 14 this project is. It will be 645. What I don't 15 have is the other number, 645 out of what, 16 10,000 or 20,000, I don't know that. 17 MR. PARSONS: Okay. Did that get at your 18 question? 19 MS. LANDER: Yes. 20 MR. DYSART: Let me clarify. Where you 21 have your blocks there, that is simply kind of 22 you've taken all the acreage, that is fed by 23 that creek, and is representing it by a block? 24 MR. BAILEY: Correct. 25 MR. DYSART: It's not like the wetlands 29 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 are sitting around in blocks? 3 MR. BAILEY: Correct. 4 MR. DYSART: That's nice. I just wanted 5 to -- it's a nice representation. Go ahead, 6 Bill. Thank you. 7 MR. BAILEY: Back to plan one and then 8 plan two, so plan two didn't do very much. 9 There are some things that changed, but very 10 little. 11 Plan three, you had that and there are 12 more changes. Plan three is adding Rifle Cut 13 to those other two pieces. So there you've got 14 things going positive, 752 acres, 453 acres. 15 During the drought instead of 469, you've 16 got a 123 or 422, so Rifle Cut is affected. 17 That does change the numbers. I'll go back to 18 two again and then three. 19 Okay. That's one, two and three. I'll go 20 back. I'm going to show four and five. I'm 21 going to start from scratch again so you can 22 see the progression. 23 This is with no mitigation, and then plan 24 one, and then plan four, and then plan five. 25 Go back through them, plan -- this path seems 30 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 to have a big effect during the droughts. 3 Start off here with no mitigation, and 4 this block of 469, 768, see that and look at 5 the changes in there. Plan one doesn't change 6 much. Go to plan four, they become positive, 7 and then much more positive with plan five. 8 So there you benefit 684 acres. So the 9 net effect of that plan would be an improvement 10 in the -- it would be an additional 685 acres 11 of freshwater marsh. 12 MR. SCANLON: Bill, are these changes 13 cumulative, or are we looking at individual 14 ones; is this only four, or does four include 15 three, two and one in your analysis? 16 MR. BAILEY: These are different, two 17 different paths, but with five, for example, 18 five includes -- 19 MR. SCANLON: Five would include four and 20 one? 21 MR. BAILEY: Right. 22 MR. SCANLON: But four does not include 23 two and three. 24 MR. BAILEY: Correct. Plan five has three 25 components to it, to that plan, and the numbers 31 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 I'm showing for plan five show all three 3 components. To get the incremental, you have 4 to subtract them. 5 And we'll have a table, at some point, in 6 the EIS that shows the incremental steps. 7 We'll have to do that for Corps side to show is 8 it worth the dollar you're spending, what do 9 you get for that dollar you're spending. 10 To go four to five, it would be a cost to 11 that and then a benefit, and what's the acreage 12 you gain from that. 13 So we'll have to look at that and see if 14 that's worth spending the money for each of 15 those steps. 16 MR. PARSONS: I'm going to try to ask a 17 rather esoteric question here again. Go back 18 to your no mitigation slide, like under the 48 19 foot depth with drought conditions, you have 20 768 acres. 21 Now as you -- that's impact. If -- as it 22 is now today, everything north of Houlihan 23 Bridge is freshwater marsh, tidal influenced 24 freshwater marsh. 25 If you build the project to 48 feet, 32 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 during drought conditions, you'd expect 768 3 acres of impact? 4 MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. 5 MR. PARSONS: Now, going through your 6 mitigation plans, can you flip to another 7 slide where you're showing a positive? Okay. 8 If we look at that same site there at 48 9 feet under drought conditions, you're showing a 10 -- is that a net gain of 128 acres, is that 11 mitigating the entirety of the 768 acre impact, 12 plus an additional 128 acres of non-tidal 13 freshwater marsh you're creating? 14 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 15 MR. PARSONS: So you would have a net gain 16 of additional 128 acres of freshwater marsh? 17 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. What it is showing, 18 this spot, what you're showing is you still 19 adversely impacted 469, but you positively 20 impacted 598. So that's the net. 21 So you still adversely affected some of 22 those blocks of wetlands, which you, in other 23 areas, shifted other areas that are now 24 brackish and made them freshwater. 25 MR. PARSONS: Okay. So you're actually 33 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 having a net gain of freshwater tidal influence 3 marsh? 4 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 5 MR. PARSONS: But not necessarily in the 6 same location? 7 MR. BAILEY: Correct. We have -- to 8 compare another chart here, you've got zero, so 9 you've got zero adversely impacted and 963 10 positively impacted. So which is more -- which 11 is the other condition. 12 MR. DYSART: Karen. 13 MS. GRAINEY: So if you're looking at 14 total acres that are affected, you really 15 should just combine the two columns, 50% that 16 exceeds, if you want to look at anything 17 affected at all, you would want to be looking 18 at both columns? 19 MR. BAILEY: You can look at the 20 negatively -- adversely impacted and positively 21 impacted, yes. 22 MS. GRAINEY: I'm just trying to get a 23 handle on the distinction between 50% and 10% 24 exceedance is impact, so -- 25 MR. BAILEY: Those are just -- I think 34 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 you're just going to have a look at those, 3 figure out what they are telling you, and then 4 go with one of them. You can -- you can't add 5 the two of them together. 6 MS. GRAINEY: You can't because you're 7 talking about the same acres? 8 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 9 MS. GRAINEY: Okay. I think I understand 10 that -- I think so. 11 MR. BAILEY: Ed, can you explain any 12 better. If not, fine. 13 MR. EUDALY: Well, I was going to make a 14 comment. It's not criticism, but more of an 15 observation that this -- this whole method is 16 kind of a gross look at the system. 17 Because you're looking at large areas of 18 marsh, you're looking at control points that 19 you're going to need to switch on or off. 20 Now, when you do the marsh secession 21 model, that should be a much more sensitive 22 method to look at it. Here we're kind of 23 looking at large blocks. 24 It's kind of hard to interpret this, at 25 least in my view. So that's just an 35 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 observation. I think you have to take these 3 all with a little bit of caution, in that 4 you're looking at these large blocks that 5 have a switch point at one thing, and then just 6 going -- it might go from .45 to .55, so there 7 you should have a 500 acres switch maybe. 8 So hopefully when we do the marsh 9 secession, that looks at a smaller area and it 10 will be more sensitive. It will probably be -- 11 hopefully will be more useful in kind of 12 looking at the real picture of what's 13 happening. 14 As far as the percentile thing, if you 15 look at the 50%, that's sort of an average or 16 median, and the 10% exceedance would be more 17 closer to a maximum. 18 So it kind of depends where you want to 19 look at it. If you look at where maximum 20 salinity is, you know, you look at 10%. If you 21 want to look at an average, you look at the 22 50%. 23 Probably what's flooding the marsh is 24 somewhere in between those, in my opinion, 25 because the marsh only floods on high tide. So 36 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 it's probably somewhere in between those points 3 is actually what's flooding the marsh. 4 Again, I think the marsh secession model 5 will give a better picture of what's happening 6 out there. It will try to translate all that 7 to root zone of marsh plants, which is where -- 8 what's going to control the plants that are 9 there. So that's it. 10 MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. 11 MR. DYSART: Is that helpful? 12 MS. GRAINEY: That helped a lot. Thank 13 you. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. 15 MR. BAILEY: Okay. So what we've been 16 able to draw from this, so far, not a lot of 17 difference between 44 and 45 foot alternatives, 18 and not substantial differences between average 19 and drought flows with that 50% salinity 20 exceedance. 21 There is a big difference with the 50 22 centimeter sea level rise. To get into 23 particulars, adding the sediment basin to 24 McCoys Cut doesn't look to be particularly 25 effective, but adding Rifle Cut to those other 37 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 two does appear to be very effective. 3 Going down that other side, the other 4 path, adding Middle River to McCoys Cut does 5 appear to be very effective, and adding the 6 sediment basin to that appears to be very 7 effective. 8 So I guess kind of a summary of these 9 things is that measures can be developed to 10 reduce the incremental adverse effects for 11 deepening up to six feet -- we didn't look any 12 deeper than six -- it appears the mitigation 13 measures can enhance existing wetlands. 14 They can take something brackish now and 15 make it freshwater, and you can get substantial 16 acreages with those freshwater shift and 17 freshwater wetlands. 18 Now going through this, the service has 19 asked us to look at some other things. Once 20 they have seen these figures and seen some of 21 the numbers, they have asked us to look at 22 these four things, not deepening up there at 23 McCoys Cut, put the diversion structure in 24 but not deepen. 25 Remove some sediments that were dredged up 38 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 there 30, 40 years ago, blocked the older 3 entrance near McCoys Cut, actually two 4 openings up there at McCoys Cut; they have 5 suggested we look at blocking one of those. 6 They think that will help, based on what 7 they saw when they were out there that one 8 time. Also, we want to look at rerouting flows 9 through Rifle Cut, in kind of the same way, 10 the same manner we are looking down at Middle 11 River, closing Middle River off and kind of 12 doing that over to Rifle Cut. 13 So we will do the preliminary, at least 14 the preliminary runs on those scenarios and see 15 what they look like. 16 MR. DYSART: Mary and then Ed. 17 MS. LANDER: Why are those requests made, 18 why not deepen McCoys Cut, what's the problem? 19 MR. ROBINETTE: That's -- 20 MR. EUDALY: That's why I had my -- you 21 want me to? 22 MR. BAILEY: Okay, sure. 23 MR. EUDALY: The reason we recommended the 24 first one, not to dredge up there, because 25 whenever you do dredging there's going to be 39 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 some negative impact. It's also going to 3 require maintenance, which is going to probably 4 cost some money, and it will cost some money. 5 It could cost a substantial amount of money. 6 We think it might be just as effective to 7 just do the diversion structure without the 8 deepening. It's certainly worth looking at, in 9 terms of getting the most efficient plan in 10 terms of cost and environmental impact. 11 That's why we recommended taking a look at 12 that. We did some preliminary model results 13 that showed -- that indicated maybe the 14 diversion structure would be almost as 15 effective without the dredging. 16 So we thought it would be wise to take a 17 look at that. As far as the other one, the 18 sediments, we thought that might be blocking 19 some flows into wetlands, and it had some 20 direct wetlands impacts also. 21 We're still working with the Corps on that 22 one. We've looked at that further. The whole 23 area has become pretty stabilized. We're 24 somewhat concerned that maybe removing those 25 sediments might cause some additional impacts. 40 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 So we're going to work with the Corps to 3 evaluate that one. 4 As far as the old channel at McCoys Cut, 5 what we've noticed at certain tides, water 6 that comes in from the Savannah Front River 7 comes down through McCoys Cut and goes back to 8 the Savannah River through the old channel. 9 So by blocking that channel, more 10 freshwater would come down the Back River 11 instead of going back to the Front River. And 12 that last one is actually looking at blocking 13 off Middle River just upstream of Houston Cut, 14 and bringing water in through Rifle Cut. 15 And that would be done in conjunction with 16 a diversion structure, and filling the sediment 17 basin. And the reason we thought that would be 18 wise to look at is because a lot of the 19 impacts, or some of the results of some of 20 these other mitigation options is to send water 21 further up the Middle River which, of course, 22 impacts the refuge. 23 So this would result in fresher conditions 24 throughout the upper Middle River and Back 25 River. So those -- that's kind of a summary of 41 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 why we recommended those things. 3 MR. DYSART: Mary and then Carl -- did 4 that answer your question? 5 MS. LANDER: Yes. 6 MR. DYSART: Carl. 7 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia Wildlife 8 Federation. I was about to ask a question, 9 address a question. I think Ed answered most 10 of it, but in all deference to Ed and 11 everybody, in 1973 when the Corps did the 12 diversion canal, the little upper cut there off 13 the Savannah River, that was to bring more to 14 water down to mitigate for the tide gate 15 structure. 16 As we know now, after a lot of studies of 17 waterways, I reckon, and after working with the 18 Savannah Ox Bow Restoration Projects up and 19 down the river, and watching those old ox bows 20 totally silt in since the late 1950s when the 21 cuts were made, obviously, you have partial 22 flow come right in. 23 Sometimes you're worse off with partial 24 flows, in terms of silting in. You've seen it 25 cut off number three and four right up the 42 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 river. But McCoys's Cut, all the way down to 3 that first big ox bow bend, and Little Back 4 River to the first ox bow deepened in '73, but 5 it quickly filled back in. 6 In other words, just putting the canal, 7 the diversion canal through didn't really solve 8 the problem, but we had a diversion structure. 9 So I'm assuming what we're thinking is, you 10 know, with a diversion structure that will be 11 key to getting more water through there. 12 Hopefully, I'm assuming there won't be 13 dredging requirements. If there is, we have to 14 figure that in to the costability, I reckon, or 15 impacts to the upper end, is that right? 16 MR. EUDALY: Yeah, that's correct, and 17 that did come into our thinking on what to 18 recommend here. Because like you said, it did 19 silt in pretty quickly. 20 And so we were wondering, well, is the 21 dredging really going to help a lot for one 22 thing, and how much maintenance is going to be 23 required, and will the diversion structure work 24 on its own pretty much the same way. 25 Another thing I've talked to Corps about, 43 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 had some correspondence on this, in the 3 diversion structure is perhaps putting a weer, 4 a submerged weer, across the McCoys's Cut like 5 as was done at cut-off bend three, to address 6 that sediment issue. 7 A lot of sediments enter during high flows 8 and move along the bottom of the river, so you 9 have a submerged rock weer there, you could 10 probably keep some of those sediments moving 11 down the Front River, and not go into a Little 12 Back River. 13 So those sorts of engineering could be 14 used, and I think will be looked at to try and 15 address that issue. 16 MR. DYSART: Keith. 17 MR. PARSONS: Keith Parsons, Georgia EPD. 18 When we look at all these mitigation options, 19 we really need to look at stuff that is going 20 to be self-sustaining. The federal mitigation 21 guidance really almost requires that mitigation 22 be self-sustaining. 23 So any time we start looking at options 24 that are going to require periodic maintenance 25 dredging, we're falling away from the Corps' 44 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 own guidance on mitigation. 3 So we need to consider, pretty thoroughly, 4 all these various options we're going to look 5 at, and look at greatest sustainability for the 6 mitigation. 7 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Those are the -- okay. 8 This is one slide showing six foot with that 9 last mitigation plan. Impacts, the impacts are 10 over here and the areas, the sections of 11 wetlands, benefitting are here. 12 So that is where we are so far, where we 13 are right now. We'll put this on the public 14 website, probably this week, and you can dig 15 through it have fun. 16 MR. DYSART: Hope. 17 MS. MOORER: Are you going to put all the 18 runs or the presentation that you just made 19 right now -- 20 MR. BAILEY: All the runs. 21 MS. MOORER: All the runs, the report? 22 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 23 MS. MOORER: Another question, a 24 distinction I think that it's important to make 25 it that you're trying to -- the areas of marsh 45 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 particularly that you're concentrating on, in 3 terms of the location of refuge and tidal 4 freshwater marshes, you could make that 5 distinction too on that map previously, the 6 areas currently of concern. 7 All of it is of concern, but where the 8 marsh areas that are closest in the refuge -- 9 located in the refuge. 10 MR. BAILEY: In the previous talk, I think 11 we had shared with you that the agencies, just 12 talking about this system, we had said we 13 wanted to concentrate north of upstream of the 14 houlihan Bridge -- between Houlihan Bridge and 15 Highway 95. 16 That was the area we were trying to 17 protect in the big picture of deepening kind 18 of. This is the area where we wanted to 19 protect those intertidal freshwater wetlands, 20 and we're willing to kind of, if you had to 21 give up something, that the existing channel is 22 probably the area that would accept increased 23 salinities along there, mostly because they're 24 pretty well-developed, and there's not too many 25 wetlands on it anymore. 46 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 MS. MOORER: The other distinction is when 3 you say fill sediment basin, there's been some 4 talk among the agencies of what's acceptable 5 and what's not. 6 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. We had started off 7 with the concept of filling the sediment basin. 8 A couple of agencies have expressed concern 9 about the process of doing that, filling it. 10 So I believe, at this point, altogether it 11 says fill the basin, we wouldn't. What that 12 alternative would actually consist of is 13 putting a sill at the bottom end and letting it 14 fill in naturally, fill in on its own. 15 We wouldn't put sediment in there to raise 16 the elevation. That had been our initial 17 thought, but agencies expressed concern about 18 water quality impacts of that construction 19 process. 20 So we will just put the sill in and let it 21 fill in natural. The sill would be the same 22 height -- the same height as the sill in the 23 sediment basin -- as the sill of the tide gate, 24 sorry. So you would have a structure out here 25 the same elevation as this at the tide gate. 47 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 It would just kind of be, in the interim, a 3 deep hole and it would fill in on its own. 4 MR. DYSART: Further comments or 5 questions? Karen. 6 MS. GRAINEY: Did you explain why you 7 didn't do the analysis on the tide gate in the 8 Steamboat River? 9 MR. BAILEY: We will do those. We don't 10 think they're going to be cost-effective. The 11 Steamboat River one, the initial costs we're 12 showing were like $30,000,000. It's going to 13 be the most expensive of anything else we've 14 looked at. 15 What it would effect, it would add two 16 miles, I think, to the river -- to the path of 17 the river. What it would do is it would help 18 the area from this point up, and we weren't 19 seeing a lot of impacts up here. 20 So you would be spending a lot of money 21 helping an area that you were not really 22 impacting. So it didn't look like we'd be 23 getting a lot for the money. So we're looking 24 at that last. 25 MS. GRAINEY: But you're still going to 48 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 look at it. 3 MR. DYSART: Still going to look at. The 4 tide gate would be removing the tide gate down 5 to the sill, and we don't think that would be 6 effective when -- when looked at in combination 7 with filling the sediment basin. 8 Those two things produce pretty much the 9 same effect. So if you're already going to 10 fill the sediment basin, then removing the tide 11 gate doesn't give you very much. So we're 12 doing that last, doing that as one of the later 13 things also. 14 MR. DYSART: Mary. 15 MR. HALL: Carl Hall. Bill, on the -- not 16 that's it's an issue, but you're still 17 considering the fact of whether or not the 18 constriction effect, the width of the river, 19 the tide gate, may be in holding back ebb tides 20 and allowing freshwater to come down? 21 Is that still -- maybe it's already been 22 looked at, you know, we've dealt that issue 23 before. We've addressed it in other endeavors. 24 I'm still wondering, in terms of the river is 25 narrow at the tide gate than it was before the 49 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 project, the tide gate was put in; in terms of 3 any effect maybe on -- I call it the ponding or 4 holding back the ebb tide, you know, to hinder, 5 reduce the total net downstream flow of water 6 from the Savannah River or something like that? 7 MR. BAILEY: That will come out in those 8 runs. 9 MR. HALL: Okay. 10 MR. DYSART: Mary. 11 MS. LANDER: The 10 and 50% exceedances, 12 are they based on biology or arbitrarily, is it 13 oh, these marsh plants can survive the 14 exceedance 50% of the time. 15 MR. BAILEY: Those things are -- that's 16 not biology. That's more of all those numbers, 17 model calculations every five minutes over four 18 months, it's just at what point do you go in 19 there -- what number do you want to look at of 20 that whole group of numbers. 21 So it's just picking two different numbers 22 to look at. One is more -- one is the average 23 conditions. If you average them altogether, 24 it's going to be a 50% number. 25 If you want to look at it more toward 50 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 worst case, that's the one that's not order 3 exceeded as often, so the 10% number. 4 MS. LANDER: Is there a number that we 5 know biologically, okay, these plants can 6 survive 10% of the time, if .5 is exceeded? 7 MR. BAILEY: I don't think so. 8 MS. LANDER: Okay. 9 MR. BAILEY: Go ahead. 10 MR. EUDALY: Well, this gets back to what 11 I said earlier. This marsh secession model, 12 the plants have been classified into several 13 communities, I think five. And basically, 14 there are three different types of freshwater 15 marsh, and there's more saline marshes. 16 When the marsh secession model is run, 17 that's going to show the shifts between those 18 classifications, and that is based on studies 19 done in the field looking at the salinity in 20 the root zone, and the plants at that site, and 21 some other factors too. 22 Really, that's going to be the most 23 accurate to look at impacts and mitigation. So 24 that is based on biology, and it's based on 25 going out in the field, measuring the salinity 51 1 WETLAND IMPACT EVALUATION 2 in the root zone, and seeing what plants were 3 there and classifying those into communities. 4 That should give us, I think, a better picture 5 of what's going to happen out there. 6 MR. DYSART: You need to add something? 7 MR. ROBINETTE: It's based on real data. 8 It's the actual measurements. It's pretty -- 9 pretty accurate. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Hope. 11 MS. MOORER: I'm trying to understand a 12 little bit about this, the number to feed in to 13 that marsh secession model is based on the same 14 numbers that these .5 ppt line is drawn from? 15 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 16 MS. MOORER: These same runs that indicate 17 salinity to each of these areas, then is 18 translated into a marsh root zone, which is 19 then translated to any change in plant 20 community? 21 MR. BAILEY: Right. 22 MS. MOORER: But it's the same in the 23 numbers we're seeing? 24 MR. BAILEY: Yes. We're just doing -- 25 pretty much taking these same numbers on 52 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 salinity and then we're adding a little biology 3 to it. 4 MS. MOORER: Right. 5 MR. DYSART: Further questions, comments? 6 Thank you. Why don't let's take a five minute 7 break. 8 (Short Break) 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's call the meeting 10 back to order, please. And next, I think, who 11 shall we hear from? How about Bill Bailey? 12 Bill Bailey is going to be talking about the 13 dissolved oxygen now. Bill. 14 MR. BAILEY: Okay. That was -- the 15 wetlands was most of what I've got to say 16 today, and that was the most complicated of 17 what I've got to say. 18 The wetlands stuff was complicated. If 19 you didn't understand it, that's fine. You've 20 got to think about it and it takes some time to 21 work through. We're continuing to look at the 22 results to try to figure out what they're 23 telling us. 24 So this is your -- that was your first 25 exposure to it. I guess I would encourage you, 53 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 if you are interested, to look at the full 3 report and see if you can make more sense of it 4 when you look at it yourself. 5 Now, the dissolved oxygen, shift to that. 6 We've talked before. I've talked to you before 7 about it. We've looked at different methods of 8 improving dissolved oxygen and screened those 9 methods for application here in Savannah. 10 We've identified the best method for this 11 location, which is kind of off-channel 12 injection of oxygen, pulling water out of the 13 river, increasing the oxygen content, putting 14 the water back in again, doing that off the 15 side of the channel, not trying to stir up the 16 whole water column, mix the whole water column, 17 not introducing air at the bottom and letting 18 it bubble up. Those things, we kind of 19 screened those out of. 20 So what we have recently done is then 21 pursued that concept of off-channel injection 22 and moved to designing systems for that, 23 designing dissolved oxygen improvement systems. 24 We've looked at it in two different -- two 25 different scenarios, I guess. One is looking 54 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 at the incremental effects of deepening, and 3 the other one was trying to improve the 4 existing conditions. 5 And that one was tied to the study that we 6 were doing that the city had sponsored called 7 The Savannah Harbor Ecosystem Restoration 8 Study. 9 So with the incremental effects of 10 deepening, again, we looked at different 11 scenarios to alter channel depths, and looked 12 at two river flows, average conditions and 13 drought conditions. 14 And what we got, we've just gotten a 15 couple of reports, a report like this for each 16 of those -- those two different paths, one 17 report for the incremental effect of deepening 18 and another report for improving the existing 19 conditions. 20 So four, the incremental effect of 21 deepening, the consultants came back and said 22 using the same models, water quality models, we 23 would have to add oxygen, they're recommending 24 we add oxygen in four different locations shown 25 here. 55 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 And for the amount oxygen needed, this is 3 what they're showing us. And the amount of 4 oxygen goes up with the more you deepen the 5 harbor. It's what we expected. 6 There is a difference between average 7 flows and drought flows. With average flows, 8 since there's more water there, there's more 9 water you have to treat more water. It takes 10 more oxygen to treat it. 11 These are some numbers for improving the 12 existing conditions, to help the existing 13 harbor meet the water quality standards. Here 14 it shows a pretty big difference between 15 average flows and drought flows, and here 16 drought flows take more oxygen. 17 And the explanation is that because you 18 are -- you're trying to do different things 19 from what I showed you on the last slide. Here 20 you're trying to meet standards. Here you're 21 just trying to take away the incremental effect 22 of deepening. 23 So that would take more. In general, it 24 takes more oxygen to make it meet standards 25 than to take away the effect of deepening. 56 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 MR. SCANLON: The modelling that was done 3 here, does this include the deepening? Have we 4 also included the impacts of, if you do 5 additional channel modifications that we talked 6 about in the marsh area, I mean if you did 7 those other deepenings, say up to Steamboat Cut 8 and all those, are they modelled in this? Is 9 any of that included? Is this the modelling 10 done for DO only looking at the changes to the 11 depth of the harbor channel itself. 12 MR. BAILEY: These numbers -- what we've 13 done so far is just deepen the channel. Next 14 -- next we'll have to go further and do what 15 you said. 16 Once we figure out a path, a mitigation 17 path, then we'll have to look at these systems 18 again by channel, by channel depth down those 19 paths. 20 So we have that yet to do, but we will be 21 doing those and folding that part into the 22 analysis. 23 MR. PARSONS: Does this table represent 24 the requirement to meet the impacts of 25 deepening and the existing non-compliance 57 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 issue? 3 MR. BAILEY: These numbers are just the 4 incremental effect of deepening -- 5 MR. PARSONS: Okay. So the non-compliance 6 issue is -- 7 MR. BAILEY: It will bring it right back 8 to where it is today. 9 MR. PARSONS: -- the level of 10 non-compliance -- 11 MS. MOORER: But the next slide. 12 MR. BAILEY: The next one would be to take 13 today's and have it meet water quality 14 standards, today's conditions. 15 MR. DYSART: Mary. 16 MS. LANDER: Can you explain again why 17 drought means less oxygen injected in the one 18 scenario? I understood your explanation 19 logically, there's less water, less need for 20 oxygen. Then it flip-flopped in the next line. 21 I didn't understand why. 22 MR. BAILEY: Yes. I think and I asked the 23 same question of the modellers when I started 24 to put this together. The explanation was the 25 first one we were just taking away the 58 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 incremental effect. 3 Here you're trying to bring it from a 4 certain level up to the water quality 5 standards, so you're having more -- you're 6 having to raise it more. And with the drought, 7 this bottom part has dropped down further in a 8 drought. 9 MS. LANDER: The DO level has dropped. 10 MR. BAILEY: The DO level has dropped 11 further during a drought. 12 MR. DYSART: So the deficit would be 13 greater under drought conditions? 14 MS. LANDER: Why does it drop down further 15 during drought? 16 MR. BAILEY: There's less water coming 17 down river. DO conditions are worse. It 18 doesn't mix as well. 19 MR. HALL: Stratification, less flow. 20 MR. BAILEY: What we're going to do next 21 is to meet with the resource agencies to review 22 these two reports. 23 We'll be reviewing both of them, making 24 sure that the agencies agree with really what's 25 in there, and finding out what comments they 59 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 have on the different designs. 3 MR. DYSART: Ed. 4 MR. EUDALY: Can you go back to the place 5 where you showed the injection points? Yeah. 6 Now, I'm trying to remember what's involved 7 with these structures or systems. Some of 8 those you've got good access points, Millstone, 9 Talmadge Bridge, but what about I guess that's 10 McCoys Cut, same thing. Onslow Island is near 11 the bridge, I guess. What about -- what will 12 be required in terms of structures at McCoys 13 Cut? 14 MR. BAILEY: These are the recommendations 15 of the modellers. I had asked them to put in 16 the report how much flexibility we have around 17 these specific locations. I'm not -- I haven't 18 read the report to see what it says about the 19 flexibility. 20 So I believe there is flexibility -- well, 21 there is some flexibility because the side of 22 the river -- doesn't matter which side you have 23 it on. 24 You do -- two of these sites will need 25 road access and will need power, electrical 60 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 power, and that may be very difficult at McCoys 3 Cut and McCombs Cut. 4 For that recommendation, the closest -- 5 what I thought -- the closest high ground may 6 be the crossing at I-95, and end up putting it 7 next to there, next to 95. 8 MR. ROBINETTE: It also crosses Knoxboro 9 Creek there, which is right across the river 10 from McCoys Cut. 11 MR. BAILEY: Some of these -- so these 12 designs, this is what the contractor has given 13 us so far. I think this probably will not be 14 the design that comes out in the draft EIS. 15 There will be some shifting around. That's 16 where we are right now. 17 MR. DYSART: Fred and then Hope. 18 MR. BEASON: Bill, as we move forward, 19 assuming these things go into place, do you 20 hear the agencies discussing any possible 21 changes to the existing maintenance dredging 22 permits that are applicable in the harbor to 23 maintain the berths? 24 Is that going to be looked at any 25 differently as far as water quality? I know in 61 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 the past, maintenance dredging has been looked 3 at as a possible encroachment on water quality. 4 Is that going to come back up on the table, and 5 if so what are the thoughts on it? 6 MR. BAILEY: I haven't heard it as part of 7 the discussion of water quality and expansion. 8 I think if it comes up, it would come up when 9 the permits -- those permits come up for 10 renewal. I don't know when those are. 11 MR. BEASON: I understand that. I'm not 12 trying to raise red a flag, but the whole 13 purpose is to get this harbor bigger and better 14 for international commerce. 15 Don't lose sight, we've still got to get 16 them from the channel to the dock face. If you 17 don't get them to the dock, we haven't 18 accomplished anything. 19 MR. PARSONS: I assume you're talking 20 about the agitation dredging permits? 21 MR. BEASON: More prominently, yes, sir. 22 Yes, sir. 23 MR. PARSONS: I haven't heard anything 24 about that yet, and I don't know. There's a 25 TMDL out on the harbor now. I don't know if 62 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 that was addressed on the TMDL or not, the 3 agitation maintenance dredging. 4 MR. BAILEY: It considered agitation 5 dredging, when they were putting the model 6 together, but I don't think -- I believe that 7 they decided, during that process, that 8 agitation dredging did not have long-term, 9 wide-scale effects on DO. So they didn't put 10 anything in the model for agitation dredging. 11 It was a small scale event. 12 MR. PARSONS: I think the historical 13 studies that have been done on DO with 14 agitation dredging have, more or less, 15 supported that contention that the agitation 16 dredging has fairly minimal, short-term 17 effects. 18 So I don't really anticipate, unless it 19 becomes a significant issue somewhere down the 20 road, it's going to have adverse impacts on the 21 normal maintenance dredging protocols that are 22 already in place. 23 MR. BEASON: Good. I just wanted to make 24 sure it was included in the scope, when we all 25 talk about it. That's good to hear. 63 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 MR. DYSART: Hope and Bob or -- 3 MR. SCANLON: I was going to say, I 4 wouldn't make that assumption right off the top 5 of my head right now. You know what assume 6 will get you, because I think this whole issue, 7 this whole TMDL issue is one that is really 8 driving a lot of things right now. 9 Right now we have a big fear the TMDL 10 that's in the streets right now, basically, has 11 shut down development from north of Thurman Dam 12 to the ocean period. A lot of other things 13 could happen. 14 A lot of things have to be understood, 15 and what we just heard, in the first hour and a 16 half of this meeting, is that we're also 17 shooting at a moving target. So I think 18 there's -- it's a very, very complex issue, and 19 my recommendation would be keep your ear to the 20 ground. 21 We don't know where it is going to go. 22 But again, I think the TMDL issue, the water 23 quality issue appears to be very seasonal. I 24 think you already have restrictions on seasons 25 the agitation dredging can be done. 64 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 You may see some changes to that, I would 3 imagine, but I'd keep my ear to the ground, if 4 you're interested in what's going on. 5 MR. DYSART: Hope and then Gail. 6 MS. MOORER: Bill, these locations, these 7 are kind of the ideal locations, according to 8 the modellers, but maybe not the most practical 9 location? 10 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 11 MS. MOORER: Okay. 12 MR. DYSART: Gail. 13 MS. BOWERS: My concern was the water 14 quality. Also, where do we stand, are we like 15 barely meeting the water quality, do we plan to 16 better that figure with this oxygen injection, 17 and do we anticipate the standard being 18 lowered? 19 MR. BAILEY: We looked at one of your 20 questions. At the bottom we looked at the EPA 21 proposed standard, and what it take to meet 22 that standard. So we have those numbers in 23 there, and those are less than meeting the 24 existing standards. 25 That was one of three or four questions. 65 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 The other ones -- 3 MS. BOWERS: Where do we stand now on the 4 water quality, do we barely meet the standard, 5 are we above the standard, you know? 6 MR. BAILEY: It depends on the time of 7 year and the location. 8 MS. BOWERS: Okay. I understand that. 9 MR. BAILEY: In the summer, the dissolved 10 oxygen does drop in the harbor, as well as lots 11 of areas in the Southeast. 12 MS. BOWERS: Okay. 13 MR. DYSART: Drops in relation where, in 14 relation to the standard? 15 MR. BAILEY: It will drop below the 16 standard. It drops in Wright River, which is 17 just north in South Carolina, an undeveloped 18 creek. That drops below the South Carolina 19 standard so there's no development on it, but 20 that drops below their standard. I'm going to 21 let you say anymore. I don't want to 22 characterize any -- 23 MR. DYSART: We'd be proud to hear from 24 Keith. 25 MR. PARSONS: You're not going to hear 66 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 much from me, because our water quality 3 modelling group is the one dealing with that. 4 I'm kind of out on the periphery of that. 5 We are going to be having the meeting you 6 alluded to in a couple of weeks at the EPA 7 office, I guess, to hash most of this stuff out 8 and see what -- I don't know what EPA is 9 actually going to do, as far as the final 10 standard for the river. 11 It's -- this has been something that's 12 been going on my entire career at EPD. So I 13 really don't know what to say about the DO 14 standard at this point in time, but before this 15 project gets into its final permitting phases, 16 there's going to have to be a standard for the 17 river, you know, set. So that's about all I 18 can say about it at this point. 19 MR. DYSART: John and then Hope. 20 MR. ROBINETTE: What is the current 21 standard, EPA's current standard? 22 MR. PARSONS: Depends on who you talk to; 23 EPA, State of Georgia, State of South Carolina. 24 it's all over the board. There's three 25 different standards out there right now. 67 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 MR. ROBINETTE: What's EPA's? 3 MR. BAILEY: I think it's a one day, seven 4 day and 30 day average. There's three 5 different parts to their standard. I'm not 6 sure what the numbers are. 7 MR. DYSART: Does anybody know a number? 8 MR. SCANLON: I'd be careful with the use 9 of the word standard. The existing standard is 10 the Georgia standard for harbor. South 11 Carolina has one for South Carolina waters. 12 There is a difference. The difference 13 between those is South Carolina has a seasonal. 14 They dropped four milligrams per liter in the 15 hot summer months. Georgia drops to three. 16 South Carolina's is an average. Georgia's is 17 anywhere in the column. 18 So they're all different. The TMDL -- 19 draft TMDL that was put out in August of '04 20 had a standard which was based on some work 21 that was done up in the Virginia province. It 22 had a daily average, a weekly average, and a 23 monthly average numbers. 24 I don't recall what those were. I think 25 the lowest one gets down to about 2.3, I think. 68 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 I think that's one day average in the summer 3 months. But again, that number was just 4 something EPA threw out in the draft TMDL, so 5 that they can do something other than just 6 write, we're going to put out a TMDL which is 7 something, we don't know what it can be, which 8 is basically what was done. 9 So they threw that out as something to 10 work towards. Georgia and South Carolina are 11 working together right now to try to come up 12 with a new standard, working with EPA. There's 13 an effort, underway as we speak, with EPA 14 driving that to come up with a new defensible 15 standard. 16 The TMDL issue is really the one that's 17 driving that, but it's very much in flux right 18 now. 19 MR. DYSART: Bob, since you have said 20 several times the TMDL is driving this, would 21 someone care to briefly say what that is, in 22 case everybody around the table thinks TMDL has 23 something to do with your jaw. 24 MR. SCANLON: TMDL is total maximum daily 25 load, which it is a regulatory term which 69 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 actually defines the quantity of, basically, 3 discharges which can be assimilated by a water 4 body. 5 And that is the total maximum load of 6 discharges that can go into the water body. 7 Those discharges can be point source. They can 8 be non-point source. Part of the calculations 9 looks at loading that come in from natural 10 conditions. 11 So all of that gets tied into together. 12 What gets determined then is the TMDL. The 13 TMDL is actually -- becomes a number which 14 becomes -- drives pretty much permits, affects 15 -- mostly it affects point source dischargers, 16 but non-point source folks also have to meet 17 the impacts, you know. 18 If you're not meeting the standard, then 19 any other development that's going on so, any 20 stormwater changes are going to have to be 21 accounted for. So it's a very, very complex 22 issue. 23 And right now, it's a very frustrating 24 issue that's got a lot of people very, very, 25 concerned as to where it is going to go. 70 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PRESENTATION 2 Because the thing that's on the books right 3 now -- the TMDL that is currently on the books, 4 which was, I think, finalized the end of 5 November says there are no discharges, not no 6 new discharges, but no discharges to the 7 Savannah River from Thurman Dam to the ocean. 8 That means all existing discharges have to 9 come out or we change the standard. And the 10 EPA said to the states, change the standards 11 and then we'll work on what we're going to do. 12 MR. DYSART: Thank you. I didn't mean to 13 stick that in front of Hope, but I thought that 14 would be useful. Hope, what was your comment, 15 please? 16 MS. MOORER: That's all right. That's all 17 right. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. Bill why don't you 19 continue. 20 MR. BAILEY: That's pretty much it for 21 this one. 22 MR. DYSART: That's it. Questions or 23 comments concerning the DO topic? Seeing none, 24 we'll move on. What's the next one you have 25 for us for sure? 71 1 SEDIMENT QUALITY PRESENTATION 2 MR. BAILEY: Sediment quality. 3 MR. DYSART: Sediment quality. Okay, 4 proceed. 5 MR. BAILEY: We have an update on that. 6 We did some sediment quality work. EPA did 7 some in Tier I. We've done some more in Tier 8 II. In Tier I, it was kind of broad scan for 9 lots of contaminants in the entire length of 10 the channel that would be dredged. That did 11 identify some issues to consider further. 12 The light structure, the old light 13 structure at the end of the bar channel, Tier I 14 had found they had gotten a couple of hits out 15 there. Two II went back and didn't find any 16 contamination then at that point. 17 That was the light that a ship had run 18 into and knocked the platform over. And 19 batteries had been up there and they were 20 removed. 21 So that issue was resolved. In Tier I, 22 they found some tributyl tin across -- I think 23 across from the Coast Guard station. We went 24 back out in Tier II, and looked for that 25 chemical in that location again, and couldn't 72 1 SEDIMENT QUALITY PRESENTATION 2 find anymore. 3 The agencies want a little more for us to 4 work on our description of that a little bit, 5 before we -- before it got into the draft EIS. 6 The third thing was cadmium in the 7 miocene clay. That's the clay layer that's 8 above the aquifer. They found some higher 9 levels of cadmium in that clay, so we looked at 10 ways that cadmium could get out into the 11 environment if we dredge it. 12 It was generally okay to place it on our 13 upland dike sites. We still needed some work 14 on some more pathways. That's what we're doing 15 now is that additional work. 16 We're doing a bunch of work and that 17 started last week. They were in the field last 18 weekend and will be in the field again this 19 week. This is starting next week. 20 It's a pretty comprehensive plan that they 21 have laid out and will be conducting. The 22 benthic community assessment, they're going to 23 go out and see what organisms are growing in 24 this exposed clay. 25 Right now they're targeting the sites 73 1 SEDIMENT QUALITY PRESENTATION 2 where the clay is exposed now and seeing what 3 organisms are growing on that. If there are 4 organisms, we get to the second part. If we do 5 find organism, we'll look and see how much 6 cadmium is in those organisms, how much are 7 they taking up. 8 And the issue they're trying to address 9 with the first two things is can that cadmium 10 be -- move up in the fish, the food chain into 11 the fish. 12 On the third line they will be taking more 13 samples of that material. They will be doing 14 an aquatic bio-accumulation study, where they 15 will be trying to grow benthic organisms in the 16 sediment that they sample and collect; take it 17 back to the lab and try to grow organisms 18 there, and see how much cadmium they take up. 19 They're also going to try and grow plants 20 on that, and this is to find out if we were to 21 put it in the disposal areas, can any of that 22 cadmium go up through the plants and get out 23 into the birds that way. 24 It's a pretty comprehensive plan. We have 25 just started it, did the preliminary work last 74 1 SEDIMENT QUALITY PRESENTATION 2 weekend and will be starting the main work next 3 week. 4 When this information becomes available or 5 is when it is completed, it doesn't quite lay 6 out in the same order, sediment sampling will 7 be done in February. That will be all done. 8 The second line, the tissue assessment, that's 9 the next one that will be completed. That's 10 the next one that will be completed in March. 11 They will finish that community assessment, 12 that first line, and that will be finished in 13 April. 14 Part of that is comparing what's the 15 number of benthic organisms that are in the 16 river now, in that clay, compared to other 17 areas that we found that are actually at the 18 river entrance growing not in clays. 19 The bio-accumulation studies take a while. 20 I think some of those are 30 day tests, and 21 then you have time in there for evaluation, and 22 then we'll be sending it to our -- we'll get a 23 report from the contractor. 24 We'll be looking at it and making our 25 evaluation. We'll be sending it also to the 75 1 SEDIMENT QUALITY PRESENTATION 2 Corps' sediment people in Mississippi, in that 3 research center, and seeing what they think 4 about it. 5 So the report will not be available almost 6 till about October. The field work is going to 7 be or has started already, and they will be out 8 there a lot for the next month and a half. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. Ed. 10 MR. EUDALY: I think your slide said it 11 was okay to place the sediments in the confined 12 disposal areas. I guess, correct me if I'm 13 wrong, depending on the results of the more 14 detailed study, that would require some sort of 15 lining, capping or special handling, is that 16 correct? 17 MR. BAILEY: Yes, yes. Right now, we 18 believe it's okay to put in there if we cap it, 19 if we put other sediments on top that are -- 20 have less cadmium. So that would make sure 21 that this naturally enriched cadmium is not 22 exposed to other life, other things that use 23 the sediment basin -- I'm sorry use the 24 disposal areas. 25 Right now those areas get a lot of bird 76 1 SEDIMENT QUALITY PRESENTATION 2 use. So putting cleaner sediments on top would 3 make sure that the birds don't get any. So 4 these -- some of these tests that we're doing 5 now will see if that's really necessary. 6 MR. DYSART: Keith. 7 MR. PARSONS: I don't know a whole lot 8 about cadmium, chemistry, but when you dredge 9 these out, I assume you will be pumping them 10 over into the disposal areas as a slurry. 11 Does cadmium free up when you are 12 dewatering the thing; will you be discharging 13 cadmium back into the river from the disposal 14 areas, when you dewater? 15 MR. BAILEY: One of the analyses is 16 looking at that at the level that will come out 17 with that -- with that water. 18 MR. PARSONS: Because we'll need to look 19 at that. Okay. 20 MR. DYSART: John, did you have a comment? 21 MR. ROBINETTE: That was my question. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any other questions? 23 Okay. And what's your next one -- economic 24 analysis. 25 MR. BAILEY: I have. I am truly a 77 1 SEDIMENT QUALITY PRESENTATION 2 messenger on this one. I have a prepared 3 statement to read. Our economists are in our 4 Mobile District. We asked for an update. 5 This is what they sent us. I'm going to read 6 it. The final reports have been submitted for 7 the following efforts; commodity forecast in 8 March '05, vessel fleet forecast in August '05, 9 port capacity analysis in November '05, 10 benefits calculation methodology and model in 11 May of '06 and the multiport analysis in August 12 of '06. 13 Those are the reports that have already 14 been completed. And going off script, I 15 checked on the website this morning and most of 16 those are posted already. Commodity forecast, 17 fleet forecast, multiport analysis, they are up 18 there. 19 MR. PARSONS: On the Mobile website? 20 MR. BAILEY: On the -- 21 MR. PARSONS: Harbor Deepening? 22 MR. BAILEY: -- Harbor Deepening Website. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. 24 MR. BAILEY: Number two here, the first 25 and second interim reports for the regional 78 1 SEDIMENT QUALITY PRESENTATION 2 port analysis have been submitted. 3 Independent technical review, (ITR) has 4 been completed on the first interim report. 5 ITR comments have been provided on the second 6 interim report, and the contractor is currently 7 working on the responses to those comments. 8 Responses are due in early January '07. 9 Assuming responses resolve original ITR 10 comments, the contractor will then submit a 11 final regional port analysis report summarizing 12 all efforts. The date for this submittal is 13 yet to be determined. 14 And the third item, the Corps' economic 15 analysis has three parts. The first one, the 16 LNG evaluation report was completed in 17 September of 2006. 18 The second item, the update of data 19 inputs, this effort was completed, however upon 20 further review of information from the model, 21 it was discovered that data pertaining to the 22 without project cargo tons inboard/outboard 23 for each of the benefitting services was 24 inaccurate, and the information provided by one 25 carrier for service was used for all services. 79 1 SEDIMENT QUALITY PRESENTATION 2 Accordingly, the carriers were again 3 contacted for their input. We're currently 4 waiting on this data. 5 And the third one, the third part, 6 operational changes. Efforts continue to 7 gather benefit model operational data for years 8 2004 to 2006, ie vessels, services, TEUs, 9 draft, et cetera. 10 This information will be used to update 11 the baseline from which the future vessel fleet 12 and commerce will be the projected for the 13 period of analysis. Another model update is 14 the inclusion of additional benefitting 15 services. 16 Previous efforts identified three 17 benefitting services, however new services have 18 begun calling on the port. Given these 19 additions, plus the recently passed referendum 20 for Panama Canal expansion, these project 21 changes must be incorporated into the benefits 22 model. 23 Model inputs must be included before 24 changes in model scenarios can be made. That's 25 the report. 80 1 SEDIMENT QUALITY PRESENTATION 2 MR. DYSART: Comments, questions, and 3 what's next? 4 MR. BAILEY: Nothing. 5 MS. MOORER: There's two -- you skipped 6 two things on the first page. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. On the first page is 8 the update on the final versions of the aquifer 9 analysis report. Who is giving that? 10 MS. MOORER: It's not done yet. 11 MR. BAILEY: Correct. 12 MS. MOORER: It's not complete. I can say 13 that much. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. 15 MS. MOORER: I think it's still the 16 external review comments and responses haven't 17 been incorporated finally into the final 18 report. That's why it's not finished. 19 MR. BAILEY: They're in the process of 20 external review. I believe they are going back 21 now to the external reviewers saying here's how 22 we're responding to your comments. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. And the next item we 24 skipped over was the update on the status of 25 the chloride model development. 81 1 SEDIMENT QUALITY PRESENTATION 2 MR. BAILEY: The chloride model we had, it 3 has gone through external review. So we've 4 gotten the external review comments. The Corps 5 has responded to those. 6 The external reviewer did have some 7 concerns about the model. The Corps has 8 written responses to those, and sent those to 9 the -- up to our Wilmington District which is 10 where the engineering chief is located, for him 11 to make a decision on whether we responded 12 appropriately to the external review comments. 13 Their initial reaction is they have 14 responded satisfactorily, but we don't have 15 anything in writing yet that says that. 16 MR. DYSART: Questions, comments about 17 these two items? Seeing none, it appears that 18 we've gone through 4A and 5. 19 MS. MOORER: One thing on 5, schedule of 20 milestones update. 21 MR. DYSART: Excuse me. I'm sorry. 22 MS. MOORER: It's okay, just skip over me. 23 Unfortunately, the schedule has not accelerated 24 any. It now looks like the draft GRR will be 25 out closer to the end of the year. 82 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 It has a lot to do with the model runs 3 and evaluation, and the time that it takes to 4 complete all that back and forth. You run the 5 model, and look at the results, and discover 6 other things you want to look at. 7 So that's taking a little additional time. 8 So the public information meeting that's on the 9 impacts and mitigation, which is a lot of what 10 Bill was going through today, a kind of 11 explanation what's being used to get to 12 decision, that will be pushed back. 13 Larry's been out a bit in December, and 14 the schedule that I have doesn't have that 15 block opened up on it. So I couldn't find out 16 exactly where that falls right now, the public 17 information meeting. As soon as I can get to 18 Larry, we will post a new update of the project 19 milestones. 20 MR. DYSART: In the future, the 21 facilitator will note that when Hope is 22 standing there looking very eager, that means 23 she is ready to make her presentation. I 24 apologize. Okay. Committee reports. Bob 25 Scanlon, Aquifer Committee, anything to report, 83 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 sir? 3 MR. SCANLON: Nothing to report. 4 MR. DYSART: Beach Erosion, anything 5 happening there that anyone is aware of? 6 Would someone like to -- Keith? 7 MR. PARSONS: I saw something in the paper 8 a week or so ago that y'all were undertaking a 9 study for, or a preliminary review, whatever 10 you call it, for the Tybee Island Beach 11 Nourishment Program; is that in any way 12 connected with this effort here? 13 MR. BAILEY: No. That -- 14 MR. PARSONS: Even though, you know, the 15 bar channel and everything which is basically a 16 sand pit in keeping -- 17 MR. BAILEY: -- that study is to look at 18 the effects of the navigation channel on Tybee, 19 the existing channel. 20 MR. PARSONS: Okay. But it doesn't have 21 anything, directly, to do with our efforts 22 here? 23 MR. BAILEY: It's not incremental effect 24 of deepening. We have already looked at that 25 in one of the other studies. 84 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 MR. PARSONS: Okay. 3 MR. DYSART: Hope, do you have something 4 to add? 5 MS. MOORER: He said it. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. On the Beach Erosion 7 Committee, did someone who is familiar say that 8 there was not anything to report? 9 MS. MOORER: I do not think the Beach 10 Erosion Committee has met. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. Fine. Dredging and 12 Disposal, Fred Beason. 13 MR. BEASON: Sir, I can report to you that 14 the committee was contacted, and we've all -- 15 all those that are still involved in the SEG 16 have reviewed the sediment analysis report, 17 some 106 pages that's up on the web that you've 18 seen. 19 We concur that the report indicates there 20 will be dominimus impacts on the sedimentation 21 rates and locations in any of the phases 22 in the deepening. We say thank you. 23 MR. DYSART: Thank you, sir. 24 MR. DYSART: Judy Jennings is not here 25 with Economics Working Group. Could someone 85 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 who is involved report? 3 MR. REES: We haven't done anything. 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. Will Berson is not 5 here from the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 6 Committee. Anyone have any comment on that? 7 Silence. Operating Guidelines, Teri is not 8 here. Striped Bass Committee, Joel Fleming. 9 MR. FLEMING: Haven't met. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. It appears we've gone 11 through the committee reports. Anything 12 anybody else wants to add before we look at the 13 next scheduled meeting? Okay. Got some 14 potential meeting dates below, and could we 15 have some discussion about when reports will be 16 finalized and material will be ready to 17 presented? Hope. 18 MS. MOORER: I would suggest that we 19 continue as we've been doing with the interim 20 SEG meeting in February, with a plan to 21 tentatively hold the next SEG meeting in March. 22 And in the interim SEG, we can, by that 23 time, see if the things that are scheduled to 24 complete in the interim are complete for the 25 SEG meeting forward, and make a recommendation 86 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 from that interim committee. 3 MR. DYSART: Sounds eminently sensible. 4 Any other thoughts? Seeing a broad concurrence 5 around the table, I think that's what the body 6 wants to do. 7 So the interim group will meet in 8 February. We will tentatively set the next SEG 9 meeting for 6th of March, and -- Hope. 10 MS. MOORER: We will send out notices, as 11 we've been doing, as a reminder of the interim 12 meeting, and the results of the interim meeting 13 with a date for the next SEG meeting. 14 Also, we'll try to post the presentation 15 that Bill had today, and you can take another 16 look at that report as well. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. I declare the meeting 18 adjourned, and thank y'all for your 19 participation. I appreciate the presentations, 20 the questions, the comments, and the 21 discussion. Thank you. 22 23 24 25 87 1 2 3 4 C E R T I F I C A T E 5 G E O R G I A 6 CHATHAM COUNTY 7 8 I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript 9 was taken down, as stated in the caption, and the 10 questions and answers thereto were reduced to 11 typewriting under my directions; that the forgoing 12 Pages 1 through 86 represent a true and correct 13 transcript of the evidence given upon said hearing, 14 and I further certify that I am not of kin or 15 counsel to the parties in the case; am not in the 16 regular employ of counsel for any of said parties 17 nor am I in anywise interested in the result of 18 said case. 19 20 This, the 31st day of January, 2007. 21 22 _______________________________ 23 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 24 Reporter, B-2041 25