1 2 3 4 5 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6 7 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 8 9 OCTOBER 1, 2002 10 9:00 A.M. 11 COASTAL GEORGIA CONVENTION CENTER 12 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 5 I N D E X 6 7 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3 8 9 GPA UPDATE ------------------------------------ 7 10 AQUIFER RECOMMENDATIONS STATUS ---------------- 36 11 MITIGATION DISCUSSION ------------------------- 38 12 MTRG ------------------------------------------ 53 13 ECONOMIC WORKINGS GROUP ----------------------- 57 14 NEW BUSINESS ---------------------------------- 59 15 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 76 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 (THE REPORTER: I'm appearing here today on 3 behalf of my employer, Tom Crites & Associates. My 4 office was requested by Georgia Ports Authority to 5 provide a court reporter today at 9:00 a.m. at this 6 address. 7 At the instructions of my employer, I wish to 8 disclose that, other than accepting to serve as 9 your reporter, we have not entered into any other 10 contractual agreement with any party involved in 11 this case.) 12 MR. DYSART: Good morning. I'd like to call 13 the SEG meeting -- I'd like to call the meeting to 14 order, and the first thing we'll do is introduce 15 those at the table starting with Ted Will. 16 I'd invite folks sitting against the wall, we 17 can hear you better, you can see and hear if you'll 18 join us at the table. Ted. 19 MR. WILL: Ted Will, Georgia DNR, Wildlife 20 Resources. 21 MR. MICHAELS: I'm Ron Michaels with Georgia 22 DNR's Coastal Resources Division. I'm here on a 23 temporary basis, since Dr. Stuart Stevens's last 24 day with the department was yesterday. 25 MS. LEFFEK: Teri Leffek with Fife and 4 1 2 Clydesdale Plantations. 3 MR. DYSART: I'm Ben Dysart, facilitator. 4 MR. PLACHY: Doug Plachy, project manager, 5 Savannah District Corps of Engineers. 6 MR. PARSONS: Keith Parsons, Georgia DNR. 7 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, citizen 8 LT. GREENE: Lieutenant Commander Larry Green, 9 chief of port operations, marine safety office of 10 Savannah, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office. 11 LT. GIBBS: Lieutenant Gibbs, assistant. 12 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports. 13 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant for the 14 Georgia Ports. 15 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia Ports 16 Authority. 17 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of Engineers 18 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 19 Service. 20 MR. BROWNING: Donny Browning, Fish and 21 Wildlife Service. 22 MR. FLOCK: Alan Flock, Savannah Coastal 23 Refuge. 24 MR. DRAKE: Sam Drake, citizen. 25 MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of Savannah, 5 1 2 and also the chamber and harbor committee. 3 MR. MIKELL: Rob Mikell, South Carolina DHEC. 4 MR. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 5 Authority. 6 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, Georgia Conservancy. 7 MR. STAFFORD: John Stafford, Ogeechee Audubon 8 Society. 9 MR. BROWNE: Tommy Browne, Savannah Pilots 10 Association. 11 MR. WESLEY: Rick Wesley, Savannah Pilots 12 Association. 13 MR. PHILLIPS: John Phillips, Georgia DOT. 14 MR. SUTLIVE: Charlie Sutlive, Savannah 15 Maritime Association. 16 MR. DYSART: Thank you. We have a quorum 17 here. Cathy and I were talking yesterday. We hope 18 they don't have a quorum out at the other location. 19 She suggested that there might be some people 20 trickling in joining us at this location. The next 21 thing we will do is look at the agenda that has 22 been circulated, the draft agenda proposed for 23 today. 24 This has incorporated all of the items that 25 have been suggested, subsequent to the last SEG 6 1 2 meeting, as well things that were suggested to be 3 on the agenda at the last meeting, including an 4 item or two that the body has decided they would 5 like to have roll forward on the agenda, as far as 6 status reports are concerned. 7 Are there any other items that anyone would 8 like to put on the agenda this morning, in the way 9 of new business? 10 Seeing none, then we will decide that the 11 agenda for today has been approved. And obviously, 12 anybody who is a member of this body can add 13 anything pretty much anyway they want to, anytime 14 they want to, but it is helpful to have an idea of 15 what is anticipated that you want to cover, so we 16 can proceed in an orderly manner. 17 The transcript from the August SEG meeting has 18 been posted. Anybody who has a desire to do so, 19 I'm sure, has read it carefully. Any corrections 20 or comments concerning. 21 MR. KEEGAN: Ben, we had one or two minor 22 edits. Frankly, I didn't bring them with me. I 23 was expecting Morgan to have them. 24 The page 8 -- these are all index edits -- 25 just a presentation of the study of the avian use 7 1 GPA UPDATE 2 of tidal marshes, mitigation discussion, model 3 status discussion, and aquifer study status, just 4 to add those four things to the index, no change to 5 the body. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Other than 7 that, any comments? Then we will presume with 8 those suggestions or comments, that Larry read into 9 the record today, that we have things sufficiently. 10 Let's proceed then, if it's satisfactory with 11 you, go ahead with the old business. And the first 12 thing is the GPA update providing relevant 13 information on items raised by the SEG. 14 I notice that Morgan is not here, and we have 15 an exceptionally capable alternate in the form of 16 Larry Keegan, who probably would have told Morgan 17 what to say anyway. Larry. 18 MR. KEEGAN. Thanks Ben. Hope I can live up 19 to that introduction. Give me just a second, we'll 20 get the screen working here. 21 While it looks for the picture, what the Corps 22 of Engineers and the Port Authority did was we 23 tried to go and put together an outline, if you 24 will, a standing status report, so we could keep 25 this group up-to-date on the status of things going 8 1 GPA UPDATE 2 on. 3 There's so many different things, we didn't 4 want to forget something. So we ask you to bear 5 with us a little bit. We've outlined it here and 6 Cathy will be handing out a copy of this outline to 7 you. 8 The report itself, I'll post on the Harbor 9 Deepening site, so you can see the actual copy. If 10 you want to print one, feel free. 11 What we wanted to cover was the status of 12 coordination between the agencies, and under NEPA, 13 and where we are plan formulation, scientific 14 analyzes, engineering analyzes, and where we are in 15 the schedule. 16 Not all of those pieces have everything 17 working yet, but I'll run through the brief here 18 quickly. And we have -- any questions, I'm sure 19 people will want to know more detail, either I'll 20 handle them or I'll defer to Doug Plachy to answer 21 the questions. 22 Coordination, as some of you know, there was a 23 general reevaluation scoping meeting that was held 24 7 and 8 of August. That pretty thorough two day 25 event covered a number of the topics. We're 9 1 GPA UPDATE 2 excepting what the Corps calls a project guidance 3 memorandum. 4 That basically spells out the answers to the 5 things that were discussed, and says here's how you 6 should proceed in doing this study. That comes 7 from headquarters in the district. 8 That's not in hand yet, but it's expected, and 9 Doug may talk a little bit later, I think, on the 10 agenda about the GSRM, so I won't go into anymore 11 detail. 12 Lead and cooperating agencies most recently 13 met in Charleston, and all the agencies were 14 present. We're starting to look at, in this case, 15 we talked a lot about model development, fishery 16 impact, wetland impact. We're really starting to 17 get that whole area off the ground, get our hands 18 around it. 19 There is a draft of that meeting minutes, I 20 believe it's just about finalized. Once it is, 21 we'll go ahead and post that so you can see the 22 details. 23 I might mention, at this point, that the Corps 24 of Engineers will be putting up a dedicated 25 Internet site, for this project, under their 10 1 GPA UPDATE 2 projects, as well as we'll continue to keep running 3 what we've been running. 4 You may see some things listed in one place, 5 but when you choose the hyperlink, you'll go to the 6 other site and vice versa, just by way of 7 information. 8 There's another whole section called 9 interagency coordination. This is a provision for 10 a bit of structured way to work amongst not just 11 cooperating agencies, but state agencies as well, 12 to deal with various issues. 13 As you can see, fisheries started on the 18th 14 of September. We're looking to work groundwater in 15 mid October -- is that still looking reasonable, 16 Bill, mid October -- water quality, sediment 17 placement, wetlands, those particular coordination 18 activities are not off the ground. 19 Plan formulation then, economic analyzes, 20 we're working -- the Corps is actually working to 21 finalize the draft for contract work to develop 22 some of the updated background information, 23 projection information and all, 24 to contract that. 25 Doug's going to talk about independent 11 1 GPA UPDATE 2 external review when he talks about the scoping 3 meeting results. That's being looked at for 4 economic analysis, and talking with IWR about 5 projecting the fleet forecast to get their 6 recommendations, their guidance. 7 So that work is generating, we'll probably be 8 starting in the next month or so with a contract 9 award for the background work and all, as soon as 10 we get that settled. 11 Another part of the plan formulation is 12 alternatives. We're still working up project 13 alternatives in the definition that the Corps has 14 for conducting these type of studies. 15 There's very specific requirements of how you 16 deal with alternatives, how you identify them and 17 put them together. We're still working on that. 18 It's going to be more than just what we had 19 and worked with in the feasibility study, but we 20 don't know the full range of what they're going to 21 be yet. 22 We'll wind up going through a screening and 23 evaluation process to work down to the final 24 alternatives, which will then receive the detailed 25 analysis for any NED action. 12 1 GPA UPDATE 2 Okay. And the scientific analysis evaluation, 3 this is the bulk of what we've been doing all 4 along. The first one is hydrodynamic and salinity 5 model. We have three cooperating federal agencies 6 that have agreed with the model's performance. 7 The Corps of Engineers is putting together 8 their final evaluation. As part of their review, 9 we did an independent technical review, and we're 10 working to resolve some of their comments. 11 We have the resolutions all laid out. It's a 12 matter of carrying them through and documenting 13 them, and a few review comments, but the bottom 14 line is we anticipate that that model's calibration 15 will be have been accepted by the cooperating 16 agencies this month. 17 We also -- the Corps has solicited inputs from 18 the other agency, state and local agency members of 19 the MTRG, and we've gotten one set that I've seen 20 so far. That came from Jack Blanton at Skidaway 21 Institute, who is representing Georgia DNR. 22 We've discussed his comments and we're looking 23 to resolve those, if we can. Bill, did you tell me 24 Georgia EPD had responded to you? 25 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 13 1 GPA UPDATE 2 MR. KEEGAN: That's the other Georgia agency 3 you've heard from? 4 MR. BAILEY: Right. 5 MR. KEEGAN: And South Carolina -- 6 MR. BAILEY: DHEC. 7 MR. KEEGAN: -- DHEC has written to you. I 8 don't know of any issues with either of their 9 responses at this point. 10 MR. BAILEY: Right. 11 MR. KEEGAN: So the bottom line is we think 12 we're finally coming to closure on the performance 13 of hydrodynamic and salinity model. It's going to 14 a useful tool very shortly for prediction. It also 15 means it is going to be a valid basis on which to 16 do the dissolved oxygen model. 17 That approval of the dissolved oxygen model 18 performance and calibration is starting to crank 19 up. In September, the initial issue of the 20 calibration approval package was released around 21 the 15th, wasn't it, Bill? 22 MR. BAILEY: Right. 23 MR. KEEGAN: That went to the MTRG members and 24 included the federal agencies. There was an MTRG 25 meeting, and Bo will speak very briefly -- I wasn't 14 1 GPA UPDATE 2 there -- a little bit later on, to take an initial 3 look at it. From what I understand, there was 4 discussion of where that stands, and a number of 5 questions asked that will go back with responses to 6 the MTRG. 7 Federal agencies have not yet had any 8 substantive discussion about the dissolved oxygen 9 model. We've been focusing with that group on the 10 hydrodynamic and salinity model. 11 We hope that we will have dissolved oxygen 12 performance satisfactory -- help me, Doug -- 13 November, does that sound right? 14 MR. PLACHY: December. 15 MR. KEEGAN: I think it's November. That's 16 going to be an intensive period to get to that 17 point. And just like with hydrodynamic and 18 salinity model, we'll get formal responses from the 19 federal agencies. 20 I'm sure the Corps will request the agency 21 comments from the other members of the MTRG. We'll 22 work to resolve those. We'll eventually get a 23 summary letter from the district about the 24 dissolved oxygen model and its performance. 25 Next on the list, I have a marsh succession 15 1 GPA UPDATE 2 model. No secret to anybody that there's great 3 concern over what was the happening to the 4 freshwater marshes, particularly in the wildlife 5 refuge, since the removal of the tide gate from 6 operation how much have they reverted, seceded back 7 to freshwater species. 8 And consequently, if we made the channel 9 deeper what would the effect be on that if it 10 creates secession, how many acres would be 11 impacted? 12 That's a very ambition project. We've had now 13 almost two years of data going on, working very 14 closely with Fish and Wildlife, and we're coming to 15 the point of trying to actually develop the model 16 itself. 17 The methodology to do that modelling is going 18 to be very complex. We're trying very hard to put 19 together a meeting in October to settle that 20 question, just like with any other model approach 21 like this, at least I figured out that modellers 22 all have preferences, and they all have all 23 different approaches. 24 So one of the biggest challenges is to get 25 them to agree on the approach that we were going to 16 1 GPA UPDATE 2 take. We were hoping to do that on the 11th of 3 October, have that session, but we may be forced 4 into doing it later in the month because of 5 peoples' schedules and commitments. 6 What complicates that effort is the presence 7 of the drought that we've been experiencing almost 8 five years, I think is -- close to five years. We 9 have some field data, particularly of the '97 era 10 data that was in non-drought conditions, but much 11 of what we've collected this time has been under 12 drought conditions. 13 And the effect of the drought is very 14 important to being able to accurately predict 15 seccession. In my terms, we have to take the 16 effect of the drought out of what has happened to 17 the plant community in the marshes now, and figure 18 out where they would have been had we not had a 19 drought, to have a starting point along with how 20 much seccession would eventually occur to figure 21 out an impact. And that's hard to do, very hard to 22 do. 23 We've got to start. We've got a way to 24 predict what water flows would have been, if we 25 didn't have a drought. That was done by USGS on 17 1 GPA UPDATE 2 data that they have been collecting for a long 3 time, but it's a very, very difficult issue we're 4 dealing with, frankly, well beyond my expertise. 5 Ed, Bill, anything you might want to add on that? 6 MR. MIKELL: Larry, can I ask a question? 7 MR. KEEGAN: Sure. 8 MR. MIKELL: Why would you eliminate the 9 drought conditions? It seems like that's a natural 10 occurrence. It's going to be the worst case 11 scenario. Why would the model not include the 12 drought? 13 MR. KEEGAN: I would be inclined to agree with 14 you, Mr. Mikell, but I'm going to defer to Ed and 15 let Ed answer the question. 16 MR. EUDALY: One issue is that under the 17 drought conditions, we've probably eliminated most 18 of our tidal freshwater marsh already. So we feel 19 it's probably -- and if you do that, if you've 20 eliminated it, you've already eliminated most of 21 the tidal freshwater marsh, you won't able to 22 demonstrate the effect of the harbor deepening on 23 most of the tidal freshwater. 24 We feel it's best to use baseline conditions, 25 use normal growing conditions, or normal conditions 18 1 GPA UPDATE 2 to kind of establish what the -- what the tidal 3 freshwater marsh delineation would have been under 4 those conditions, and then look at the impact under 5 those conditions. 6 That's really, I think, the most reasonable 7 way to do it is to look at the normal growing 8 season condition. We do have a drought every 10, 9 20, 100 years. I mean, it varies depending on the 10 severity of the drought. 11 This is probably one of the most severe 12 droughts, if not the most severe drought on record. 13 So it doesn't make a lot of sense to do the 14 analysis under those conditions. It's better to 15 look at more normal conditions. 16 MR. KEEGAN: Any others? 17 MR. DYSART: Judy Jennings. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Well, Ed touched on part of my 19 question. As in the severity of the drought and 20 how frequently it might occur and when you might 21 reasonably expect it to occur again, but I'm going 22 to have a bit of a problem with the model, when you 23 change the input. 24 I can't help what the input was, neither can 25 you. And I know you have the past to put into it. 19 1 GPA UPDATE 2 This is the most severe drought. Obviously, 3 there's some past data, and the projection is as to 4 what might happen in the future. 5 In terms of predicting actually what the river 6 might look like, I don't want to ignore some 7 macroeconomic changes that we're not actually 8 assessing here. 9 But if you try to manipulate that, in any way, 10 you might subvert macroeconomic changes that we're 11 not modelling that still the model should encompass 12 them. Does that make sense? 13 My concern is you can't take out the drought. 14 That's what it is. The fact it's the worse one 15 we've had is a fact. 16 I can't be sure it's the worst one we're ever 17 going to have ever. I can't be sure it's not the 18 first of a lot of worst. 19 MR. EUDALY: It is A difficult problem, and 20 one thing we're going to try and do -- well, we've 21 got -- USGS has done some work on looking at the 22 relationship between the various flows and the 23 river stages under drought and non-drought 24 conditions. 25 We've got a long hydrological record, 15 or 20 1 GPA UPDATE 2 more years, actually probably like 80, 90, 100 3 years. We've got a lot of data where we can go 4 back and hindcast conditions at the various 5 stages, and look the relationships there. 6 So that's one way to do it. Unfortunately, 7 with all the biological -- most of the biological 8 studies that have been done over the last two 9 years, the most intense studies have been in a very 10 severe drought of record. 11 It's a tough problem. We're trying to look at 12 ways of dealing with it. USGS is providing us a 13 lot of statistics on that. They're the main 14 scientific partners working with us. 15 I don't want to minimize the problem. It's a 16 tough situation we've pretty much got to deal with 17 it. Some decision will probably have to made 18 pretty soon. 19 We're going to try and figure out a way to try 20 and translate the data with the tools we have. One 21 thing we're going to look at is perhaps 22 hindcasting, trying to project back using various 23 tools we've got, various models. We do some 24 vegetation data from over the years, 80s and early 25 90s, and try to use those -- use that data to 21 1 GPA UPDATE 2 predict what the situation would be without the 3 drought. 4 And then, we can use the hydrodynamic model to 5 look at various deepening alternatives, and try to 6 project the impacts from that baseline. So it's 7 not a trivial problem, and it's made more -- it is 8 made more complicated by most of the studies being 9 done during the drought. 10 MR. DYSART: Will. 11 MR. BERSON: I thought I understood this until 12 everybody started talking about it. Now I'm not so 13 sure. Check my thinking here. 14 If you take the data now, the drought data as 15 baseline data, and you look at a project under 16 those conditions, and you get more water flow down 17 the Savannah, doesn't the environment end up being 18 protected that much more anyway? 19 You're basically working off the worst case 20 scenario, which if that exists it's not the worst 21 case scenario. We're living it right now. So 22 since I work for an environment group, I guess my 23 question is wouldn't using drought data be the most 24 protective of the environment? 25 MR. EUDALY: Let me try to make an example. 22 1 GPA UPDATE 2 What the Corps does is uses with and without the 3 project. If you take without the project, 4 conditions in a drought, and it shows most of the 5 marsh under the drought conditions has been 6 brackish marsh, lower diversity than tidal 7 freshwater, if you start from that baseline and 8 then you're looking at deepening say six feet, and 9 it shows very little change under drought 10 conditions, you show no impact. I think the most 11 reasonable way to do it is normalize it and look at 12 normal growing season conditions. 13 That's really what controls the biological 14 community out there. So if you look under those 15 conditions, you show -- we feel there's still a 16 fair amount of tidal freshwater marsh out there. 17 Then you look at deepening on top of that, that's 18 going to demonstrate the true impact of deepening. 19 MR. BERSON: Then if -- I guess I would be 20 interested in seeing, in addition -- I accept your 21 logic. I understand the logic of it. 22 I guess I would sort of like to know if we 23 started doing this project now, under the current 24 conditions, what would the impact be? 25 I mean the real life, no doing backwards math 23 1 GPA UPDATE 2 before we get started on the model, it seems to me 3 unless we get a tropical storm very quickly, it is 4 going to be the result of the river at the end of 5 project in any case. Do you understand what I'm 6 saying? 7 If the conditions continue and persist, your 8 logic will not hold because we will be living in 9 the same conditions. It's been 5 years, it could 10 be 7 years, it could be 10. Nobody seems to know 11 what's going to happen in the future. 12 I guess what I'm saying is I don't argue with 13 your logic on how to proceed. I guess I'm asking 14 if there is a value of doing a simultaneous 15 projection using -- not doing the backwards math 16 first? 17 MR. EUDALY: When we go to various 18 applications of the model, we're probably looking 19 at various flows. There's that potential. You can 20 use the model as a tool to look at various 21 conditions. You can look at drought conditions, 22 normal flow conditions, so I wouldn't surprised if 23 we do. 24 We haven't really decided on the applications 25 yet. Really, the Corps uses a 50 year project life 24 1 GPA UPDATE 2 for this project, I believe, so you have to try and 3 -- your analysis has to consider that 50 years. 4 And we could be seeing some climate change. 5 We don't know. We, basically, have to use the 6 past a lot as a guide to predicting the future. 7 We're hopeful this drought will break in the 8 near future. I think there's a good likelihood of 9 that. 10 MR. BERSON: Hope so. 11 MR. EUDALY: Yeah, I think it's fairly likely. 12 So we're -- we think maybe the hydrologic patterns 13 in the past will return, and we'll see a wet cycle. 14 We'll see some more drought cycles down the road. 15 So I guess we have to base it on the probabilities 16 of what's going to happen. 17 MR. DYSART: Seeing no cards up, you want to 18 continue, Larry. 19 MR. KEEGAN: Be happy to. I mentioned earlier 20 there was some interagency coordination that went 21 on concerning fisheries. That focused on how to 22 use the water quality modelling tools. 23 And I'm going to lump both the hydrodynamic 24 and salinity model and dissolved oxygen model in 25 that category, because you have to use outputs from 25 1 GPA UPDATE 2 each, depending on the species and what you are 3 looking at apparently. 4 But the question is, how to use them, what to 5 model, how to evaluate the predicted changes and 6 translate that to project impacts? 7 The Corps has been working hard to understand 8 how those impacts will be judged, so that we can 9 provide the information, and the data, and the 10 projections, and the simulation runs that the 11 various regulatory agencies want or need to see. 12 It's safe to say, I think, most of the work 13 along those lines has occurred with striped bass. 14 That use of a model to evaluate striped bass 15 effects, thanks to Ed and Ted's efforts, are the 16 furthest along, I think. 17 The habitat suitability index model for 18 striped bass is pretty close to usability, is that 19 right? We're trying to do a similar approach with 20 the other species of concern, but we don't have the 21 same progress yet. 22 That's part of, I think, what -- Bill, you're 23 working on next go round for that sometime in 24 October or November to put that together? 25 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 26 1 GPA UPDATE 2 MR. KEEGAN: Hurricane surge, I'm sure some of 3 you in here remember we had discussion of hurricane 4 surge several, several meetings ago. 5 Just to bring you back up-to-date, we did some 6 preliminary evaluation of the change in the water 7 level that might occur, with a deeper channel using 8 the hydrodynamic and salinity model, as it existed 9 after the feasibility study, right Bo? 10 MR. ELLIS: Right. 11 MR. KEEGAN: NOAA provided us the conditions 12 Hugo demonstrated when it came ashore in South 13 Carolina. We can use actual hurricane conditions 14 to make that initial screening run. 15 The results there were that the predicted 16 amount of change, resulted from a deeper channel, 17 probably within the error band of the model, 18 probably. 19 Now, once we have hydrodynamic and salinity 20 calibration accepted and we've got all that 21 resolved, we have to go back and revisit this 22 question, and see if this newly calibrated version 23 holds up. That's a future item. Any questions? 24 Aquifer. That's on the agenda later, isn't 25 it, Ben, specific discussion of aquifer? 27 1 GPA UPDATE 2 MR. DYSART: Yes. 3 MR. KEEGAN: I'm not going to steal Doug's 4 thunder. He's going to talk about aquifer, where 5 the recommendations are, what we're going to do 6 here in little bit. So I just as soon move on, 7 unless someone has a question now. 8 Okay. I'm going to go now from the scientific 9 analysis into the engineering and other analysis 10 work that's going on. River hydraulic modelling, 11 sedimentation pattern, not started yet, no 12 activity. 13 Advanced maintenance evaluation, that's the 14 Corps maintenance practices of being able to dredge 15 areas of the channel deeper than the project depth, 16 in order to more economically maintain it. That 17 evaluation has not started yet. 18 Ship simulation is underway. Finishing up, I 19 believe, the calibration of the simulator and the 20 simulator's performance -- where did he go? Where 21 is Captain Brown? You were out there with them in 22 September to look at the performance, weren't you? 23 MR. BROWNE: Yes, also tomorrow. 24 MR. KEEGAN: Going back tomorrow. I 25 understand that going pretty well. We don't have 28 1 GPA UPDATE 2 any results yet. The actual simulation runs, 3 they're going to start tomorrow or when you go 4 back later in the month? 5 MR. BROWNE: We're still validating. I think 6 it will start in the middle of October and go 7 through November and December. 8 MR. KEEGAN: There's a lot of effort going on. 9 We don't have any results from ship simulation yet. 10 That's focused on how well will the channel support 11 ship handling. 12 Do we have any places where the channel needs 13 to be made wider or maybe could be made narrower, 14 without compromising safety or anything; is that 15 a fair evaluation? 16 MR. BROWNE: Except for the narrowing. That 17 was close. 18 MR. KEEGAN: Okay. Bank stability. 19 MR. DYSART: Judy has a question. 20 MR. KEEGAN: I'm sorry, Judy. 21 MS. JENNINGS: Tommy, the ship simulation, all 22 we can do is look at what they simulate from this 23 harbor deepening project; for instance, we're not 24 considering any other modifications to the river 25 that might be a consequence of some other project 29 1 GPA UPDATE 2 on the river? 3 MR. BROWNE: Not as far as I know, no. 4 MR. KEEGAN: Like what. 5 MS. JENNINGS: Any other harbor project or any 6 modification to the river, in terms of enlargement 7 of the turning basin; specifically, I'm talking 8 about the expansion of the liquefied natural gas 9 facilities or the prospect of a Jasper port. 10 So when you say simulate, you're simulating 11 for what they drew for this harbor project? 12 MR. KEEGAN: We're not simulating, that I 13 know of -- Doug -- any change, at the LNG facility. 14 MR. PLACHY: No, because the size isn't going 15 to control the vessel. 16 MR. KEEGAN: We're simulating the turning 17 basin arrangement as it is today, right? 18 MR. PLACHY: The new turning basin that was 19 put in by LNG. 20 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah, that's it. 21 MR. PLACHY: Right. 22 MS. JENNINGS: That's the answer. 23 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. 24 MR. BROWNE: It's actually written as a harbor 25 improvement instead of harbor deepening, so they're 30 1 GPA UPDATE 2 looking at different things in it as well. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Right, right, but the 4 parameters associated with this expansion project. 5 MR. BROWNE: Pretty close, as far as I know, 6 they're pretty close. 7 MR. KEEGAN: Okay. Bank stability, that 8 effort to look at river and channel bank stability 9 is underway. Samples have been taken by the Corps 10 of Engineers. They're at the laboratory now for 11 physical analysis. 12 Once we get that information back, the next 13 step is then to try and predict what will happen, 14 based on the physical analysis of the material. 15 Dredge material disposal, this is not yet 16 started. This will deal with disposal capacity and 17 what effect will the -- this change have on that 18 disposal capacity. 19 We talked about dredging material and physical 20 analysis already. Dredge material usage 21 evaluation, that's -- think in terms of possible 22 beneficial usage of material that's going to be 23 dredged for a deeper channel. 24 That's the place where we'll look at where 25 that could be used, what it could be used for, what 31 1 GPA UPDATE 2 the costs will be, what's viable, what isn't. It 3 hasn't started yet. 4 Cost estimating, well downstream. We need to 5 know what we're evaluating before we put a cost on 6 what it will take to build it. 7 Sediment quality determination, sediment 8 sampling, an analysis plan has been drafted. It's 9 in review now with the Savannah District and state 10 and EPA, right, Bill? State agencies, water 11 quality agencies, and EPA to look at the whole 12 scope of where, what, how it will be analyzed, and 13 eventually to give the answers of what to do with 14 that sediment if there are any contaminant issues. 15 Is that a fair summation? 16 MR. BAILEY: Except the last little -- 17 basically, not what to do, where to sample, what to 18 look for. 19 MR. KEEGAN: We'll determine what we're 20 dealing with, basically, and then we'll have the 21 answers. If there are any issues, how to deal with 22 it. 23 MR. BAILEY: Right. 24 MR. KEEGAN: Okay. Cultural resources. We 25 haven't talked about cultural resources for a long 32 1 GPA UPDATE 2 time. We've known all long that CSS Georgia was 3 in the way of the channel out. Our conclusion in 4 feasibility was there was no way to avoid it, so 5 we're taking the first steps to assess what we have 6 to do in terms of dealing CSS Georgia. There's a 7 -- what is does Judy call it -- cooperating 8 agencies? 9 MR. PLACHY: Consulting parties. 10 MR. KEEGAN: Consulting parties. State 11 historical preservation officers from Georgia, 12 South Carolina, park service. Gosh, there's a 13 whole array of federal agencies; Department of the 14 Navy, who are the guys that actually own it. 15 MR. PLACHY: General Services. 16 MR. KEEGAN: GSA's working on this. We have 17 involved the very same people from park service who 18 worked on the CSS Hundley exploration and recovery. 19 Some of them also worked on the Monitor 20 recovery efforts. The dive team has got many of 21 the same members that does the archeological diving 22 on the Arizona in Pearl Harbor, so very, very 23 experienced and talented people. 24 The first contract has been let to do the 25 archival research about The Georgia, try to 33 1 GPA UPDATE 2 discovery whatever we can that exists documenting 3 that vessel, what did it look like, how big was it, 4 what was in it. 5 It was just not a very good record. I'm kind 6 of excited about this. I want to see what this 7 group comes up with. Also, finalizing the scope of 8 work for the exploratory diving on the site itself, 9 to identify the expanse, what sorts of things are 10 there. 11 This is the first step in figuring out what to 12 do. And by the time we get done, it should map out 13 what's physically there at the site. It's just not 14 known. It's a very, very difficult task. 15 Visibility is miserable, high currents, ship 16 traffic, boat traffic -- it's going to be tough, 17 but good people are working on it. I'm really 18 excited about that. We'll try to keep you apprised 19 as that goes along. 20 Other thing that we've done in terms of 21 cultural resources, we've done the initial remote 22 sensing survey work for areas of the river that 23 might be affected by channel designs we had at the 24 end of the feasibility study. 25 We have to go look and see if there are 34 1 GPA UPDATE 2 anomalies there and go investigate them. I haven't 3 seen results of that. I think there are a couple 4 of places that have to be investigated, from what I 5 recall Judy saying. 6 Judy Wood is the Corps' expert on this. Many 7 of you probably know Judy. I don't know the 8 details about it at this point. I guess the next 9 step is to go figure out what these anomalies are 10 that showed up. 11 MR. PLACHY: They're diving on them, the ones 12 in the entrance of the channel, this winter, and 13 they're in the midst of awarding the contract to 14 look at the inner harbor parcels. 15 MR. KEEGAN: Okay. And then finally schedule. 16 I know many people have asked about the schedule in 17 the past. We're looking at July of '05, for having 18 a general evaluation study completed, the report 19 completed, and the decision process completed. 20 It's ambitious. It's not a lot of room, if 21 we have unknowns come up. But I think Doug and I 22 both agree we have a good schedule here. We think 23 we can make it, barring some unforeseen thing come 24 up. 25 MR. PARSONS: What was the projected date? 35 1 GPA UPDATE 2 MR. KEEGAN: July of 2005. I've talked about 3 most of the things. You can see here -- you can 4 see a great deal of work needs to happen in 2003. 5 A great deal of foundation work needs to be 6 included. 7 We're getting there. This whole thing I'll 8 post on the site probably later today, so you can 9 have it. Any questions? I probably outlived my 10 usefulness here. 11 MR. PLACHY: Larry, one thing you probably 12 should mention, that date in 2005 is when it is 13 estimated everything will be wrapped up. 14 Probably, for most people in this room, what 15 would be of interest is the date of draft EIS for 16 public comment, and that's September of '04. 17 MR. KEEGAN: Right. 18 MR. DYSART: Further comments? 19 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you very much. 20 MR. DYSART: Thank you, Larry. Next item is 21 the discussion of the Aquifer Committee's 22 recommendations. Chris wanted to make sure that 23 there was discussion about that on a regular basis, 24 so discussion is open. 25 MR. PLACHY: Did you want me to give a report 36 1 AQUIFER RECOMMENDATIONS STATUS 2 on it? 3 MR. DYSART: Yes. 4 MR. PLACHY: I had promised Chris that, as we 5 did last time, we will continue to report on the 6 status of the Aquifer Committee recommendations, 7 while we're still working those at the district. 8 I'm trying to find my notes here. We are 9 still in the process of putting together what 10 additional studies and analysis would be, and 11 there's six points that we're addressing with this. 12 I can go ahead and read these. 13 The first one is what if any impact will 14 additional removal miocene sediments will have upon 15 the water quality of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in 16 the Savannah area. 17 The second one is the rate and quantity of 18 saltwater leakage through the Upper Floridan 19 confining unit that may result from harbor 20 deepening. 21 The third is change in chloride 22 concentrations with tide in the Upper Floridan 23 Aquifer that may be caused by harbor deepening 24 alternatives. 25 Fourth is the hydraulic properties; salinity 37 1 AQUIFER RECOMMENDATIONS STATUS 2 and hydraulic head within the Upper Floridan 3 confining unit. 4 Fifth is the hydraulic properties and geometry 5 of various paleochannels and sediments below the 6 river. 7 Six is a better defined geologic framework. 8 Those are the six items that we intend to address 9 as we're putting together this framework and scope 10 of work. 11 As I mentioned the last time we met, all of 12 the information and all of the recommendations that 13 came out of the Aquifer Working Group was used and 14 synthesized, and is part of what we're putting 15 together, and what we've been working on right now 16 is to more define, specifically, what would occur 17 to accomplish those things, and to try to get 18 numbers on what kind of costs we're looking at. 19 Once that all is assembled, it will be staffed 20 within the agency as a decision document to 21 determine how much additional work needs to be 22 done, in order to meet those six needs. 23 We're instilling this in that. When that 24 occurs, and as soon as those decisions are made, 25 we'll make sure everybody is kept informed. At 38 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 this point, we haven't reached that point. 3 MR. DYSART: Comments or further discussion? 4 Thank you, Doug. We'll look to you for an update 5 subsequently. Okay. The next item is mitigation 6 discussion, continuing from the last couple of 7 meetings. 8 This is kind of a consensus within the SEG 9 group that you wanted to talk about that on a 10 regular basis, so the floor is now open. 11 MR. PLACHY: At the last SEG meeting, a 12 request was made that the Corps provide some kind 13 of initial listing of potential mitigation actions. 14 And we've done that. Bill has pulled that 15 together. We're passing them around the room right 16 now, so hopefully it meets the request we got at 17 the last meeting. 18 MR. DYSART: Further comments, discussion? 19 MR. BAILEY: The list that we prepared was 20 with the ideas I could come up with. They're not 21 saying the Corps is going to do all these things. 22 I'm not sure if these things, some of them, if 23 they're technically feasible. They are just 24 some that -- we're not sure of the cost on some of 25 these items -- on any of them. 39 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 They are just conceptual ideas at this point, 3 sort of a starting point for discussion here. 4 Hopefully, the group can add more ideas. 5 MR. DYSART: Between hydrology and mitigation, 6 we're certainly getting into the realm of 7 uncertainty and so forth this morning. Ed. 8 MR. EUDALY: One thing that could be added, 9 you have got several alternatives here, dealing 10 with the tide gate. I don't think you mentioned 11 just tide gate removal on that, so that's probably 12 one that should be added to that. 13 MR. PARSONS: Would issues like the tide gate 14 removal actually entail another permitting process? 15 Something like removal of a federal structure may 16 actually have to go Congress for funding. Would 17 that be appropriate mitigation purposes for this 18 project? 19 MR. BAILEY: I think you've got -- I hear two 20 different things. One is the evaluation of it, the 21 environmental evaluation that could be done in this 22 EIS. The authorization and approvals, that's a 23 different issue that may have to go before Congress 24 because it is -- that structure is an authorized 25 federal project. 40 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 If you are taking it away, Congress may want 3 to have a say in that. They said to build it, so 4 you're right. Something like that may have to go 5 to Congress. 6 MR. PARSONS: A number of these, particularly 7 dealing with the wetlands and water quality, 8 require what appears to be significant changes in 9 the hydraulic structures of the river itself. Can 10 those be worked into the model? 11 MR. DYSART: Larry. 12 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah. I think we can say very 13 clearly that the model will be able to evaluate 14 those, and that's part of the use we anticipate for 15 the hydrodynamic and salinity in particular, but 16 dissolved oxygen probably as well. 17 MR. DYSART: Sam. 18 MR. DRAKE: Relative to the tide gate, there's 19 a study underway right now looking at that 20 structure. 21 MR. PLACHY: That's a federal navigation 22 feature that was installed at 100% federal cost 23 back then. The only way that we could, as part of 24 that particular feature, look at things like 25 freshwater diversion canals, et cetera, would be 41 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 to do what is called a 261 Study, which is a 3 disposition of an existing project. 4 Yes, that's underway. It was initiated in 5 this fiscal year as an independent study. That's 6 kind of where there may be some confusion. If that 7 261 Study comes up with a recommendation of 8 dispensation -- disposition of that project, that 9 would have to go back to Congress, which is 10 separate and apart from this project that wants to 11 do something with that structure that's within the 12 authority of this project. 13 There's some conflicting things, but they 14 marry up in the sense this project may not touch 15 that structure at all, but there may need to be 16 something done with that structure, and/or things 17 that were constructed as part of the tide gate, 18 like the freshwater diversion canals. 19 So, there are parallel actions that are going 20 on right now that may come back together or may 21 divert. We don't know where that's going yet. 22 MR. DRAKE: Could we take break for about 15 23 minutes and review this list, so we can have 24 discussion of it? 25 MR. DYSART: Why don't let's -- you need 10, 42 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 15 how much do you want? Let's take a 10 minute 3 break and try to get back as soon we can. 4 (Short Break) 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's come back to order. 6 Let's see, we've got several tents up. Teri's tent 7 is up. John's is up. Teri. 8 MS. LEFFEK: I just wanted to put on the 9 record thank you to the Corps for doing this, to 10 both Bill and Doug for coming up with a list to 11 start with. 12 We danced around this subject the last 13 meeting. It's nice to have something constructive 14 -- you know -- a constructive starting place. I 15 wanted to thank both of them for doing that 16 MR. PHILLIPS: I just had a couple of 17 questions. I wasn't at the last meeting. I 18 apologize for that. 19 Two items say remove existing dikes. I want 20 to get clarification of what that was. I don't 21 want to waste time. 22 MR. BAILEY: Which one? 23 MR. PHILLIPS: On wetlands. 24 MR. PLACHY: Four bullets down. 25 MR. PHILLIPS: It's listed twice, remove 43 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 existing dikes. 3 MR. BAILEY: Again, that's conceptual. I 4 didn't have any particular ones in mind. Taking 5 out something that's there now. 6 MR. PHILLIPS: Dikes around the disposal 7 areas? 8 MR. BAILEY: It could be disposal area dikes, 9 it could be dikes in the refuge. 10 MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. On the second page, 11 excuse me, third page, sediment placement and beach 12 erosion about the one, two, three, four, fifth line 13 down, sixth line down talking about sediments from 14 Jones Oyster Bed Island. 15 Are you still planning on continuing to use 16 that as a disposal area, or are you going to remove 17 what was in there out? 18 MR. BAILEY: That was to continue to use that 19 as a disposal area, which is to take out what's 20 there. 21 MR. DYSART: Judy. 22 MS. JENNINGS: You know, one of the reasons 23 I've been an advocate of working that mitigation 24 option, it will lead us through a detailed analysis 25 and discussion on impacts. 44 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 I'm assuming these, as you said, were made up 3 without a true brainstorming fashion, they were not 4 costed, and that's great. That was the concept we 5 talked about, but can we talk about methodology for 6 discussing them? 7 I mean, what is the appropriate time to look 8 at each one? What are the impacts known to us, to 9 the point where we could -- I mean, brainstorming 10 is great. 11 I understand these are a lot of things. How 12 do we go about systematically discussing them? I 13 would assume we would start with some sort of 14 evaluation of impacts, because I can see some 15 things. I'm thinking yeah, but exactly what? 16 MR. PLACHY: I think the intention of this 17 list is nothing more than to stimulate thought 18 about mitigation actions that occur. Because 19 they're brainstormed, 91 of them have been 20 evaluated whether they're valid. 21 There's been no striking out of those. Our 22 hope is that we would get some feedback with the 23 SEG, in accordance with this chart, in regards to 24 the mitigation planning. Sometime down in the 25 future, there's going to be some very specific 45 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 thought put into how to marry up potential 3 mitigation with a potential impact. 4 That's a ways away. We've got to start 5 somewhere. The intention was this is where we 6 would start. 7 MR. WILL: I was going to keep it in the 8 brainstorming mode and add a mention about a 9 removal of tide gate, and I think also inclusion of 10 sedimentation, a sedimentation basin down below the 11 tide gate, filling that in, would be along the same 12 line. 13 That's how I thought the discussion would 14 progress, then we could kind of go into the other. 15 I thought that's what we were moving towards. 16 MR. DYSART: Sam. 17 MR. DRAKE: Okay. In the interest of 18 following up on the brainstorming, whatever idea is 19 a good idea, I'd like to add one to the list. I'd 20 like to go up to the map and explain it, if I 21 could. 22 MR. DYSART: Please. 23 MR. DRAKE: There are several recommendation 24 in that for removing dikes to create freshwater 25 wetlands, but I'm going to give you one where you 46 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 build a dike to create -- hold saltwater back. 3 Between Highway 17 and the CSX rail line that 4 crosses the Back River, you can use the CSX rail 5 line like a levy. Build a levy from one of the -- 6 the Clydesdale property across to the CSX levy. It 7 would be probably less than a quarter mile. Put in 8 like a rice field trunk there, put a rice field 9 trunk up on the creek, and you could introduce 10 freshwater from that end. 11 There would be several thousand acres of 12 brackish right there you could put back into 13 freshwater marshes, if you are looking for 14 something to have a positive effect on freshwater. 15 I know there are pros and cons to it, but by having 16 one end of it on the canal and the other on the 17 creek, you could have several thousand acres that 18 would go back toward freshwater wetlands. 19 MR. DYSART: Bob, 20 MR. SCANLON: I just wanted to throw in a 21 caveat. I think we need to coordinate looking at 22 some of these wetlands issues. A few of them have 23 to do with controlling the flow of water coming in 24 down the river. 25 I just wanted to make everybody aware, if 47 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 they're not, we want to make sure in all of this 3 planning that there's a lot of studies going on 4 upriver, and there's a lot of discussion of water 5 planning in -- it's not even in its infancy yet. 6 I think it's more the conception stage in a 7 lot of these issues. We need to make sure we 8 coordinate these activities. We don't need to go 9 about making plans for increasing water flow, when 10 someone else is planning to take that water out of 11 river, potentially. 12 MR. DYSART: Donny. 13 MR. BROWNING: In sediment placement, another 14 idea we would need to look at possibly would be 15 sediment placement for commercial operations. 16 MR. DYSART: More comments, brainstorming, 17 contributions to the list? 18 MR. PARSONS: I would like to interject, at 19 this point, that during the general reevaluation 20 scoping meeting -- what's that -- about a month ago 21 or so, there was a fairly broad discussion on 22 mitigation at that time. 23 There seems to be some -- at least from 24 headquarters at the Corps -- there seems to be 25 boundaries on which broader mitigation has to be 48 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 limited, in the sense of cost and applicability 3 towards addressing impacts, as a result of the 4 project versus restoration of existing ecosystems. 5 I'm not really sure how that's going to play 6 out, in developing an acceptable mitigation plan 7 for this project. 8 I think there's a lot of people in this room 9 that are unaware of the comments that were made at 10 that general scoping reevaluation meeting. 11 So I think it's probably appropriate for the 12 Corps to kind of inform the people here, as they 13 talk about mitigation, what some of those 14 boundaries are going to be, in terms of being able 15 to actually mitigate through the impacts of the 16 project versus going beyond project impacts and 17 getting into larger ecosystem restoration-type of 18 projects. Could we have some comments from the 19 Corps in regards to that? 20 MR. PLACHY: I think you summed it up real 21 well. There's different types of mitigation 22 restoration activities, and the authority under 23 this project is that you would mitigate for project 24 impacts. 25 There's some boundaries on that, in terms of 49 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 costs, and I don't want to use the word payback. 3 In other words, if it cost you X dollars to get 10 4 units of something, and it costs you two times to 5 get the next unit, you probably wouldn't go that 6 next step. 7 That's different than saying well, Savannah 8 Harbor has this other -- what I used to call past 9 sins of things that have occurred because of the 10 existence of the channel over the last 100 years. 11 And what are we going to do about those? 12 Well, those are things that we can't address under 13 this project, but as we talk about that, meaning 14 this project can identify some of these things. 15 And we could then spin off on another 16 federally authorized project to look at some of 17 those things. The intention is not to stifle the 18 thing, but to make sure we keep an open mind when 19 identifying the issues, put them in the appropriate 20 box, and not just say, well, we don't want to 21 address that, but actually say, this should be 22 address. We can't address it here. How about we 23 go forth and find something different? 24 I think the 216 Study on the tide gate is an 25 excellent example of that, because it was something 50 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 that preexisted -- it was a preexisting condition. 3 We knew that there was problems with 4 freshwater diversion canals as they are today. 5 That should not be something that this project 6 should have to tackle. So we did get authority to 7 do the 216 Study on the tide gate. That's the kind 8 of thing we're trying to accomplish with it. 9 MR. DYSART: Further comments? Did that help 10 illuminate things, Keith? 11 MR. PARSONS: I just wanted to bring it up for 12 the SEG to understand the thinking of headquarters 13 Corps, as to what we can really expect on what 14 we're actually going able to do in terms of 15 appropriate mitigation for the project as it's 16 being proposed. 17 MR. DYSART: Larry. 18 MR. KEEGAN: I just wanted to add to it, Doug, 19 I think those discussions Keith was talking about 20 will be reflected in the PGM that results from the 21 scoping meeting, and the plan is to make the whole 22 text of that available, once we have it back. It 23 might add a little more clarity to the situation. 24 MR. PARSONS: Thank you. 25 MR. DYSART: Further comments, questions? 51 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 Will, we always need wisdom from you. You don't 3 have wisdom on this topic? 4 MR. BERSON: Thank you very much. This is a 5 great start. I actually read the transcript before 6 I walked in so I could vote with confidence. This 7 is exactly what we asked for. I thank you very 8 much. 9 MR. DYSART: Thank you very much. Okay. If 10 there are no further comments on that, I appreciate 11 all the inputs that have been responsive. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Well, except that what are we 13 going to do with it? I mean, it's a great piece of 14 work. It's cool, but you know, the question has 15 been raised what are -- what options are feasible 16 in terms of the confines of this project, and what 17 might need other authorization or funding? 18 I asked about impacts, and to me that's the 19 first step, but I'm reminded this was 20 brainstorming. To me it should be useful. 21 MR. DYSART: What direction would you like to 22 see things go next time on this? Apparently, 23 people have said they would like to see a 24 brainstorm. 25 People have said they would like to see a 52 1 MITIGATION DISCUSSION 2 list, a menu pulled together. That's been done. 3 There's been discussion. 4 What would the body like to see the shape or 5 the direction of the next step of discussion on 6 this be next time? Teri. 7 MS. LEFFEK: It was my understanding, please 8 correct me if I'm not correct, that this was a work 9 in progress, that this would be brought back as a 10 regular item on the agenda. We would revisit it 11 at each meeting to add more ideas or, you know, 12 it's not time to start evaluating these. 13 I think that was reiterated by someone 14 earlier, that that's something down the line. This 15 is just a list to start working with. 16 Once we have a better idea of the impacts 17 we're studying, then we can start putting some 18 numbers and evaluation to this. That's premature 19 at this time. That's something to be done down the 20 line. 21 MR. DYSART: I see some heads nodding 22 generally around the room. Let's see if we have 23 got some guidance, and this will be on the agenda 24 next time, and we'll move it forward then. 25 Next item is Roman VI, committee reports. 53 1 MTRG 2 Chris has properly chastised the facilitator and 3 pointed out there's no need to have committee 4 reports from somebody who has finished their work, 5 so this is a footnote for historical purposes. 6 They have gone out of business and served 7 their purpose until they're sent off to do battle 8 again by SEG. So the first committee will be Bill 9 Farmer. Bill said he was going duck out. 10 MR. PARSONS: He ducked. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. Who, from the Beach 12 Erosion Committee, would comment on what's going on 13 there? 14 MR. BAILEY: That committee hasn't met since 15 the last time. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. We will assume that has 17 been a report on what they have been doing. Thank 18 you. Dredging and Disposal. Okay. Fisheries and 19 Aquatic Resources. 20 MR. BERSON: We didn't meet. I really don't 21 have anything to report. 22 MR. DYSART: That qualifies as a report. 23 Thank you. 24 MR. DYSART: All right MTRG, Bo. 25 MR. ELLIS: As Larry indicated, there has been 54 1 MTRG 2 quite a bit of work on the modelling. We did have 3 an MTRG meeting on September 18th. So in your 4 agenda here, you can say we met on 9-18-02. 5 A status report is being distributed to the 6 MTRG for their comments, and it won't be presented 7 until the next SEG meeting. But very briefly, like 8 Larry said, we are focused on the water quality 9 model right now. 10 We sent out a water quality calibration 11 package for the MTRG and the agencies to review. 12 We did have all of our discussion at the MTRG 13 really centered around that submission. 14 It was sent out on September 12th. The 15 meeting was that following week, and we did get 16 quite a bit of comments. There were 17 recommendations for additions, things to be added 18 to the model, and various tests to be performed to 19 see how the model would respond to adjusting 20 different parameters. 21 We laid out a number of steps that would need 22 to be followed, and information that would be 23 distributed to MTRG, basically, through the month 24 of October. Our next meeting right now is 25 tentatively scheduled for October 31st, and we will 55 1 MTRG 2 be sending out regular information updates, on the 3 model, to the MTRG before that meeting, and then 4 try to wrap up the issues at our next meeting. 5 So I don't really have a report, but that's 6 the quick update. 7 MR. DYSART: Comments, questions or 8 clarifications for both? 9 MR. STAFFORD: When is the next meeting 10 planned? 11 MR. ELLIS: Tentatively October 31st. That is 12 Halloween so bring your costumes. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Where, Bo? 14 MR. ELLIS: EPA. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Atlanta. 16 MR. PARSONS: The model has generally been 17 accepted by the MTRG, it just needs fine tuning and 18 some additional testing. 19 MR. ELLIS: The hydrodynamic and salinity 20 model, which is the base model as Larry was 21 explaining, has been accepted by all the agencies, 22 and various comments have come into the Corps. 23 We're finalizing the resolution of those 24 comments right now. That was the base model. Now, 25 the dissolved oxygen model, the water quality model 56 1 MTRG 2 is a new addition to that. It relies on the 3 hydrodynamics for the currents, salinity, 4 temperature, water levels. 5 So we are working with that DO model. We sent 6 out our first complete review package in the middle 7 of September, and it was reviewed, recommendations 8 were made, and so we're -- there has been no 9 acceptance of that model at this point. 10 There were a number of tests and additions to 11 the model that we need to demonstrate. 12 MR. PARSONS: For the DO model? 13 MR. ELLIS: For the DO model, right. 14 MR. PARSONS: Is it your understanding, at the 15 end of this, EPA is going to use that DO model and 16 set a standard for the harbor? 17 MR. ELLIS: The intention is try to use one 18 model that will be used for both purposes. EPA is 19 setting the standard, the water quality standard 20 for dissolved oxygen and then follow-up activity is 21 to develop TMDL, total maximum daily load. 22 It's the intention of the Corps and EPA to use 23 one model to develop that TMDL and do harbor 24 deepening impact scenarios. 25 MR. PARSONS: Okay. 57 1 ECONOMICS WORKING GROUP 2 MR. DYSART: Further questions or comments for 3 the MTRG? Thank you, Bo. Striped Bass. Ted Will. 4 MR. WILL: We have not met. 5 MR. DYSART: Skip on to Economics Working 6 Group. Judy. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Thanks, Ben. Dave Kyler is not 8 here. We have not met, but there's been a good 9 deal of activity through Dave's e-mail, in planning 10 what we still hope to accomplish, which is a forum 11 on the economic valuation of natural resources. 12 We did meet, some on phone and some in person, 13 and Will and I Dave Kyler and the Corps was there. 14 I think we meant to get Morgan on the phone. 15 Anyway, I don't think we did. 16 Where we are right now is trying to pull 17 together a meeting of the core group. We've tried 18 to identify some academics, other people who have 19 professional and academic backgrounds in this to 20 make more concrete plans for moving forward. 21 So all I can tell you, that effort is still in 22 the planning stage. I chatted over e-mail with 23 Morgan yesterday, and I would like to schedule 24 another Economics Working Group meeting to address 25 some questions and topics I have and others. So if 58 1 ECONOMICS WORKING GROUP 2 the group will watch for that over e-mail, I'll try 3 to pull it together so a meeting will happen. 4 The forum on valuation of natural resources, 5 while progress is slow, we are trying to identify 6 appropriate people to participate. 7 So again, I feel confident that we'll have had 8 another major planning meeting before we meet 9 again. Our target date is still after the start 10 of the year. Will, Doug, who else sat in on that 11 meeting -- someone else. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Of course Terry Stratton's 13 participating in e-mail and telephone conferencing. 14 Terry has a wonderful opportunity right now. He's 15 working on his Master's Degree. Soon he'll just be 16 able to bring so much enlightenment back, but very 17 glad to have the resource. 18 In fact, he is in touch with quite a few of 19 the resources we want to pull in. We're very happy 20 to hat the Corps' participation. I think they're 21 core to making -- no pun intended -- I think 22 they're pivotal to making the work a valuable 23 contribution for this project and others, if we 24 pull it off. It's ambitious actually. 25 MR. PARSONS: I would like to interject again 59 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 referring back to the general reevaluation scoping 3 meeting at Savannah headquarters. Washington 4 headquarters seemed to be very interested in the 5 economic model's reflecting appropriately the 6 environmental impacts of the project, in 7 determining their benefit cost analysis of this 8 project. 9 So this is, at least in my opinion, a change 10 in the way the Corps has historically done business 11 on major projects. Often times, it seems that 12 environmental impacts have been short-shrifted in 13 doing cost benefit analysis of these types of 14 projects. 15 This is an opportunity to really address the 16 potential environmental impacts and the mitigation 17 costs associated with them, in developing a larger 18 benefit cost analysis package for this project. 19 MR. DYSART: Other comments? Teri. 20 MS. LEFFEK: We have not met since the last 21 SEG meeting. 22 MR. DYSART: New business. Doug how about an 23 update? 24 MR. PLACHY: I thought I would run down 25 through some of the topics we talked about. One of 60 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 the first things we talked about at that meeting in 3 August was the design vessel. As some of you know, 4 we determined that we would be using the S Class or 5 the Susan Maersk Vessel for this Tier II. 6 This vessel is about 100 feet longer, and I 7 can't remember how many feet wider, than the design 8 vessel in the Tier I. And there was some 9 discussion about whether or not that vessel is 10 representative of the future fleet, and are we 11 looking far enough down the road, and we did get 12 some information back from water resources that 13 validates the determination we had made. 14 So I think we're clear on that one, and the 15 GRR -- I mean the PGM, I hope, accurately will 16 document that decision. I haven't seen the final 17 yet. 18 We talked about the aquifer. We explained 19 where we were and what we were doing. And this is 20 one of several areas where we had a discussion 21 about outside, independent review. The direction 22 was given, in fact we were already think along 23 those lines anyway on the aquifer, but we 24 definitely will have the results of any second 25 level studies reviewed by any outside, independent 61 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 entity, ie, that means it is not within the 3 government itself. It will be outside, so that 4 will be one area that we will do that on. 5 We talked about the hydrodynamic model. I 6 think the key there was we explained where we were 7 in our attempt to get acceptance from the other 8 cooperating agencies and additional guidance from 9 headquarters was to get state acceptance, if we 10 could. 11 That's why Bill did send a note out to the 12 folks that had been participating in the MTRG from 13 the states. And like Bill said, we got feedback 14 from two out of four state agencies we were talking 15 to, which I think is pretty good. 16 The other thing that they talked about was an 17 outside, independent review of the model. And what 18 we stated was, essentially, because of the way it 19 was done with the MTRG and how there has been 20 outside entities involved in the development of the 21 model all along, we felt very strongly that we had 22 met that criteria of having that an outside entity 23 looking over the shoulder of the model development. 24 And that's where we are on that. We talked 25 about the some economic study options, how to do 62 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 the economics and the final determination was is 3 that we would essentially redo the entire economics 4 that were done from the original study with new 5 trade forecasts, fleet forecasts, et cetera. 6 That is the third area where there was a 7 desire for outside, independent review, and we will 8 be doing that on the economics. We will be 9 locating an entity to do that review of the 10 economics when the time comes. 11 Then we had some decision issues where we 12 wanted some specific input from the headquarters. 13 We talked about the scope of the studies, where we 14 were with the -- all the different studies we have 15 underway, and about how we would obtain the 16 staffing process, in regards to when we have the 17 study done, and it's been reviewed, it goes through 18 all the steps, what has to happen to it within the 19 governmental entity, does it have to be sent to 20 Congress, so on and so forth. 21 We're getting feedback in that area, which is 22 good discussion. One of the topics that we had on 23 the agenda was discussion about do we look beyond 24 48 feet when we do the analysis, and the reason for 25 that discussion was when doing the cost effective 63 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 benefit curves, to try to find the net NED plan. 3 If the curve is going up, but you stop at 48, 4 what if the curve continues to rise, or what if it 5 drops down after that. It would be interesting -- 6 not interesting, but it would be very important to 7 know where the real entity plan is, rather than one 8 short of that. 9 However, the understanding was that GPA had 10 made the commitment that they were not going to 11 pursue deepening beyond 48 feet. Therefore, the 12 answer back from the Washington folks is, as long 13 as GPA does not want the Tier II activities to have 14 consideration beyond 48, it won't. 15 So the GRR will only evaluate the channel 16 depth, benefit, cost, and impacts up to 48 feet and 17 that's all. 18 Full mitigation, I think that's what Keith was 19 talking about. There was a pretty good, long 20 discussion about full mitigation, and I can tell 21 you by the amount of text in this draft there was 22 quite a bit written up. 23 Basically, what it came down to is the 24 direction from our headquarters was that we could 25 only provide mitigation where the level is 64 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 justified and coordinated with the resource 3 agencies. 4 Having said that, I know that GPA went on the 5 record and said that they were committed to 6 mitigate for all impacts. So that is something 7 that will be worked out down the road, when we get 8 into those areas and determine what can we do. 9 That's going to be probably one of the most 10 important parts of this project is that mitigation 11 plan that's out there. 12 Ship wakes is another interesting topic that 13 we really didn't get a resolution on at the 14 meeting. That one has to do with if a vessel is 15 traveling or navigating the water, it's within -- 16 what's the right term I want to use -- speed for 17 safe steerage, but its wake does cause erosion on 18 the bank, is that something, number one, that would 19 be mitigated -- mitigated for in the project. 20 There's two parts to that. One is the EIS is 21 a disclosure document, so part of the answer is we 22 should disclose all impacts. We're required to 23 disclose all impacts, but having said that, the 24 Corps' cases to date have all basically gone along 25 the lines of navigational servitude, even if there 65 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 is an impact to private property from ship wakes 3 that the government is not liable. 4 So we're still trying to work that issue to 5 find out what that means in terms of the project. 6 There's -- the reason we're doing all this is 7 because we did receive several comments during the 8 public scoping meeting we had in February, in 9 regards to concern about ship wake erosion along 10 the channel. 11 We had another lengthy discussion about the 12 Jasper County terminal, and how it fits into the 13 future without project and future with project and 14 alternative locations of a project, as we've 15 discussed in this forum several times. 16 The direction, I believe, that will be coming 17 down from headquarters will be that we will not 18 consider that terminal at this time in a future 19 without project condition, because there's not 20 enough information to definitely say that that will 21 be there in the future, even if this project we're 22 talking about here doesn't occur. 23 However, the economics will be done in a such 24 a way so that right, I think the right term is 25 sensitivity analysis, that will take into account 66 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 if there was to be a terminal there, and it did 3 take X amount cargo from what's coming into the 4 port, how sensitive is the analysis that we're 5 doing for the project to that, the sensitivity to 6 it. 7 So I guess what I'm saying is it's not going 8 to be in the future without project conditions, as 9 I understand it, but it is going to be addressed 10 and it will be part of the analysis, when you look 11 at the future in regards to the port. 12 The second part where Jasper County comes in, 13 we've been looking at part of the Tier II 14 alternative locations, rather than deepening to the 15 Garden City Terminal, maybe deepening to another 16 terminal that's not so far upriver. 17 We're looking for one of the ones that has 18 been out there for a while, to look at placing a 19 terminal facility, for example, someplace in Jasper 20 County, and that still was considered something we 21 have to do as part of the EIS, that we will be 22 looking at this alternative site. 23 We don't know where that would be at this 24 point. That would part of the alternatives in the 25 EIS. Those two places where the Jasper County 67 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 terminal came into play in the project, we believe 3 we've got adequate input on those. 4 The only other that was left that we couldn't 5 really resolve, they wanted us to better define our 6 future without project conditions. 7 We haven't put a lot into that yet, but when 8 we do, we would hold a meeting somewhat similar to 9 when we talked about these issues with the folks 10 from Washington coming down, to make sure we have 11 the correct future without project condition. 12 We're comparing alternatives too. A lot of 13 that goes into a lot of what we've talked about 14 today with the drought conditions and the refuge. 15 How are you going to determine what the 16 environmental conditions are going to be in the 17 future on the project? That's probably one of the 18 tougher areas we have to do yet. That's pretty 19 much it unless there's questions. 20 LT. GREEN: Can you give me the rough 21 dimensions on the Susan Maersk, the projected 22 vessel? 23 MR. PLACHY: I've got that in here. Hold on. 24 It's -- it's 6,600 TEU vessel, 1,138 feet long, 25 140.4 feet wide, and a design draft of 47.6 feet. 68 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 LT. GREEN: Thank you. 3 MR. DYSART: Questions or comments? 4 MS. JENNINGS: Well, just a comment. I think 5 it's about the design vessel. The draft is no 6 different from the design vessel we started with. 7 MR. PLACHY: Correct. It's the same draft. 8 Now when this final project guidance memorandum is 9 issued by headquarters, we will put that on the web 10 page we've been designing for the districts 11 website. 12 I don't know how many of you have been out 13 there, so far we do have a site right off the main 14 page of the Savannah District, and any project 15 document that's coming down, we will post it there, 16 make sure it's available for folks. 17 As I indicated at the meeting that we had in 18 August, the project management plan which we got 19 put into place in July is out there on that 20 website, if you want to read the contents of it, or 21 download and print it, or whatever. It's out 22 there. 23 MR. DYSART: Larry. 24 MR. KEEGAN: There is a hyperlink on the home 25 page for the harbor deepening site that will take 69 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 you there to the Corps' site. I don't recall the 3 address off the top of my head. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Great. 5 MR. DYSART: We had at least a couple of folks 6 that came in since we did our initial 7 introductions. Would y'all please introduce 8 yourselves. 9 MR. CALHOUN: Andy Calhoun, Colonial Oil 10 Group. 11 MR. WERNER: Ben Werner, the Savannah Morning 12 News. 13 MR. THOMAS: Paul Thomas with EM Industries. 14 MR. ELLIS: Bo Ellis with ATM. I did go 15 check out the parking lot at the Mighty Eighth this 16 morning. It was a lot emptier than a normal SEG 17 meeting. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Thought for sure I'd be there 19 with you. 20 MR. DYSART: I will admit, I asked Bo whether 21 he went right on and made a presentation, and 22 whether the group he spoke to, whether they were 23 as appreciative as this group of his normal 24 contributions. You didn't have enough for a 25 quorum? 70 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MR. ELLIS: No, I didn't. There weren't 3 enough cars in the parking lot. 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you very much, Doug, 5 for the update. No further questions? The next 6 -- Judy. 7 MS. JENNINGS: I hesitate to use the SEG for 8 other issues. This has been a topic for us. It 9 can impact the harbor. If I could just mention to 10 you the Federal Energy Regulatory scoping meeting 11 on the expansion of Elba Island, 7:00 o'clock at 12 the Radisson, related to harbor activities. I 13 imagine it will show up in the EIS somewhere 14 somehow. Thank you. 15 MR. DYSART: Next on the agenda is the flow of 16 information among the SEG, the Corps, and GPA, as a 17 result of the scoping meeting. Is there additional 18 comments or is there further material to be 19 provided on that? Larry. 20 MR. KEEGAN: I think the best way to describe 21 that is what I did earlier today, which is the 22 outcome of trying to deal with the flow of 23 information, at least from that direction to the 24 SEG, to keep people apprised of what's going on 25 with the cooperating agencies and all. 71 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 And of course, the Port Authority is still 3 committed to bringing anything back from this group 4 into that group, any recommendation, any specific 5 charge, as we've done before. 6 We'd like some feedback. Does that work for 7 people? Do you want something in addition, some 8 changes -- that would be good to hear, not 9 necessarily today, but if something occurs to you 10 that you would like to see in addition to what 11 we've done so far, please don't hesitate. Call me 12 up, drop me an e-mail, whatever. Let me know. 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. 14 MR. PARSONS: To comment on that, what I would 15 like to see maybe, Larry, and anticipate what the 16 Corps will do, is to maybe put together a short but 17 succinct statement, or an issue paper, defining 18 what headquarters in Washington is expecting in 19 terms of output on this project, on the EIS, so the 20 SEG can move forward on their issues within that 21 framework. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy. 23 MS. JENNINGS: I will echo that thought. Just 24 if there's total uniformity between the district 25 and Washington, I think that's great. But if 72 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 there's anything we would not know, without some 3 other interjection, I would appreciate it if it 4 could be brought to our attention, because we're 5 not part of that loop. Unless it comes back to us 6 in some way, we get to be part of that loop, but 7 not necessarily in the present way. 8 MR. KEEGAN: I'm sorry. I didn't follow that, 9 Judy. Could you -- I didn't follow that exactly. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Well, in terms of the Corps 11 activities and decisions, there is that Washington 12 level that I don't think the SEG is particularly 13 looped into in any way. 14 I think the report on the meeting that 15 happened on August 7th and 8th, has been -- I 16 appreciate it. It was very, very adequate. I 17 think if we could be routinely informed of 18 activities coming from and the activities between 19 the district and headquarters, that would be great, 20 because some of those meetings, as I've learned in 21 August, are meant to be very non-public. 22 MR. KEEGAN: Okay. 23 MR. DYSART: Furthers comments or questions? 24 Okay. We've worked our way through the agenda. 25 Anything else you want to deal with, talk about, 73 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 before we talk about the next meeting date. The 3 next three first Tuesdays are listed here. What's 4 your pleasure? December -- 5 MR. SCHALLER: Is there an expectation of 6 anything bubbling up at that time that we want to 7 meet then? 8 MR. DYSART: What is in the pipeline that 9 would ripen by then, if anything? 10 MR. SCHALLER: Incidentally, I don't oppose 11 December for the meeting. I'm curious to know if 12 it's not a good idea to let the holidays get by. 13 What will be ready for discussion, or further 14 discussion, or presentation two months from now? 15 MR. ELLIS: MTRG is going to have a meeting, 16 but nothing new will be wrapped up. 17 MR. SCHALLER: Again, I just -- if December is 18 the time to do it, that's fine. 19 MR. PLACHY: If I were to predict, I would say 20 by then we would have an agency position on the 21 hydrodynamic and salinity model, and we would also 22 -- keep my fingers crossed -- get the decision 23 document finished. So those would be behind us by 24 that meeting. 25 MR. KEEGAN: We could have the dissolved 74 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 oxygen model coming to a conclusion by then, if 3 not concluded maybe? 4 MR. PHILLIPS: What about the ship simulator? 5 MR. PLACHY: It's possible. I don't know if 6 we'll have a report, but the simulations would have 7 occurred. 8 MR. WESLEY: The last group goes the week 9 before Christmas. 10 MR. DYSART: Rob. 11 MR. MIKELL: If all these studies will be 12 ready by December, why don't we just put it meeting 13 till January, and then have some real good 14 presentations on the hydro model, the things we've 15 been waiting for -- kick it off for the first of 16 the year? 17 MR. PARSONS: I would concur. 18 MR. DYSART: So we have a couple of strong 19 views saying let's load things into January. Is 20 that -- is that acceptable to the group? I think 21 we have a consensus for January 7th. 22 MS. VAUGHN: We will be back at the Mighty 23 Eighth. 24 MR. ELLIS: I'll be there. 25 MR. DYSART: Larry. 75 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MR. KEEGAN: Rob mentioned, you know, we'll 3 have some good reports and all at that time. If 4 there are particular desires of, let's say for the 5 hydrodynamic and salinity model's performance, what 6 you would like us to show you, that would be very 7 helpful to know, so we don't have to presume and 8 show you one thing and you really wanted to see it 9 another way. 10 If you have any thoughts, let me know or Doug. 11 We'll try to meet what your needs are. 12 MR. DYSART: Be sure to copy me on the e-mail 13 traffic on that. I will put requests on the 14 agenda. Anything else? Finished up, no cards up. 15 There's no further comments or topics, then we'll 16 declare the meeting adjourned. Thank very much. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 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 I hereby certify that the foregoing 8 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 9 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 10 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 11 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 75 represent 12 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 13 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 14 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 15 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 16 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 17 anywise interested in the result of said case. 18 This, the 10th day of October, 2002. 19 20 21 ________________________ 22 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court Reporter, B-2041 23 24 25 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25