1 2 3 4 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP MEETING 5 6 7 MAY 11, 2010, 9:00 A.M. 8 9 10 MIGHTY 8TH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 11 12 13 POOLER, GEORGIA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 I N D E X 3 4 5 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------ 3 6 7 PROJECT UPDATE - BILL BAILEY ----------- 6 8 9 NEXT MEETING DATE ---------------------- 86 10 11 CERTIFICATE ---------------------------- 90 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's call the 3 meeting of the Stakeholders Evaluation Group 4 to order. It's nice to see you here. I'm Ben 5 Dysart, the SEG Facilitator. As is customary, 6 I'd like for you each to indicate your name to 7 the court reporter, and indicate whatever 8 affiliation you choose to indicate, and you 9 always like to start over there, right, so we 10 will. Bill. 11 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of 12 Engineers. 13 MR. LEE: Steve Lee, Corps of Engineers. 14 MR. TOLLESON: Chris Tolleson, Integrated 15 Science & Engineering. 16 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Island. 17 MR. WEST: Randy Wester, National Park 18 Service. 19 MS. WENDT: Priscilla Wendt, South 20 Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 21 MR. WANDERS: Steve Wanders, CH2M Hill. 22 MR. WEBB: Russ Webb, US Fish and 23 Wildlife Service. 24 MR. WIKOFF: Bill Wikoff, Fish and 25 Wildlife Service. 4 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 MS. GRIESS: Jane Griess, Fish and 3 Wildlife Service. 4 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia Wildlife 5 Federation. 6 MR. BARRETT: Tim Barrett, Georgia 7 Department of Natural Resources. 8 MR. MOSS: Dean Moss, South Carolina 9 Savannah River Maritime Commission. 10 MS. MALLOY: Andrea Malloy, Coastal 11 Conservation League, South Carolina. 12 MS. BEASLEY: Cathy Beasley, Georgia 13 Ports Authority. 14 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for 15 Georgia Ports. 16 MR. McCURRY: Jamie McCurry, Georgia 17 Ports. 18 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 19 Authority. 20 MS. LANDERS: Mary Landers, The Savannah 21 Morning News. 22 MR. SAPP: Bill Sapp, The Southern 23 Environmental Law Center. 24 MR. DYSART: Ben Dysart. 25 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, The Georgia 5 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 Conservancy. 3 MS. GRAINEY: Karen Grainey, Sierra Club. 4 MR. WILLIS: Steve Willis, Center for a 5 Sustainable Coast. 6 MR. GRIFFIN: David Griffin, Georgia 7 Department of Transportation. 8 MR. WRIGHT: And Tom Wright, citizen. 9 MR. DYSART: Thank you. You have before 10 you the draft agenda for today. It's simpler 11 than they frequently are. Any -- any items 12 you want to add to the agenda? 13 Seeing no request, we'll consider the 14 agenda to be approved. What is your pleasure 15 concerning the last SEG meeting transcript 16 that you obviously had an opportunity to view 17 to the extent that you care to. Any changes, 18 corrections, comments that you want on the 19 record here? Seeing none, we will consider 20 the October 2009 transcript to be accepted by 21 the body. 22 Okay. We're to a highlight of the 23 meeting today, an update on the project from 24 Bill Bailey of the Corps. Bill. 25 MR. BAILEY: I've got some slides to show 6 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 you. The last time we met was in October, is 3 that right? 4 MR. DYSART: Correct. 5 MR. BAILEY: We haven't met as a group, 6 but we've been -- the Corps has been busy 7 doing things, and since then there have been 8 other things going also. 9 I have had two daughters get married and 10 I have pictures to prove it. As a consequence 11 I will not be retiring within the next year or 12 so. 13 MR. BERSON: Only a year? 14 MR. BAILEY: Well, at least. Okay. What 15 we're looking at, we're looking at the 16 engineering, the economics and the 17 environmental aspects of the project. 18 And I want to go back to what I'd said 19 before about the mitigation plans and review 20 those. In October, I said they were a work in 21 progress and not an agency position at that 22 time. 23 They did address plans to address the 24 comments made by the cooperating agencies and 25 all that's still true. We have different 7 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 features for these different resources; 3 wetlands, dissolved oxygen, shortnose 4 sturgeon, striped bass, recreational boaters, 5 and then monitoring the adaptive management 6 plan. 7 These were a little more detailed on each 8 of those things, and the one in green is 9 addition since we met in October. We had 10 talked about that as something that we were 11 looking at and the analysis were still 12 underway. 13 We have got a couple more slides about 14 that later. So these things are still in the 15 mitigation plans. The summary we had was 16 there is a separate plan for each depth. They 17 mitigate all the significant adverse impacts. 18 It has features to address those different 19 types of impacts. 20 This one was still being evaluated. 21 That was the sill across the mouth of Middle 22 River, and that was to protect a deep area 23 where sturgeon had -- juvenile sturgeon had 24 been found. And that's shown there in that -- 25 on the outside of the bend. That was where 8 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 the deep hole is. 3 What we're proposing to do, with the deep 4 hole here, as the deepening -- the deepening 5 would end. This is the Kings Island Turning 6 Basin, the deepening ends somewhere in here. 7 I'm not sure where the transition is, but the 8 deepening would bring more saltwater up in 9 this area, and I would expect it would come up 10 in the Middle River. 11 So in here we would put a sill, still 12 submerged, basically just raise the bottom up 13 so that there's -- I think it's presently 14 around 15 feet. We'd raise it up to like six 15 feet so boaters, recreational boaters would 16 still go over the top of it. 17 So the intent is to keep salinity from 18 getting into this hole. Salinity is heavier 19 so it's going to stay on the bottom -- toward 20 the bottom of water column, so the sill was to 21 keep salinity out of this area where the 22 smaller shortnose sturgeon are found. 23 The National Marine Fisheries Service had 24 requested that. 25 MS. MOORER: Bill, what is that depth now 9 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 again, and about what elevation will it be 3 after? 4 MR. BAILEY: I think it's about -- about 5 15 feet, somewhere in that area now. 6 MS. MOORER: And the sill would be? 7 MR. BAILEY: Take it up to about six 8 feet, so it would still be about six feet of 9 water on low tide. 10 MR. DYSART: Will. 11 MR. BERSON: You always learn something 12 at these meetings, the way you've done the 13 diagram -- 14 MR. BAILEY: Good. 15 MR. BERSON: -- I was imagining the sill 16 being almost like a wall. This looks almost 17 like a plane you're going to build up. 18 MR. BAILEY: It's basically earth, be 19 with dirt. 20 MR. BERSON: So it's going -- you're 21 going to raise a rectangular field of area? 22 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 23 MR. BERSON: I just wasn't thinking in 24 those terms. 25 MR. SAPP: Bill, over time won't that 10 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 just get washed away, or how do you prevent 3 that from just -- 4 MR. BAILEY: The idea was to go back and 5 keep looking at that and seeing if the 6 currents have moved the sandy material away. 7 We'll put more sand on top of it to replace it 8 to keep that elevation the same. 9 MR. SAPP: Would that be part of the 10 adaptive management of the project? 11 MR. BAILEY: No. That would be longer 12 term. We would do that monitoring and that 13 commitment would go on 50 years. 14 MS. MOORER: It's becomes, essentially, a 15 general navigation feature as mitigation? 16 MR. BAILEY: yes. 17 MS. GRIESS: Bill, what was the time you 18 would monitor. I can barely hear you. 19 MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry. That would be 20 just another mitigation feature that we would 21 monitor forever. 22 MR. WIKOFF: Bill, would that mean you 23 would be maintaining it for a long period of 24 time also? 25 MR. BAILEY: We would be, yes. The 11 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 commitment is to keep that elevation for the 3 life of the project, yes. 4 For the monitoring adaptive management 5 plan, this is at the end of a process, and 6 what we had proposed was doing monitoring 7 before construction, during construction, and 8 for five years after construction, and then 9 adaptive management to adjust any mitigation 10 features that we found needed adjusting. 11 MR. KYLER: Questions? 12 MR. BAILEY: Sure. 13 MR. DYSART: Yes. 14 MR. KYLER: A question about monitoring 15 for five years and then you said adaptive 16 management, but adaptive management itself 17 requires monitoring by definition. So if 18 you're using adaptive management, after five 19 years you must be do some other monitoring. 20 MR. BAILEY: Well, what we -- what I 21 didn't say in there, we were. In the project 22 schedule, actually we have adaptive management 23 budgeted in. I think like year three, you 24 know, and if we see that something needs 25 tweaking, we won't wait for five years. We 12 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 would start adjusting, and you're right, then 3 we would also monitor for a year after making 4 any change. 5 MR. KYLER: How would you distinguish 6 between the monitoring in the first five years 7 and the monitoring for adaptive management; is 8 there any difference or not? 9 MR. BAILEY: There may or may not be. It 10 depends on -- you may do more detailed. If 11 you put in just -- if, at the end of five 12 years, you have one small thing you think 13 needs changing, you may not do the entire 14 monitoring program for that next year. 15 You may do more localized and detailed 16 monitoring just to see if that adjustment did 17 what you wanted it to do. Questions? 18 MR. DYSART: Judy. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, how will you make 20 sure there's funding for those what ifs, I 21 mean if you pull something out? 22 MR. BAILEY: We're continuing to discuss 23 that. We know that is important. I think the 24 last -- the last thing we were looking at -- 25 well, the basic answer is having a pot of 13 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 money is not the way the Corps normally does 3 things -- never done that before. 4 It's not written policy, but they don't 5 have a policy. Well, they have a policy, but 6 it's not following the policy. So we are 7 still working that, and now we are looking at 8 being able to give the Port Authority credit, 9 if they put the money -- just put it up there 10 as part of their cost share for the whole 11 project. 12 If they just said well, here's a pot and 13 you can use that, could we give them credit or 14 would we give them credit for that. 15 MS. JENNINGS: As part of their cost 16 share? 17 MR. BAILEY: Yes. The Corps is still 18 trying to figure that out, but that is still 19 the intention, still to do that, still to have 20 the pot of money available. 21 MR. DYSART: Hope. 22 MS. JENNINGS: Good plan. 23 MS. MOORER: Judy, there are certain -- 24 there are certain ways the Corps is funded, of 25 course through Congress every year, so 14 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 understanding that there is concern by the 3 agencies that the money isn't there for 4 adaptive management or the monitoring, things 5 like that going on, we wanted to -- we 6 suggested to the Corps that we look at their 7 policies and see if there isn't way we can 8 establish a trust fund, and use our funding 9 because you commit Congress to subsequent 10 years of funding essentially. 11 So, if we can put that money in a trust, 12 and if it will count as part of our cost 13 share, we're trying to work out those details 14 right now, but that is something we proposed 15 to them. 16 MR. BAILEY: Now is about the time as the 17 Corps gets its reports together and sends the 18 reports up to Atlanta and Washington, that's 19 when we'll get answers to those things, those 20 types of questions -- when they actually see 21 it in writing and have to say yes or no. 22 MR. DYSART: Will and then David. 23 MR. BERSON: Is there precedent for other 24 projects dealing with this question? 25 MR. BAILEY: My understanding is no other 15 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 project has set aside a trust fund and escrow 3 account to do that. 4 MR. KYLER: That answer may imply an 5 answer to a question I was going to ask 6 following up Hope's comments; are there rules 7 in existence for the local match, sponsor 8 match, flexible enough to allow for the 9 possibility of this separate trust fund being 10 set aside to be part of the match, or would 11 that have to be done by new rules or 12 legislation or something? 13 MR. BAILEY: The district thinks it's 14 flexible enough to do that, because we are 15 including an amount of money for adaptive 16 management. 17 We are including that as a project cost. 18 So we think that it's flexible enough to 19 include that. 20 MR. BERSON: Is that figure still 21 50,000,000 or am I making that up? 22 MR. BAILEY: I forget. 23 MR. BERSON: Okay. I thought that's what 24 I remember. I'm not sure if that accurate or 25 not. 16 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure. Monitoring 3 would include both physical and biological 4 components. 5 Physical was looking at salinity levels, 6 chloride levels in the ground water. 7 Biological was looking at wetlands, shortnose 8 sturgeon and fish movement. This is the 9 pre-construction. 10 One of the things that we added was we 11 added NOAA Fisheries wanted a water quality 12 station in that fish hole. They wanted to 13 know what was going on there specifically. 14 So we agreed to put in a monitoring 15 station there. The rest of the information 16 was the same as you've seen before. Again, 17 this would fit with this plan that USGS 18 developed for the harbor back in '06. 19 The monitoring -- the monitoring stations 20 are in generally the same places that they 21 were proposed back then. 22 For wetlands, what they had, this was 23 something that an arm of the service had 24 developed. Green is -- the green is where 25 they monitored in the past, and this color was 17 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 where they had proposed to monitor for a 3 deeper harbor. 4 I think we pretty much, you know, in 5 concept the number of new locations I think we 6 agreed to. I think we asked them instead of 7 this location, because we were having so many 8 changes over on Back River, I think we 9 suggested they move this one, one of these 10 over and monitor in Back River. 11 Basically, the number of locations is 12 what the service, the Florida coop unit had 13 recommended. What those things are trying to 14 capture is the full range of salinities from 15 freshwater areas, across brackish down to 16 saltwater marshes. So they look at all three 17 different types of marshes. 18 MR. DYSART: Judy has a question. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah, Bill, I'm still 20 stuck on monitoring and adaptive management, 21 sorry. You know, I'm so slow. I'll get it 22 though. I guess I'm going back to the fact 23 that always what we're talking about is the 24 impact of this project and only this project. 25 MR. BAILEY: Right. 18 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MS. JENNINGS: So I'm just wondering as 3 you go through this, and as we do monitoring, 4 you look at adaptive management policies; I 5 mean how fuzzy is it going to get to say well, 6 I'm sure this is a result of this project? 7 MR. BAILEY: That's why we'll have a -- 8 we'll have a before -- before and after. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 10 MR. BAILEY: We're also going to use the 11 hydrodynamic model to really identify the 12 changes. So that's why part of the monitoring 13 was to go in and recalibrate the model, make 14 sure the model is up-to-date and the best it 15 can be, because when we get to an after -- if 16 and when we get to an after, it will have some 17 condition that we haven't monitored before. 18 The river flow will be something other 19 than average, or the temperature will be 20 higher than average or something. So we use 21 the model. We have a calibrated and 22 up-to-date model, and then have good data for 23 the after, what we observed, and then in the 24 model take out the deeper channel. 25 So then we'd be able to see what it would 19 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 have been without the deeper channel and 3 compare that to what we did observe. That 4 would be the impact of the channel. 5 MS. JENNINGS: Delta from the model, got 6 it. 7 MR. BAILEY: And that's primarily because 8 the field conditions are never -- there's 9 always going to be something a little 10 different from what you model. Some 11 combination is going to be a little bit 12 different. 13 MS. JENNINGS: That brings up the point, 14 I know we've worked on this model extensively. 15 Will there ever be a point in time we say 16 okay, the model might need work? Could that 17 be a part of post-construction monitoring or 18 adaptive management? 19 MR. BAILEY: Well, that is part of the 20 monitoring. It is part of the work we do 21 during the monitoring. 22 MS. JENNINGS: I mean you might even 23 tweak the model? 24 MR. BAILEY: Yup. This here under post 25 -- pre-construction, we've got intense 20 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 monitoring for a month and that was -- this 3 was for the modeling, the modeling work. They 4 go out and do the same detailed modeling, data 5 collection that they did when they developed 6 the model. 7 They collect all that information again 8 and then look at the calibration to see if it 9 needs to be recalibrated. So that was 10 pre-construction. I don't know if I got -- 11 well, this is during. Post-construction has 12 them in there also, the intense water quality 13 monitoring. So that was to field the 14 collected information to be able to 15 recalibrate the model if we need to. 16 Again, that's a model, that the EPA is 17 using now for the TMDLs, we'll be using 18 starting with the most up-to-date model, and 19 making sure that it's still the best one for 20 the harbor. There will have to be some -- 21 there will be changes in it with a deeper 22 harbor. We will have to see if that requires 23 changes in the calibration. 24 MS. JENNINGS: So the model is an organic 25 document throughout the process? 21 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. BAILEY: It can change over time as 3 the conditions change. 4 MR. DYSART: David Kyler has a question. 5 MR. KYLER: I hope this doesn't come 6 under the description of being a stickler. I 7 mean the modeling has been called hydrological 8 and salinity model. Up there you have 9 physical components. The word hydrology does 10 not appear. I assume you mean hydrology among 11 other things. 12 MR. BAILEY: Yes. That's what I meant 13 by that, physical things that we can measure, 14 and that's velocities, salinities and those 15 things. 16 During construction we continue with 17 those, continue to operate the water quality 18 monitors, look at groundwater, look at 19 chloride levels water around the city's water 20 intake. 21 I guess the change here is the shortnose 22 sturgeon. Before we proposed just doing it 23 some time during the construction. NOAA 24 Fisheries didn't think that was adequate. 25 So they wanted sturgeon looked at every -- so 22 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 we'll do that. Post-construction, again the 3 change was to look at sturgeon every year, and 4 NOAA also wanted the last down at the bottom, 5 the fish use of the offshore berms. 6 We're proposing to construct two berms at 7 the outer end of the entrance channel for fish 8 habitat, basically where the water is deep out 9 there, and the bottom is pretty flat. We come 10 in and put a mound of sediment. 11 Because of the variation in the depth, 12 that would be an area where fish would hang 13 out. NOAA asked us to go ahead do a study to 14 see, to make sure what fish did use it and how 15 much they used it. 16 So we've added that in since we met in 17 October. And adaptive management, these are 18 the things we have for modifications to the 19 mitigation features. The report, we'd have a 20 procedure for the agency decisions, and 21 there's a public review in there. 22 And Mr. Kyler, like you asked down at the 23 bottom, that one year monitoring afterwards, 24 after any change. So those things are still 25 in there. And then long-term we'd operate the 23 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 water quality, three water quality stations 3 would go on forever. 4 MS. MOORER: Back one slide about the 5 monitoring program and -- 6 MR. BAILEY: This one? 7 MS. MOORER: That one. 8 MR. BAILEY: Okay. 9 MS. MOORER: In terms of public review 10 you touched on right there, I think that the 11 report on the monitoring, isn't there -- 12 aren't there specified time periods of when 13 there would be reports issued? 14 MR. BAILEY: Yeah, we would, yeah. 15 MS. MOORER: And didn't you specify that 16 there would be kind of like a joint public 17 notice that this information would be 18 available to the public as well, so that -- I 19 was trying to get a little more detail out of 20 you about that. 21 MR. BAILEY: We put the -- we put the 22 information up on the website as it became 23 available to us. It would also then be a 24 yearly report, and I forget what we -- what is 25 written there after the yearly report. It may 24 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 be that there was a notice out of the yearly 3 report, but there's also then a summary report 4 at the end. That would go out for -- 5 specifically for public review, and the 6 agencies would have seen it before, so you 7 would see what the agencies were thinking if 8 adjustments were needed. 9 Then the agencies would look at the 10 public comments, before they made their 11 decisions on it, whether a change was needed. 12 Will. 13 MR. BERSON: This outline of both 14 monitoring and adaptive management is a 15 product of the district? 16 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 17 MR. BERSON: And it doesn't reflect 18 national policy on adaptive management. 19 MR. BAILEY: Funding is what doesn't 20 reflect national policy. 21 MR. BERSON: Is there a national policy 22 on adaptive management at this time? 23 MR. BAILEY: I think there is. It says 24 we're supposed to adaptively manage. 25 MS. MOORER: There's not like an EC on it 25 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 yet, any policy guidance on it yet out of 3 headquarters. So actually, we could get 4 halfway through the comment period and 5 headquarters could issue an EC. 6 You never know. Stuff like that happens 7 all the time as we're going through the 8 process. I don't think there's any guidance 9 from headquarters about how to do adaptive 10 management. They have been told by Congress 11 to do it, but not how to do it yet. 12 MR. BAILEY: The Corps is trying to 13 figure out nationally how to do that. The 14 basic approach matches what other people are 15 doing, particularly down in Florida. 16 MR. BERSON: What -- what sort of vetting 17 has this construct had at the -- at the -- 18 above the district. 19 MR. BAILEY: It was. 20 MR. BERSON: Part of an AFB. 21 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. It was there. It was 22 what Washington folks saw year and a half, two 23 years ago. 24 MR. BAILEY: So we're doing some 25 monitoring. Water quality monitoring would go 26 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 on for the life of the project. This is a new 3 subject. Any other questions on monitoring? 4 MR. WIKOFF: What's EC. 5 MS. MOORER: Engineering circular. 6 MR. WIKOFF: Thank you. 7 MS. MOORER: How the Corps will issue 8 guidance, a lot of times, out to the districts 9 around the nation, or they might issue policy 10 guidance sometimes. 11 MR. WIKOFF: Thank you. 12 MR. BERSON: I should know this question 13 but I don't. Does the Corps anticipate going 14 to a federal agency, in connection with this 15 project for takings of endangered species? 16 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. We've got a 17 biological assessment of threatened and 18 endangered species, which would go both to 19 NOAA and Fish and Wildlife for their 20 consultations. 21 MR. BERSON: Where in the process does 22 that come. 23 MR. BAILEY: As part -- officially, it's 24 part of the draft report. 25 MR. DYSART: David. 27 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. KYLER: Yeah. I apologize if I 3 missed this detail. Did you say adaptive 4 management would be conducted for the life of 5 the project? 6 MR. BAILEY: No. It's basically at the 7 end of the five year monitoring period. 8 MR. KYLER: It will end at the five year 9 period, it will start at the five year period? 10 MR. BAILEY: It will use the results of 11 the five year monitoring program. It's 12 basically seeing whether the mitigation is 13 performing as it was intended. So if it is, 14 then there's -- 15 MR. KYLER: Nothing to adapt. 16 MR. BAILEY: Nothing to adapt. If 17 something isn't working quite right, then you 18 would change it. 19 MR. KYLER: That presumes you'll know 20 everything you'll need to know to adapt 21 properly by what you find out in five years. 22 Adaptive management, as I understand the 23 concept, is a continuous procedure to ensure 24 achievement of objectives in a dynamic field 25 of context. 28 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 So I would be surprised if the EC, when 3 it comes out would be consistent with this 4 concept that you're describing here. 5 MS. MOORER: The Corps on each of these 6 projects is given a certain amount of time to 7 monitor following post-project within the 8 regs. That's how they're funded. 9 Now Bill says there are long-term water 10 quality monitoring stations, and if something 11 goes wrong as did with the freshwater 12 diversion canal structures, you can always go 13 back to Congress and try to get something 14 fixed, but it would not be part of that 15 adaptive management identified for the 16 project, essentially. 17 MR. KYLER: I just, for what it's worth, 18 in my opinion this is artificially constrained 19 in terms of the interpretation and usefulness 20 of adaptive management. 21 MR. BAILEY: If Congress -- Congress did 22 tell the Corps to include adaptive management. 23 They didn't change -- they also in there said 24 a maximum length of monitoring. So I guess 25 like Hope said, there is -- Congress set up 29 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 procedures. If you want to change a project, 3 you can write up a report, and send it up 4 through the chain, and Congress will see it, 5 if they think that they wanted to fund it. 6 MR. KYLER: But that delay disrupts the 7 concept of adaptive management. 8 MR. DYSART: Karen. 9 MS. GRAINEY: I was going to say -- Dave 10 said it for me. 11 MR. BERSON: Understanding the time line 12 of things, so you wouldn't exactly expect in 13 five years post-monitoring, post-construction 14 monitoring period, you would or wouldn't 15 expect to do any adaptive management? 16 I mean, it sort of sounds like it's 17 post-five year monitoring you would imagine 18 doing. Suppose it was clear something wasn't 19 performing as modeled? 20 MR. BAILEY: In the -- the Corps has laid 21 out a funding scenario, and in there we have 22 included funds, included spending money for 23 adaptive management, I think, in the year 24 three. 25 So we're just saying well, we may need 30 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 money in year three, year four, year five, 3 year six. We may need to do some changes all 4 along. 5 MR. BERSON: And just to circle back, any 6 changes to the mitigation plan that became 7 obvious from monitoring would have to be 8 signed off on by all four federal partners? 9 MR. BAILEY: Yes, that's the way I've got 10 it written now. 11 MR. BERSON: Okay. Just one more 12 question. Did you say Congress identified a 13 five year period for monitoring? 14 MR. BAILEY: No. 15 MR. BERSON: Okay. I misunderstood. 16 MS. GRAINEY: I misunderstood that too. 17 I think you said Congress gave no maximum 18 time, what was maximum? 19 MR. BAILEY: There is 10. 20 MS. GRAINEY: Ten? 21 MR. BAILEY: They changed it from 5 to 22 10. 23 MS. GRAINEY: Why are only doing five?. 24 MR. BAILEY: That's what the agencies 25 think is appropriate, necessary to see the 31 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 range of effects in this project. 3 MR. BERSON: So is that -- is the 10 4 years, it's in a WRDA bill legislation? 5 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 6 MR. WILLIS: I guess I'm still kind of 7 confused. Congress said you should do this 8 adaptive management. You guys have never 9 really pinned down exactly what that means. 10 They never pinned down exactly what that 11 means. You're saying that you're going to do 12 this for five years, but five years is really 13 establishing a baseline for future activities 14 with adaptive management. 15 The 10 year thing, is that establishing 16 10 years of a baseline for future or is it 17 ending at 5 -- ending at 10? 18 MR. BAILEY: The five years was to 19 monitor what we're proposing to monitor after 20 construction is done. Anytime in that five 21 years, we can make the adjustments we're 22 proposing to make, and then look at it at the 23 end and make adjustments after five years 24 also. But the monitoring we're proposing 25 would end at five years, so -- 32 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. WILLIS: So the five years -- I 3 thought you said earlier there would be some 4 kind of adaptive management or no? 5 MR. BAILEY: At the end of the five we'd 6 have a body of data for five years. We will 7 look at it each year, and then we'll also look 8 at it the end of five and make a decision -- 9 at the end of five does anything need to be 10 changed? 11 Then we would do whatever that change 12 was. So that change may not occur until year 13 six. Then you would monitor the year after 14 that to make sure that change works like you 15 intended. 16 Okay. Shift a little bit to extension of 17 the entrance channel. This is the overall map 18 of the harbor. The extension channel comes 19 out here and essentially just takes this 20 depth, the channel depth, and goes out until 21 it reaches deep water, so where you have that 22 depth all the time. 23 For the 42 foot project, at this point it 24 is about 60,000 feet out from -- from the 25 inlet right there. So. 33 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. WILLIS: Sixty thousand? 3 MR. BAILEY: Sixty thousand, like 12 4 miles out. So as you deepen the harbor, you 5 need to go further to get to even deeper 6 water. 7 We had a design where we extend that 8 another 25,000 feet on the same alignment. We 9 went out and did surveys to find the depths 10 out there. We found sufficient depth and went 11 3,000 feet beyond that just to make sure. 12 Then last October someone said that -- we 13 had a comment that well, shallow areas exist 14 beyond that. So we went out and surveyed some 15 more further out and found out that they were 16 right. So we looked at some different 17 alignments, different ways to extend that 18 channel out to deep water. 19 We had all sorts of different designs. 20 The basic one we had 60,000 feet, so this was 21 -- the end of the present channel is here. So 22 one design was to just keep going further out. 23 Then they started -- they looked at a map to 24 see where the deep water was, where the 25 different -- I'm not sure what this map was 34 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 from what these depths were from. Basically, 3 they looked to see if there was a shorter 4 distance out to consistent deep water. 5 So that's all these different variations. 6 They come up with these different designs. 7 Engineers can come up with a lot of different 8 alternatives they like to look at. So they 9 came up with at least 11 different groups. 10 Each one has a different amount of 11 material they would have to dig, anywhere from 12 with over depth which is what we'd have to pay 13 for, anywhere from 3,000,000 yards up to 14 20,000,000 yards. 15 So it's quite a variation in quantity of 16 material we would have to remove. We talked 17 to the harbor pilots and evaluated those 18 different alignments on vessel safety, vessel 19 maneuverability and construction cost. 20 We narrowed that group of 11 down to I 21 think it was two, and went to our research 22 arm. The ERDC is the Engineering Research and 23 Development Center in Vicksburg. That's a 24 part of the Corps. 25 They had done ship simulation modeling 35 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 before for the harbor deepening. So we asked 3 them to look at channel extensions. So they 4 did that, and the pilots from Savannah went 5 down to help them with that modeling. They 6 said that the two designs that we had provided 7 to them were acceptable. 8 We decided to go with one called the 9 Alignment 8. That would add somewhere between 10 10 and $22,000,000 to the project cost 11 depending on the depth. As deepen more you 12 need to go out further, so you have more 13 digging. 14 So the new end point for with a 48 foot 15 channel would be out at Station 98. So we're 16 at 60 now, and we thought we were going to 17 have to go another 25,000 feet, basically out 18 to 85. We found out we need to go out to 98, 19 so we need to go out further to get deeper 20 water. 21 MR. DYSART: Will, question. 22 MR. BAILEY: That alignment is shown 23 here. 24 MR. BERSON: So the wide swing, 10 to 25 22,000,000 would be if the Corps suggested 36 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 something less than a 48 foot channel versus?. 3 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 4 MR. BERSON: Okay. 5 MR. WILLIS: Going 50 miles, is that 6 right, 98,000 feet? 7 MR. BAILEY: Five thousand. 8 MS. MOORER: No. 9 MR. BAILEY: That would be 20. 10 MS. MOORER: Not additional 20 miles. 11 MR. BAILEY: Right, that's total. 12 MR. DYSART: Priscilla. 13 MS. WENDT: Has the Corps evaluated the 14 bottom type for each of these alternatives? 15 Do you know whether there's any hard bottom 16 habitat, for instance? 17 MR. BAILEY: NOAA Fisheries brought that 18 up. We don't -- we did evaluate it. We don't 19 think there are any hard bottoms out there, 20 and we're going to do the surveys to make sure 21 that's the case. 22 MS. WENDT: My other question is how 23 would this additional channel extension affect 24 the water quality model for the harbor -- at 25 all? 37 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. BAILEY: No, because it's so far out, 3 it doesn't affect it. 4 MR. SAPP: When you do the cost benefit 5 analysis for the project, does it also take in 6 the maintenance of the channel? 7 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 8 MR. DYSART: David. 9 MR. KYLER: That was my question. 10 MR. DYSART: Judy. 11 MS. JENNINGS: I don't know how far out 12 or where it is, but I'm talking about the 13 Floridan Aquifer, what we call the Tybee high. 14 I know we studied the aquifer a lot of 15 different ways. Does this extension of the 16 entrance channel touch it at all? 17 MR. BAILEY: No. The Tybee high was 18 around Tybee, and it goes back down again as 19 you go offshore. 20 Okay. The overall project, this is the 21 process that we've got in front of us, the 22 draft report. Then we do a technical review 23 and a policy review and then out to the public 24 and then to the resource agencies and the 25 external peer review. 38 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 Then we'll revise it. We'll look at it. 3 The Corps will look at it again as final. It 4 will go back out again for comment as a final 5 report. 6 The agencies will make their decisions 7 and then the Corps would have a record of 8 decision. And the basic timelines for those 9 things, our first draft of it is supposed to 10 be done this month. 11 Next month will be the technical review, 12 and then the Corps, and then the policy review 13 in July. August and September is when it 14 would go out. I'll go to next slide and come 15 back to this. 16 Then in October we would incorporate the 17 comments. November would be when the final 18 report is up in Washington, and then the Corps 19 for a big meeting up there, a civil works 20 review board before it goes out to the public 21 and agencies again as a final with -- all this 22 is going to record of decision around April. 23 What I've got there in red, the public -- 24 I guess that's what -- that's when this body 25 would -- part of your thing was to make 39 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 comments on the adequacies of the mitigation 3 plan. So that's when, I guess, as individuals 4 or if this body decides to do anything as a 5 body, that's probably when it would be. 6 You get another shot as the final. The 7 draft is probably -- it's probably the best 8 time to -- 9 MR. DYSART: Will and Judy. 10 MR. BERSON: Which elements are still 11 outstanding? I mean there's an air quality 12 element and there's a fleet forecast element. 13 Are there other elements that are still under 14 -- still being worked on? 15 MR. BAILEY: They're still doing details 16 on the costs. 17 MR. BERSON: Will those -- will the first 18 time that we see those elements be in the EIS 19 or will we see them in advance of the EIS? 20 MR. BAILEY: Depends on when you have the 21 next meeting. 22 MR. BERSON: Is it the Corps' plan to 23 release those for public review before? 24 MS. MOORER: I'm sorry, economics? 25 MR. BAILEY: Economics is the one I know 40 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 we have been concerned with and wanted a 3 presentation. 4 MS. MOORER: Yeah. 5 MR. BERSON: Air depends on the fleet 6 forecast, right? 7 MR. BAILEY: Air depends on the fleet. 8 The fleet is -- the fleet projection is done. 9 MS. MOORER: It is still under -- what 10 we're running into here though is it's still 11 under internal review of the Corps. So 12 whether it will time that, the Corps will 13 present anything before the EIS and a public 14 workshop, I'm not sure. 15 MR. BAILEY: We'd probably like to have 16 technical review done first. So that would 17 mean, you know, in July would be a time when, 18 if we're to present it before the whole report 19 comes out, that would be in July, be in that 20 time frame. 21 MR. DYSART: Judy, David and Lou. 22 MS. JENNINGS: You know what, I should 23 have asked this years ago. I mean, not that 24 many years ago. It just occurred to me I'm 25 not sure anymore. Like the entrance channel 41 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 made me think when you consider that. 3 Are you going all the way back to the 4 project design vessel, or do you look at the 5 fleet forecast? I'm not sure what we're 6 getting ready for there. 7 Are we getting ready for, you know, the 8 design vessel way back when -- remember, we 9 changed it once, or are we thinking about the 10 forecast for Savannah based on the fleet as 11 projected in the economics analysis? 12 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure what your 13 question is. I know on the entrance channel 14 when they did ship simulation modeling, they 15 used a ship. So it was the design vessel. 16 MS. JENNINGS: That's my question. When 17 we look at the entrance channel scenarios, by 18 what criteria, we're judging what boat was 19 trying to get through, the whole fleet or the 20 design vessel? 21 MR. BAILEY: No. I think it was the 22 design vessel. 23 MS. JENNINGS: And is that -- is that 24 basically true throughout; is what we're 25 trying to accommodate the design vessel? 42 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. BAILEY: The channel is designed for 3 the design vessel, yes, so width, the width of 4 it and the turning basin that's to handle the 5 design vessel. 6 The fleet comes in on the benefit side. 7 So that comes in on how deep you go, you know, 8 what are the benefits for the different 9 depths. 10 MS. JENNINGS: It just feels like there's 11 a disconnect there. I don't know. I'll work 12 it out. 13 MS. MOORER: The design vessel, though, 14 the most likely, what's projected to be the 15 most likely vessel to call in the future, like 16 the normal size vessel at that time in the 17 future, is that what the design vessel is? 18 MR. BAILEY: I believe so. I think that 19 it is. 20 MS. MOORER: I don't know the definition 21 of it. 22 MR. BAILEY: It's toward -- it may not -- 23 I'm not sure it is the maximum size in the 24 fleet, but it's one that it is toward the high 25 end of the larger end of the fleet. It may 43 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 not be the actual biggest in the fleet. 3 MS. JENNINGS: No. What I remember, the 4 design vessel, I know it was changed once, but 5 I don't -- I've forgotten about that for a 6 long time, so has it changed? 7 MR. BAILEY: My understanding it was just 8 changed that once. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 10 MR. DYSART: David. 11 MR. KYLER: Yeah. I apologize if you're 12 essentially augmenting my over-taxed memory 13 here. It has been a while since we met. 14 We've been meeting for many years. How is the 15 regional economic analysis -- is that the term 16 of art -- that applies to this? 17 Where does that fall into this, or has 18 that long since been resolved, or has it been 19 reviewed recently? 20 MR. BAILEY: I know early on, and my 21 memory is fading also when it goes back that 22 far. We looked at a regional port, is there 23 another port that can handle all the growth 24 that we expect to occur. 25 We looked at that and found there was not 44 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 another port that could handle it instead of 3 Savannah. And I'm not sure what the economics 4 -- beyond that, I'm not sure was the economic 5 analysis done. I haven't seen that. 6 MR. KYLER: For what it's worth, it seems 7 to me there's been so many things happening 8 globally in the last five years or so, trade 9 and otherwise, the economy, that would seem to 10 be worth revisiting. 11 MR. DYSART: Lou. 12 MR. OFF: Has there been a final decision 13 yet to use the nearshore of Tybee as a 14 disposal area? 15 MR. BAILEY: That's still in the design 16 we're proposing. That hasn't changed from 17 what we can came up with over three years ago. 18 MR. OFF: So what does that mean, is that 19 going to be a disposal area; are you still 20 thinking about it? 21 MR. BAILEY: That's in the proposed 22 project. 23 MR. OFF: The questions from the state 24 DNR have been answered that were submitted to 25 you about four years ago? 45 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. BAILEY: No. 3 MR. OFF: When will they be answered? 4 MR. BAILEY: Probably after we get the 5 report. We have other people looking at it. 6 MR. OFF: The last estimate we have heard 7 is if you use that area you save about 8 40,000,000 on the project. If you don't use 9 that area, it's going to cost another 10 $40,000,000. 11 I think it's time somebody makes a 12 decision on that, before it gets pushed down 13 our throats. That probably wasn't a question. 14 We're very concerned about that. 15 I don't know about the DNR. We ask them 16 on a monthly basis as to have they had their 17 questions answered. Obviously they haven't. 18 Judging from the quality of the material 19 that's been pumped in there before, we're very 20 concerned about the effect on the beaches, the 21 ecological effect, fish, ships and other 22 ecological factors that are involved as well 23 which have not been answered. 24 MR. BAILEY: What we're proposing to put 25 there is much different than what was placed 46 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 there before at the city's request. It's a 3 much -- has much more sand in it than what was 4 put there before. 5 MR. OFF: If we see no reports as to what 6 is going there and what the make-up of it is, 7 we're in the dark. We'd like to have some 8 information on that. We're concerned time is 9 running out. 10 In four years we think it should be time 11 our questions, or at least the state's 12 questions should be answered. 13 MR. BAILEY: The quality of the material 14 and the design, the basic design has not 15 changed from when we presented it to this 16 group, so that we should be able to go back 17 and find those presentations in there. 18 I know we included information on the 19 quality of the materials and volumes, but 20 you're right. It has been a while since the 21 state asked us that question. We have gotten 22 some guidance from our division office, so now 23 we can -- we know how to answer it. 24 MR. DYSART: Will and then Hope, please. 25 MR. BERSON: It's my understanding that 47 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 in August, September, the Corps will release 3 in the EIS the details of the project, 4 specifically what channel depth meets its 5 review, but there is a local option to go to a 6 deeper depth, I suppose a shallower depth if 7 they're so choosing. 8 How does that get figured into a review 9 of EIS? You're going to propose a project 10 that GPA may or may not agree with. When does 11 the public get a chance comment? What's that 12 first round of comment look like? We're 13 commenting on your choice? 14 MR. BAILEY: It should be on our proposal 15 and it should include the locally preferred 16 plan. We would have already asked the port 17 authority do they want something different 18 than that. 19 MR. BERSON: Okay. So in a way the EIS 20 would have two recommendations; one the Corps' 21 recommendation, and two the locally preferred 22 option, and which one gets presented in the 23 EIS? 24 MR. BAILEY: It would just be one 25 recommendation. 48 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. BERSON: Would we therefore ever know 3 what the Corps' recommendation -- if GPA 4 differed with the Corps, would we ever know 5 what the original -- 6 MS. MOORER: Oh yeah. 7 MR. BAILEY: The Corps -- basically the 8 Corps would recommend what's called the 9 National Economic Development Plan. So that's 10 in there. That plan may or may not be the 11 recommended the plan. We'll identify which is 12 that National Economic -- 13 MR. BERSON: Okays. So in the first 14 consideration of the draft EIS, we will be 15 having an opportunity to look at what the real 16 project is, as opposed to the NED project? 17 There will be -- 18 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 19 MR. BERSON: Okay. 20 MR. DYSART: Hope. 21 MS. MOORER: No, I'm okay, whatever. 22 MR. BAILEY: And the Corps put out 23 recently last week, I think, a fact sheet on 24 the public website. It just says facts on the 25 Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. I guess 49 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 there's 15 questions -- basically answers to 3 15 questions. 4 The basic question is about the project. 5 Number one, what is the Corps of Engineers 6 current role in the expansion project, number 7 two why is the Corps involved in this type of 8 project, number three what is determined 9 through the economic review. 10 Those are the types of questions. That's 11 out there on the -- you probably don't need 12 all that stuff, but it's on the Corps' public 13 website, the district's website. Hope. 14 MS. MOORER: Also wasn't it posted on the 15 workshop that y'all had recently on Corps' 16 projects. 17 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. We had somebody come 18 from our Atlanta office and talk about civil 19 works, the process of civil works projects, 20 how they're put together and how they are 21 reviewed. I think they took a video of that 22 and that's up there also. 23 MR. KYLER: That address you've got up 24 there, which I might add is rather lengthy, 25 has the date of May 10th, '06. Does that mean 50 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 it's been posted since then or is it dated as 3 of then or -- 4 MR. BAILEY: I don't know. I think 5 that's just wrong. 6 MS. MOORER: It could have been put 7 together then, because basically those 8 questions he's asking what role the Corps 9 plays and things like that. 10 MR. KYLER: Unchanged question. 11 MR. WRIGHT: That's not 2006. That's a 12 thing from the presentation, the way it's put 13 out. Those three decimals, the three things 14 after Q and A, are a symbol. They are not 15 2006. 16 MR. BAILEY: I just copied the link and 17 put it in there. I don't know why it was 18 there. 19 MS. MOORER: We'll put a link on our 20 Savannah Harbor Expansion Project website, the 21 SEG website, essentially over to that in case. 22 You don't have to write that down. 23 MR. BAILEY: I just wanted to let y'all 24 know that was out there. 25 MR. KYLER: Ironically, the way Hope 51 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 reacted to my question suggests now, suggests 3 to me, that's kind of generic information. 4 MS. MOORER: Yes. 5 MR. KYLER: It's not time-sensitive, 6 nothing new on there about new findings, 7 adaptive management, anything like that. 8 MR. BAILEY: Right. It's not four years 9 old either. 10 MR. KYLER: But because it's not, it's 11 fairly generic stuff. Is there some chance of 12 getting some other stuff posted, like the 13 material you had up here today? 14 MR. BAILEY: These presentations are 15 typically posted on GPA's website, so those 16 are available. 17 MR. KYLER: And Is there any kind of -- I 18 don't know -- bulletin board or discussion 19 group feature that allows people to ask 20 questions and get -- or at least to have you 21 add them to the list of questions you're 22 considering in the further analysis of the 23 project? 24 MR. BAILEY: I don't know. At the end of 25 this it says for questions -- for answers to 52 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 other questions call this number and it gives 3 a time. 4 MR. KYLER: So there's no online place to 5 post questions? 6 MR. BAILEY: No. 7 MS. GRAINEY: I have a question that made 8 me think about the EIS, which is rumored to 9 weigh 45 pounds. How are we going to have 10 access to this; is it going to be online? 11 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 12 MS. GRAINEY: Is that the way to get 13 access to it? 14 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. We don't want to make 15 lots and lots of hardcopies. 16 MR. KYLER: Is there an impact assessment 17 of the hardcopy production? 18 MR. WILLIS: I'd like to be clear on 19 what's not -- what we can not expect to be in 20 there. There are several things I think are 21 kind of interesting. I want to be sure that 22 they're not going to be in there. 23 One thing I understand is not going to 24 in the new analysis about potential conflict 25 with plans for Charleston or Jacksonville 53 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 development. I'd like to go over kind of the 3 list. 4 There's not going to be a consideration 5 of the possibility of interbasin transfers 6 taking water out of Savannah, and what that 7 reduced flow would cause. 8 There's not going to any analysis of the 9 40 to 60,000,000 gallons a day of lost water 10 from the Vogtle expansion which has kind of 11 already been approved in Georgia. 12 There's not going to be any consideration 13 of the impact of the Jasper port being 14 developed. 15 There's not going to be any consideration 16 of increased demand for surface water, due to 17 problems with saltwater intrusion. 18 There's not going to be any consideration 19 for traffic impacts from the expansion Elba 20 Island LNG or possibly Jasper. So all those 21 things are not going to considered. 22 MR. BAILEY: That's incorrect. 23 MR. WILLIS: Which are going to be 24 considered specific? 25 MR. BAILEY: Start over, one at a time. 54 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. WILLIS: Basically, having the 3 possibility of three regional ports; one in 4 Charleston, one in Savannah, and one in 5 Jacksonville. 6 MR. BAILEY: There is some regional port 7 analysis in there. 8 MR. WILLIS: It's old, fairly old stuff. 9 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure whether it's 10 old or whether it's been updated or not. We 11 took public comments on it before. Next. 12 MR. WILLIS: Interbasin transfers, how 13 that would affect the flow and your modeling? 14 MR. BAILEY: This project doesn't propose 15 interbasin transfer. If someone is proposing 16 those things, they have to get their own 17 environmental approvals. 18 MS. MOORER: Bill, you do look at there 19 was an analysis of various flow levels down 20 the channel within the modeling. 21 MR. BAILEY: I know the fisheries impacts 22 we have looked at; high flows, average flows, 23 low flows. 24 MR. WILLIS: Do you recall what was the 25 low flows? 55 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. BAILEY: I think it was like 25% of 3 the distribution of flows. I don't remember 4 what the number is. We basically did all the 5 flows. The average flow was 50%. We did a 6 low flow 25%, a high flow 75%. 7 MR. WILLIS: Then there is the Vogtle. 8 Where did the 60,000,000 gallons of lost 9 water, which would be, I guess, below your 10 initial minimum flow analysis? 11 MR. BAILEY: Again, if it's another 12 project, then they will have to get their own 13 environmental permits. 14 MR. WILLIS: Jasper. 15 MR. BAILEY: There is an analysis of a 16 terminal in Jasper County, as well as the 17 public has already reviewed that as an 18 alternative to this one deepening Garden City. 19 MR. WILLIS: The public has already 20 reviewed that? 21 MR. BAILEY: That will be in the EIS. 22 MR. WILLIS: The growing use of surface 23 water, because of saltwater intrusion and 24 unwillingness to pump water out of the 25 aquifer. 56 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. BAILEY: I think that's pretty much 3 the same thing as the Vogtle and interbasin. 4 In fact, it is the same. 5 MR. WILLIS: I guess it's the growing 6 demand for this water, the growing demand 7 besides the flow, but that's just another 8 consideration. 9 MR. BAILEY: Right. We did not look at 10 that specifically, that's correct. 11 MR. WILLIS: The traffic, the combined, 12 the holistic look at the traffic, it would be 13 changed by the size of ships, the number of 14 ships, with the LNG expansion, and the harbor 15 deepening, and the possibility of Jasper being 16 developed. 17 MR. BAILEY: LNG is already approved and 18 in construction, but traffic may pick up with 19 that. The basic project, basic analysis, the 20 Corps' analysis of harbor deepening does not 21 assume any increase in cargo with a deeper 22 harbor. So if the cargo doesn't go up, then 23 the traffic doesn't go up either. There would 24 be no -- 25 MR. WILLIS: The long-term projection is 57 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 a tremendous increase, but you said that would 3 be happening anyway. 4 MR. BAILEY: Correct. I know the ports 5 in the state are working on things now to 6 address some road improvements. Hope. 7 MS. MOORER: There is an analysis and LNG 8 traffic within the study. There is as an 9 analysis, and there is a simulation of harbor 10 traffic within the study as well, from what I 11 understand. I've not seen the results of it 12 yet, but there is. 13 MR. BAILEY: Part of the economic 14 analysis is traffic of the vessels with, you 15 know, sequencing of riptides and all that. 16 MR. WILLIS: That's interesting because 17 the last traffic analysis, it is mainly about 18 how wide the river has to be to make ships go 19 in and out, but not actually any analysis of a 20 contingent for channel space. 21 MR. BAILEY: Was there more? 22 MR. WILLIS: Those are all. 23 MR. DYSART: Will. 24 MR. BERSON: Hopefully one of the things 25 that comes out of these regular meetings is a 58 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 sense of concerns that we see on the horizon. 3 I think, I mean your answer to Steve was fair 4 enough in that interbasin transfers, and the 5 impact from Vogtle expansion have to get their 6 own approvals. That's very true. 7 It kind of overlooks the fact that, at 8 least as far as saltwater, the saltwater 9 wedge, we're talking about a balance between 10 fresh and saltwater. If there is an upstream, 11 permanent diversion like Vogtle and like an 12 IBT would represent, I do think it is 13 incumbent upon the project to evaluate, or at 14 least do a sensitivity analysis as to how far 15 off your modeling might be. 16 If Vogtle is -- I know the Corps wants 17 certain things, wants things to be certain, 18 before they take them into account. It's 19 looking like Vogtl is pretty certain, and 20 40,000,000 gallons is a hefty diversion. 21 Also IBT is maybe less so, but both of 22 those things, it seems to me, have the 23 potential to change your modeling result, 24 based on freshwater flow input into the 25 system. 59 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 Whether or not they have to get their own 3 environmental permits doesn't necessarily 4 relieve the Corps of the responsibility of 5 looking at a fairly known input to the system. 6 I just want to put that out for you. I 7 think its' something that would be wise for 8 you to take into account, because I promise 9 you it's something The Georgia Conservancy 10 will be mentioning in our comments on the EIS 11 if you don't. 12 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Thank you. 13 MR. DYSART: Judy. 14 MS. JENNINGS: One of Steve's questions 15 made me have a thought. This goes back 14 16 years. Once in a while I actually have a 17 flash. I think I might be understanding one 18 of the basic assumptions that Morgan and I 19 have talked about, and it is that the depth of 20 the harbor, the assumption is the depth -- 21 tell me if I'm wrong. 22 The assumption is that the depth of the 23 harbor doesn't change the amount of traffic 24 that comes through it. 25 MR. BAILEY: The Corps' analysis -- 60 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 opinion, it's a more conservative approach. 3 It says it doesn't change the amount of 4 commodities that move through the harbor. 5 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 6 MR. BAILEY: Traffic, the ships may 7 change, but the total goods and the type of 8 goods won't change. 9 MS. JENNINGS: So regardless of harbor 10 depth, we still assume that commodity quantity 11 and commodity type will be the same, with or 12 without harbor deepening, and regardless of 13 the depth? 14 MR. BAILEY: That's the Corps' assumption 15 and its -- I understand there can be different 16 assumptions and different reasons for those. 17 MS. JENNINGS: I just thought we might 18 remember that one. I've understood a whole 19 bunch of them in between. I still stumble on 20 that one. 21 MR. DYSART: Jane. 22 MS. GRIESS: I was following up what 23 Will said a moment ago, talking about the 24 additional 40,000,000 gallons of water. The 25 modeling that was done for the low flows on 61 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 this project were done many years ago. 3 I know last summer and the summer before, 4 the Corps was proposing to change their 5 drought plan on the river from reservoirs 6 upstream. That was not considered. 7 I think it was to reduce the flows, or 8 it proposed to reduce the flows during drought 9 periods. That portion wasn't figured into the 10 modeling, which is an additional completion of 11 flows down the river. 12 MR. BAILEY: The Corps did change the low 13 flows during the drought, just during the 14 drought. Those approval went away when the 15 drought ended. 16 MS. GRIESS: During those lower flows 17 periods, I guess, was the point. 18 MR. BAILEY: We presently don't approvals 19 to go lower than. 20 MS. GRIESS: Than what, the drought plan? 21 MR. BAILEY: Right. 22 MS. GRIESS: There is a push to change 23 that from lakefront to -- there is a push to 24 reduce the low flows during drought 25 conditions. That did not happen, is that what 62 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 you are saying? They did not reduce the flows 3 in the drought plan? 4 MR. BAILEY: We haven't changed the 5 drought plan. There are always people who 6 would like to. 7 MR. WILLIS: Didn't you in this drought 8 reduce the flow below the minimum flow you had 9 originally -- you had a special waiver to 10 lower down to 31? 11 MR. BAILEY: Thirty-one during the 12 winter. 13 MR. WILLIS: That was lower than the 14 original plan. 15 MR. BAILEY: The original plan was 36. 16 MR. WILLIS: You might lower it lower 17 than lowest - you have, as a matter of fact. 18 MR. BAILEY: On a temporary basis, yeah. 19 MR. DYSART: My view is we have 20 continuing questions that keep bubbling up 21 here. I notice people are starting to drift 22 to get their coffee. Let's take a five minute 23 break. Stretches to six, okay. Try not to 24 make it 10. 25 (Short Break) 63 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. Take your seat. We 3 will crank back up for the last two hours of 4 the Bill Bailey show. Okay. The first thing 5 I would like to do is the people who have 6 joined our group, since we introduced 7 ourselves, I want to make sure we get you on 8 the record. Judy. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia 10 Sierra. 11 MS. BONITATIBUS: Tonya Bonitatibus, 12 Savannah Riverkeeper. 13 MS. KRONQUEST: Stacey Kronquest, Coastal 14 Group Sierra Club. 15 MR. DYSART: Anybody else? 16 MR. KYLER: Dave Kyler, Center for a 17 Sustainable Coast. 18 MR. DYSART: The distinguished Mr. Kyler. 19 Some people were talking about how many people 20 were here at the first meeting, and well, 21 Jamie was here even when I came the first 22 time. Then he went away. Now he's been 23 resurrected. Jamie was here early on from the 24 very beginning, and not very many more 25 MS. BONITATIBUS: I was -- I was much 64 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 younger. 3 MR. DYSART: Weren't we all. Everybody 4 else has introduced themselves. Let's 5 continue with the question. I guess I had the 6 feeling the questions were bubbling along. 7 These were good questions and comments, 8 philosophical and otherwise. I did not wish 9 to shut things off or crank things down, so 10 let's continue. Who wants to ask the next 11 question or make the next comment on the 12 record. 13 MR. KYLER: Who are you asking? Bill's 14 gone. 15 MR. DYSART: Bill is still out there. 16 MR. BAILEY: You can ask somebody else a 17 question. 18 MR. DYSART: Bill gives us Bill answers. 19 People seem to like that. Further questions 20 of Bill or anyone. Will. 21 MR. BERSON: As part of the five year 22 monitoring, will you be looking at and 23 evaluating the efficacy of oxygenation 24 systems? 25 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 65 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. DYSART: Bill. 3 MR. SAPP: I think Judy was next. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Well, this is sort of a 5 more long-term question. I don't mean it to 6 be esoteric. What if the project -- this is a 7 scope question. 8 What if the project is hung up on any one 9 thing? I'm thinking like how does the Corps 10 deal with it if you get permits, you actually 11 have some money. You're going along and just 12 pick something, say the oxygenation system. 13 All of a sudden maybe the engineering 14 didn't -- I could think of several harbor 15 projects around our coastline, even older than 16 this, where they haven't been completely 17 built. 18 So how -- when does the Corps decide to 19 revisit? I mean, do you anticipate the need 20 for? When do you think gosh, what if we sit 21 here three years and we can't solve some 22 oxygenation problem? 23 I mean, I'm thinking about Delaware and 24 projects on the West Coast that are partially 25 constructed before it started. 66 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. BAILEY: We would go back to the 3 federal cooperating agencies and come up with 4 some plan ahead. 5 MS. JENNINGS: That's sort of another 6 thing. At what point in time does the 7 language from the Congressional authorization, 8 is it always operative? I mean once the Corps 9 starts construction, for instance, any given 10 mitigation measure, if it becomes apparent we 11 need to do adaptive, are they back to the 12 regular NEPA process, the regular role NEPA 13 gives them? 14 MR. BAILEY: Good questions. I'm not 15 sure of the answers. I think the legislation 16 talks about approving a project or not. Then 17 after that, I think it then falls to whatever 18 is written. In my personal opinion, it then 19 falls to whatever is written in the EIS and 20 approval documents. 21 Like the way it's written now is that the 22 agency would decide on the adaptive 23 management. They have that decision. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 25 MR. BAILEY: Lawyer stuff. 67 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MS. JENNINGS: Lawyer stuff, okay. 3 MR. DYSART: Bill, David, Will. 4 MR. SAPP: Bill, I was curious what the 5 line of thinking was for mitigation, like the 6 Savannah -- I'm lacking on the name of the 7 wildlife preserve. 8 The mitigation that we've talked about in 9 the past, sort of bringing that system up to 10 speed before moving forward with this project, 11 I was curious as to the latest thinking on 12 that wildlife refuge. 13 MR. BAILEY: The freshwater control 14 system, the rehabilitation of the water, the 15 water control? 16 MR. SAPP: Exactly. 17 MR. BAILEY: I think the Corps has gotten 18 some money for that, and I think it took it 19 from a number of places, or got it from a 20 number of places. Some was the Savannah 21 district and we had some from other districts. 22 Basically, it identified some O and M, and 23 identified FY 10 moneys that they could put 24 toward that now, and also identified some 25 other sources for next year. I think they 68 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 have worked up now to put that into, I think, 3 a three year -- two year -- 4 MS. GRIESS: Eighteen month for the 5 project, 18 month currently is what we're 6 proposing for the project, for completion 7 starting in June of this year. 8 They have some funding, as Bill said. 9 The majority of the funding is in next year's 10 President's budget, supposedly, if it stays 11 there. So right now work is scheduled to 12 start mid-June on their first phase of the 13 project. 14 MR. SAPP: Okay. 15 MS. GRIESS: So we're moving forward, 16 hopefully they keep moving forward. 17 MR. DYSART: David. 18 MR. KYLER: Picking up on Judy's comment, 19 it seems to me the question she was asking is 20 also germane to adaptive management. But in 21 any case, as far as I know in the procedure as 22 conventionally used, project decision-making 23 and the management process, the Corps does not 24 have any specified deal-breaker limits on 25 impacts. 69 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 In other words, once a project is 3 approved, if impacts are incurred, they're 4 dealt with as best you can, but the project 5 does not stop because of unacceptable impacts. 6 MR. BAILEY: Yeah, I agree. 7 MR. KYLER: It seems to me as part of the 8 whole concept, especially when you are trying 9 to interject adaptive management, we ought to 10 agree upon certain conditions, which when they 11 occur are simply unacceptable, and the project 12 is stopped until it can be resolved. 13 If it can't be resolved, the project 14 doesn't proceed, especially in light of the BP 15 issue in the Gulf. 16 MR. BAILEY: That is one approach. 17 MR. DYSART: Will. 18 MR. BERSON: Very much in the same vein, 19 I want to put this as politely as I can. We 20 could be facing a situation where the project 21 does not perform as modeled. Let's just pick 22 on something -- oxygenation. It is not -- it 23 -- there really isn't a warranty here that the 24 Corps and the federal agencies will make it 25 right, if oxygenation as approached doesn't 70 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 work. 3 I mean, as we evaluate this project 4 through the EIS and the final statement, we're 5 assuming oxygenation is going to work. If it 6 doesn't, then we have to hope that the federal 7 agencies can come up with a plan B. And if 8 they don't, hard cheese. Is that basically 9 the way it goes? 10 MR. BAILEY: I guess I would think that 11 the state water quality certification is 12 probably dependent on certain performance. 13 MR. BERSON: Agreed, but we'll already 14 have a channel. The project will already be 15 done by the time we understand the oxygenation 16 system doesn't work. So, you know, where's 17 the leverage to make the federal agencies do 18 the right thing or come up with something? 19 There may not be a right thing. 20 MR. BAILEY: If the mitigation -- if that 21 mitigation feature didn't perform at all, it 22 would be kind of like not doing the 23 mitigation. So the state could withdraw its 24 water quality certification. 25 MR. BERSON: Meaning functionally what? 71 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. BAILEY: Meaning you can't dredge 3 anymore. 4 MR. BERSON: Well, but we already -- I 5 mean, other than maintenance dredging there 6 wouldn't be a need to do it. 7 MR. BAILEY: They could just withdraw the 8 certification for maintenance dredging, or 9 they could say don't do any dredging, you 10 know, until it fills up to 40, up to some 11 depth. 12 MR. BERSON: That will take longer than 13 the SEG process. In any case, what I'm 14 getting at here, the suite of mitigation 15 measures is not a warranty. 16 It is a performance guarantee by the 17 Corps. You know, you're doing the best you 18 can. You're using the best tools you can come 19 up with to approach a problem. 20 If those don't work, then we're left 21 wondering, you know, what's next. There may 22 not be a what's next is, I guess, what I'm 23 saying, which means for an advocacy group like 24 The Georgia Conservancy, it's hard for us to 25 not take a second and third look at things. 72 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 We think maybe we can link in the 3 mitigation chain, because apparently there is 4 some plan B if part of this doesn't work, and 5 we'll be left with a project that's not 6 mitigated, at least perhaps in some elements, 7 is really what I'm getting at. 8 There isn't ample responsibility on the 9 Corps or the resources agencies to make it 10 right. I mean, it's kind of like do the best 11 you can. 12 MR. BAILEY: I guess I look at it 13 differently. I think the mitigation is part 14 of the project. If you can't do the 15 mitigation then you can't do the project. 16 In this case, you would have the channel 17 fill in up to where it was before, which when 18 it fills in foot a month, it wouldn't take 19 long. 20 MR. BERSON: Okay. All right. 21 MR. DYSART: Bill. 22 MR. SAPP: This gets back to Judy's 23 question and some other questions, as far as 24 the adaptive management is concerned. I know 25 you don't have an EC. I was curious if you 73 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 have anything down on paper; that is, an 3 analysis of a statute, or the authorization 4 for the project that, you know, mentions 5 adaptive management, and then interprets that 6 to what it means? 7 In this case, you've basically gone 8 through it in these slides. I was curious if 9 you have a document that fleshes out what 10 adaptive management is going to be for this 11 project that you can share with us? 12 MR. BAILEY: In the EIS is the background 13 behind the stuff I've shown you. There's not 14 a document that ties that back to a 15 Congressional requirement to do adaptive 16 management. The monitoring and adaptive 17 management plan is just that -- 18 MR. SAPP: This project -- this is what 19 you're doing for adoptive management -- 20 MR. BAILEY: Yeah, right. 21 MS. BONITATIBUS: I have a question about 22 the Stripers. What adaptive management will 23 be done for the Striper population? 24 I understand some of -- the Savannah 25 Wildlife Refuge will close some fisheries and 74 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 it will have an affect on the Striper habitat. 3 My second portion to that is that my 4 understanding is part of the wildlife refuge 5 mitigation will be to cut off part of Middle 6 River, which will significantly reduce the 7 Houlihan Bridge access. For fisherman, that's 8 one of their favorite trout fishing areas. 9 My understanding is to be able to get to 10 that area, they will have to go through a 11 private home area to get to a public boat 12 ramp. I don't know that I'm indicating that 13 quite well -- 14 MR. BAILEY: First part, the mitigation 15 plan has in there money to expand the Georgia 16 DNR stocking programs to compensate for the 17 loss in habitat for striped bass. And the 18 second part, you're right. Rifle Cut will be 19 filled as one of the mitigation features to 20 try to keep saltwater away from Back River. 21 And recognizing that that would -- that's 22 the access point -- not an access point but 23 the point fisherman use and boaters use, we're 24 proposing a new boat ramp on Hutchinson 25 Island, and that would have access to that. 75 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 That would be through the county lands. It's 3 not a private development. 4 That would be a county boat ramp. So we 5 propose to build it and give it to Chatham 6 County. 7 MR. DYSART: Further comments, questions? 8 MS. JENNINGS: It drives me crazy, so 9 before we leave and it drives me crazy the 10 rest of the day, Will, I think you started it. 11 I'm not sure you started it. 12 The locally preferred plan versus the 13 NED, will the book take us through the NED 14 analysis -- it will. 15 And is it your job to justify the locally 16 preferred plan? I didn't get the connection 17 there. You said you talk with GPA and you say 18 this is what we got and that's what will be in 19 the book? 20 MR. BAILEY: That would contain both of 21 those steps. 22 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. Well, is there the 23 assumption that the NED plan will be the 24 Corps' recommended plan? 25 MR. BAILEY: No. 76 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MS. JENNINGS: Your recommended plan will 3 be what you come up with after conferring with 4 GPA? 5 MR. BAILEY: (Nods head up and down.) 6 MS. JENNINGS: That leads me to that. I 7 know the cost share is different between -- I 8 guess where I'm going is obviously erroneous. 9 Will assumed the Corps' recommended plan would 10 be the NED plan, and then that there would be 11 a cost share distribution between that and the 12 locally preferred plan. 13 The way I'm understanding you right now 14 is that the locally preferred plan will be the 15 Corps' recommendation. 16 MR. BAILEY: No, not necessarily. 17 MS. JENNINGS: I'm parroting back what I 18 think I understood. If I got it wrong, help 19 me get it straight, please. 20 MS. MOORER: I'll take a crack at it. 21 First, if there is a locally preferred plan, 22 that's a big if, then whatever the difference 23 is between the Corps' recommended plan and the 24 locally preferred plan, GPA is responsible for 25 100% of that, and 100% of the difference of 77 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 the O and M costs between that. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Right. 4 MS. MOORER: If there is a locally 5 preferred plan, all that will be laid out in 6 the document. 7 MS. JENNINGS: That part as I understood. 8 MS. MOORER: No, but I mean the 9 difference in cost, it's still considered a 10 project cost, cost and aboves are based on it 11 and all that. 12 The cost GPA would be paying, the cost 13 the federal government is paying, and the 14 local sponsor share on the recommended plan 15 versus the locally preferred plan, if there is 16 one. 17 All that would be laid out. You'll be 18 able to see all of that. If they don't put it 19 in there, we'll give it to you. 20 MS. JENNINGS: I guess my sticking point, 21 it sounded to me like the Corps' recommended 22 plan. 23 MS. MOORER: No. 24 MS. JENNINGS: That's where I'm 25 disconnecting. 78 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MS. MOORER: They have, from what I 3 understand, a recommended plan. If there is 4 something else, then that is the locally 5 preferred plan. And the cost share, whether 6 they go forward and document it, that's called 7 the recommended plan in the end. 8 The cost share doesn't change. We still 9 are responsible for anything different from 10 what the Corps was recommending to begin with, 11 the NED plan or whatever you want to call it. 12 MS. JENNINGS: My stumbling block is 13 still the Corps' recommended plan. Maybe you 14 can just define for me what will that be. 15 MR. BAILEY: Morgan, you can help us out 16 on all this. I'll wander around some more. 17 MS. JENNINGS: The thing is, if one of my 18 colleagues asked me to explain this, I 19 couldn't. 20 MR. BAILEY: I see. Another Corps 21 decision, the Corps identifies the NED plan 22 and then we go to the sponsor saying what do 23 you think, you want something bigger, 24 something smaller, something different. 25 Then there's another decision by the 79 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 Corps, do we want to include whatever that 3 locally preferred plan is. Do we want to go 4 with the Corps' recommended plan. I think 5 there's another -- 6 MS. JENNINGS: And then when you put that 7 on top is what I always understood. I hope 8 I've always understood what you said. 9 MS. MOORER: We're still responsible for 10 the difference in cost, whether they 11 recommended -- whether you call it the 12 recommended plan or whatever appears in the 13 document, whatever you call it. 14 If we would like to go with something 15 different than the Corps says is the project 16 plan, then we're responsible for the cost 17 differential and the difference in O and M. 18 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 19 MR. REES: It seems to me I've been 20 invited to put my $.02 worth in, $.03 maybe. 21 NED is the recommended plan. The point is 22 terminology here. There is a NED plan which 23 is what the federal government will cost 24 share. Then there could be some bigger or 25 smaller plan. In this case, it would probably 80 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 be bigger. 3 If there is, one would be the plan that 4 is recommended. The Corps would recommend it, 5 but only if there are several really major 6 conditions, the none federal sponsor would pay 7 100%, as hope described, of any incremental 8 cost, but also that the incremental amount of 9 work still meets all the environmental 10 requirements. 11 In other words, the Corps would not 12 recommend the plan, even if it's the locally 13 preferred plan, if there are some unresolved 14 environmental issues. So the two elements of 15 the project, the economic and environmental 16 impacts work differently, when you are talking 17 about the NED plan and recommended plan. 18 Any recommended plan has to meet all 19 environmental requirements, regardless of 20 whether they're NED or the locally preferred 21 plan. On the economics, it's 100% 22 non-federal once you go beyond the NED plan. 23 I don't know if that helps or confuses things 24 more. That's my take on it. 25 MS. JENNINGS: Thank you, Morgan. 81 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MR. DYSART: Bill. 3 MR. SAPP: I want to ask Hope, I mean you 4 made a statement -- where is Hope? 5 MS. MOORER: I'm here. 6 MR. SAPP: You made a statement there may 7 not be a locally preferred plan. 8 MS. MOORER: I said if there is. I don't 9 know, above my pay grade. The board would 10 have to decide. There's a lot of money in the 11 difference in the plan. That's something the 12 board would have to decide. 13 MR. SAPP: Okay. That's what you were 14 referring to. 15 MS. MOORER: Yes. 16 MR. SAPP: Any assistance the federal 17 government decides on, looking at the NED 18 analysis, 45 feet is as far as the federal 19 government is willing to go. 20 The GPA is going to pick up the extra 21 expense of going to 48 feet. That's the 22 scenario NED would be. The 45 you guys would 23 have to pick up -- 24 MS. MOORER: Decide to -- 25 MR. SAPP: -- pick up the extra. I don't 82 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 know who to ask the question to. Let's say 3 the 45 feet was the plan where economics made 4 the most sense, favorable cost benefit ratio. 5 That's as far as the federal government 6 is willing to go. Could the locals -- again, 7 just hypothetical, could the local sponsor go 8 to a cost benefit ratio below one, or does the 9 federal government step in and say no, you 10 can't do that? 11 MS. MOORER: The NED plan is where the 12 benefits are greatest. 13 MR. SAPP: Right, right. 14 MS. MOORER: It's not looked at as a BC 15 ratio. It has to meet the one-to-one standard 16 for the project. I'm not sure the government 17 would -- I don't know how that works. 18 MR. SAPP: I'll save that then. 19 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 20 MR. REES: Just by the way, the analysis 21 works out, anything above the NED plan is 22 presumed to be uneconomical, otherwise the 23 Corps would support that 24 MR. McCURRY: Maybe less economical. 25 MR. REES: With all due respect, the way 83 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 the process works, that's an important concept 3 to keep in mind. The analytical process that 4 the Corps uses, as Hope was describing, you 5 draw essentially on performance curve costs 6 and benefits, where that curve maximizes, 7 that's the NED plan. 8 Anything on the downside, to the right of 9 that slope, automatically becomes uneconomical 10 in terms of you've got to invest $1 to get 11 less than $1, otherwise the curve would 12 continue to go up on the graph. 13 There are circumstances we don't know 14 here because we haven't seen the economic 15 analysis. There are circumstances when a 16 non-federal sponsor has an analysis of 17 economics that maybe isn't the same as the 18 analysis of the economics that the Corps did. 19 The sponsor's curve may continue to grow. 20 I don't know of a situation, there may be 21 some. I don't know of one where a sponsor 22 thought they were going to get fewer benefits 23 and -- 24 MR. SAPP: Right. 25 MR. REES: I don't know that ever 84 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 happened. There may be other factors 3 unrelated to economics that a sponsor would 4 consider. Those vary in any individual case 5 this applies to, not just a navigation 6 project but flood control projects, even an 7 environmental restoration project. 8 I can attest we spent hours trying to 9 figure out how to quantify the value of the 10 environmental improvement projects, wetlands 11 creations, so forth.. 12 The decisions are made by the Corps in 13 the NED plan. That meets environmental 14 factors. There are lots of other things that 15 come into play on these situations. 16 MR. SAPP: That was helpful. 17 MR. REES: Okay. 18 MR. DYSART: Steve Willis. 19 MR. WILLIS: Just to clarify, the 100% of 20 the cost covered by GPA for the extended local 21 preferred plan, does that include paying for 22 all mitigation caused by an increase in the 23 plan? 24 MS. MOORER: Yes. 25 MR. DYSART: Judy. 85 1 PROJECT UPDATE 2 MS. JENNINGS: Just to clarify, the NED 3 plan we keep talking about, Morgan, I'm 4 talking about the 50 year plan. It includes 5 benefits and appropriately discounting into 6 the future 50 years. 7 MR. REES: I'm sorry. I didn't catch all 8 the question. 9 MS. JENNINGS: NED is based on the 50 10 year plan. 11 MR. REES: Yes. 12 MR. DYSART: Bill, you have another 13 question? 14 MR. SAPP: Oh, I'm sorry. 15 MR. DYSART: Seeing no further questions, 16 we'll consider that we've finished the project 17 update. Thank you, Bill. Thank you for all 18 of the comments and questions. Do we have any 19 committee reports today? 20 MR. KYLER: Will may have one. 21 MR. DYSART: Well let's see here. Hope, 22 what are your thoughts about the proposed next 23 meeting date? We'll pencil something in 24 somewhere down the road. 25 MS. MOORER: I think based on what Bill 86 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 said, and the calendar he put up there, if 3 there's an opportunity, essentially, for any 4 explanation of the economics prior to the 5 release of the document, it may happen in 6 July. We put July 6th on here. That is right 7 after the 4th. That's the Monday or the 8 Tuesday after the 4th. I don't know if we 9 should put it the following week, the 13th. 10 MR. DYSART: Probably makes more sense. 11 MS. MOORER: Some people with vacation 12 schedules -- we might want to keep it a little 13 fluid too, depending on whether we're able to 14 get a report from the Corps prior to release 15 of the document. 16 So I would suggest that we put it on July 17 13th, and that's kind of subject to whether or 18 not we're able to get something. 19 In the meantime, I'd like to schedule, if 20 at all possible, an interim SEG meeting. If 21 we can do that on July -- I mean June 15th, 22 because I'm not available on the 8th, if 23 that's okay. Is that okay? 24 MR. DYSART: Judy, do you have a 25 question? 87 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 MS. JENNINGS: I'm sorry. I should have 3 jumped in before committee reports. Quickly, 4 can I ask has the book on the aeration system 5 proposal, has that been written? Do we know 6 everything we need to know about that? 7 MR. BAILEY: We have our final design. I 8 don't have the last report. 9 MR. DYSART: Speaking of aeration, a few 10 months ago I had an opportunity to visit the 11 distinguished professor Dick Speece. I told 12 him there were lots of nice things said about 13 him in the Savannah area. 14 He was pleased and so forth. Anyway, I 15 told him he really needed to do the job. 16 Okay. So we have tentative on July the 13th 17 pending and so forth like we have in recent 18 months. 19 MS. MOORER: As has been said, pending 20 room available, all that too and the Corps 21 available. 22 MR. DYSART: Will, recognize Will. 23 MR. BERSON: Just -- 24 MR. DYSART: Report, comments, whatever 25 wisdom he wishes to say. 88 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 MR. BERSON: It's not wisdom. I just 3 want to say -- 4 MR. DYSART: In this group what you say 5 passes on considerable wisdom. 6 MR. BERSON: I want to that Bill Bailey, 7 this is not the first time he's faced a 8 peppering of questions. You take it all in 9 good grace. I really appreciate it. 10 You are trying to represent the work 11 being done by a whole lot of people, and 12 that's very complicated. We don't give you 13 much of a break. 14 I wanted to say thank you. It is 15 appreciated, even if we seem to scowl and make 16 funny faces at your answers. We appreciate 17 the fact you're here. 18 Also I wanted to say you might have 19 seen in the newspaper The Georgia Conservancy 20 along with The Georgia Ports Authority 21 conducted a harbor tour on the 1st of May. 22 That was a really wonderful opportunity to 23 show folks, not SEG folks by an overwhelming 24 margin, what the project looks like and what 25 the elements are. 89 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 And not only was the day great, but the 3 interaction on e-mail afterwards between the 4 participants has been great. I just want to 5 recognize GPA. Without their support it 6 wouldn't have happened. I appreciate it. 7 MR. McCURRY: You're welcome. Due credit 8 to Hope spending the day and doing the tour 9 and putting it together. 10 MR. BERSON: Hope and Bill can hold their 11 own in question and answer like nobody I've 12 ever seen. Very impressive, thank you. 13 MR. DYSART: You have a committee report, 14 Will, per chance? David Kyler wanted to know. 15 MR. BERSON: I do not as far as Operating 16 Guidelines or the interim agenda. I would 17 take the opportunity to remind you, on the 18 15th of June, the interim SEG meeting 19 discusses all sorts of the state of play of 20 various different things, and whether or not 21 it makes sense to meet on the 13th of July. 22 Those meetings are open. We encourage 23 everyone to attend. 24 If you would like to attend and can't, we 25 can usually make arrangements to conference 90 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 call you in. Everyone is welcome there. It's 3 a great opportunity to ask questions. 4 MR. SAPP: Where are those held? 5 MR. BERSON: Typically, they're at GPA. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any further business 7 to come before the group? If not, we'll 8 declare the SEG meeting adjourned. Thank 9 y'all for being here 10 11 12 (Meeting concluded at 11:30 a.m.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 91 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 G E O R G I A : 5 CHATHAM COUNTY : 6 7 I hereby certify that the foregoing 8 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 9 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 10 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 11 that the foregoing pages 1 through 90 represent a 12 true and correct transcript of the evidence given 13 upon said hearing, and I further certify that I am 14 not of kin or counsel to the parties in the case; 15 am not in the regular employ of counsel for any of 16 said parties; nor am I in anywise interested in 17 the result of said case. 18 This the 4th day of June, 2010. 19 20 _______________________________ 21 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 22 Reporter, B-2041 23 24 25