1 2 3 4 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP 5 6 MEETING 7 OF 8 SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 9 10 11 12 MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE MUSEUM 13 POOLER, GEORGIA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 I N D E X 4 5 6 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3 7 8 9 BEACH EROSION SPECIAL ACTION ITEM --------- 8 10 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 11 Mitigation Planning - Bill Bailey ----------- 82 12 External Peer Review - Alan Garrett --------- 89 13 Economics Study Update - Alan Garrett ------- 90 14 Dissolved Oxygen Injection - Hope Moorer ---- 115 15 Milestones - Hope Moorer -------------------- 118 16 17 COMMITTEE REPORTS --------------------------- 123 18 NEXT MEETING DATE --------------------------- 127 19 20 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 130 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 (THE REPORTER: I am appearing here today 3 on behalf of my employer, Tom Crites & 4 Associates. My office was requested by Georgia 5 Ports Authority to provide a court reporter 6 today at 9:00 a.m. at this address. 7 Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well 8 as the instructions of my employer, I wish to 9 disclose that, other than accepting to serve as 10 your reporter, we have not entered into any 11 other contractual agreement with any party 12 involved.) 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. First, before we get 14 everybody to say who they are on the record, 15 I've had several people that were sharing some 16 thoughts I have had, as I was coming in here. 17 Probably many of you realize where you 18 were exactly six years ago when you heard the 19 strange and troubling news, I believe from 20 David Schaller, that there was some crazy 21 things -- 22 MS. MOORER: Trip Tollison -- Trip 23 Tollison. 24 MR. DYSART: David said there was some 25 crazy things happening that didn't appear to be 4 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 an accident, and Will pointed out something 3 that I also felt. And that was, his comment 4 was it took him a while, after the meeting, to 5 realize that while he cared a lot about striped 6 bass, excuse me, striped bass, he just suddenly 7 didn't care a whole lot about them that 8 morning. 9 My response to Will was, well, I think 10 that many of us didn't quite know what to do. 11 It wasn't like we could do anything about what 12 was going on, that seemed to be constructive 13 purpose to what we were laboring on here. 14 And I think finally all of those feelings 15 kind of caught up and we adjourned a little 16 early. So I hope that we, as a people, as a 17 nation have -- are better than we were six 18 years ago. 19 I hope we have learned some things. I 20 hope we have gained some wisdom and insight 21 that can cause the future to be better. I 22 would suggest that, for at least 5 or 10 23 seconds, you have whatever thoughts you want as 24 we go into the meeting. 25 And if anybody is -- feels moved to have 5 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 something that they want to say, share with us, 3 we'd be delighted to hear it. 4 Will, you must have summarized it pretty 5 well. Okay. Alan, why don't you start off, 6 name nice loud so the court reporter can hear, 7 and everybody else, and whatever your 8 affiliations you care to state. Alan. 9 MR. GARRETT: My name is Alan Garrett. 10 I'm the project manager for the Savannah Harbor 11 Expansion Project with the Army Corps of 12 Engineers. I also am the project manager for 13 the Brunswick Harbor Deepening Project. 14 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Island. 15 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, self. 16 MS. COLLINS-RAHN: Lucille Collins-Rahn, 17 Georgia Sierra Club. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia 19 Sierra. 20 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of 21 Engineers. 22 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, I'm a district 23 director of Georgia Wildlife Federation. 24 RON MICHAELS: Ron Michaels Georgia DNR, 25 Coastal Resources Division. 6 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 MS. MOORE: Kelie Moore, Georgia DNR, 3 Coastal Resources Division. 4 MS. SKIPPER: Sherry Skipper, Fish and 5 Wildlife Service. 6 MS. GRIESS: Jane Griess, US Fish and 7 Wildlife Service. 8 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 9 Service. 10 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, Fish 11 and Wildlife Service. 12 MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of 13 Savannah. 14 MR. KYLER: Dave Kyler, Center for a 15 Sustainable Coast. 16 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 17 Authority. 18 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for 19 Georgia Ports. 20 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller with the 21 Georgia Ports Authority. 22 MS. MALLOY: Andrea Malloy with the 23 Coastal Conservation League, South Carolina. 24 MS. COLVIN: Elizabeth Colvin, Georgia 25 DNR. 7 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 3 Authority. 4 MR. VALENTE: Ray Valente, I'm a marine 5 scientist based in St. Marys, Georgia. 6 MR. DYSART: Ben Dysart, SEG facilitator. 7 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, Georgia 8 Conservancy. 9 MS. DAVY: Kay Davy, NOAA Fisheries. 10 MR. WRIGHT: And Tom Wright, local 11 citizen. 12 MR. DYSART: Thank you. We have a good, 13 good turnout, and I appreciate all of you being 14 here. You have had a brief opportunity to look 15 at the agenda that is in front of you, and I 16 would ask you to indicate whether this is an 17 acceptable agenda for the conduct of this 18 meeting? 19 If there are any changes that need to be 20 made, indicate now. Of course, I think the 21 structure of this body is that if somebody 22 wants to say something later, they can do it 23 later. 24 Anyway, we do want to have some initial 25 notion of what we're going to be covering. 8 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 Okay. We will consider this agenda, the draft 3 agenda, to be accepted by the members. You've 4 had an opportunity to review the July 2007 5 meeting transcript. Is there anything that 6 needs to be corrected today on the record? 7 Seeing no request to do so, we will consider 8 the posted record transcript, of the July SEG 9 meeting, to be accepted by this body. 10 Well now, we're down to I item Roman IV 11 prime. We have -- this is the matter of the 12 recommendations of the beach erosion committee 13 that we have dealt with for one or two 14 meetings. 15 And it has -- this body was not ready to 16 take action. It seemed to be the consensus 17 that things were not ripe, or that people 18 wanted some more discussion by the people who 19 were most involved. 20 As your facilitator, it was not clear to 21 me whether the problem was with the wording, or 22 whether it was the substance, or what it was, 23 but it seemed to be that there was a desire for 24 some additional discussion, and getting this 25 ripe for action by this body. 9 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 Last time we referred this to those who 3 were particularly interested in this, to look 4 at this in the interim, and to bring something 5 back. 6 Will Berson was heading up this august 7 effort, and what I would like to do is turn it 8 over to him to summarize whatever he needs to, 9 and see where things go from here. Will. 10 MR. BERSON: Ben's being really kind. You 11 notice he kind of danced around the fact that I 12 was charged with doing this, since the last 13 meeting. 14 We haven't met to discuss it. It is 15 partially my fault, and I do have to claim 16 responsibility for that. But nonetheless, I 17 think we do have some time on the agenda today. 18 We can at least discuss what the issue is 19 and why it seems to be something of a sticking 20 point. And I would like to start by just 21 asking Bill Farmer, if I'm not leaping on you, 22 just to make -- just enunciate the actual 23 recommendation, and then we can talk about it, 24 and why it presents a problem or whether or not 25 it does. 10 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 MR. FARMER: Okay. The Beach Erosion 3 Committee recommended to the Stakeholders 4 Evaluation Group, several years ago, that 5 certain studies be accomplished relative to the 6 impact of the project on beach erosion. 7 And since that time, of course, the state 8 legislature passed a law that requires that 9 sand from any harbor deepening be used 10 beneficially. 11 And since that time, the Corps of 12 Engineers, basically, had finished their 13 study with regards to the impact of the project 14 on the beach erosion. And their findings were 15 basically that the project would have a 16 negligible effect on further beach erosion, 17 because the channel was already deep enough 18 that it captured the sand that was migrating 19 southward toward the beach, and that any 20 deepening would not appreciably capture 21 additional sand. 22 However, in light of the state law, the 23 Corps recommended the use of the sand that 24 would be dredged out of the channel be placed 25 near the shoreline of Tybee, in various 11 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 locations, one of which would be to actually 3 create an island offshore, a mile or two, or 4 five miles, or some distance; and then through 5 time the island would erode and the sand would 6 migrate onto the shoreline of the beach, and 7 therefore be beneficially used. 8 And it turns out that the amount of sand 9 that would be placed offshore was about four to 10 five times the amount of sand that would 11 normally be used in a beach renourishment 12 project. 13 So it's a tremendous amount of sand, and I 14 did a calculation, and it showed that the sand 15 volume, if you were able to place it in a big 16 sand dune that was 100 yards wide, and five 17 miles long, the height of the sand dune would 18 be about 27 feet, which is about as high as the 19 tallest building on Tybee Island. So it's a 20 tremendous amount of sand. 21 And it seemed like it was a wonderful 22 thing to have this sand beneficially used and 23 be of benefit to the Island of Tybee Island. 24 Then the discussion came up as to whether or 25 not the recommendations, of any committee, need 12 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 to come back or should come back, or whatever; 3 what do you do with a recommendation from a 4 committee? 5 And that's the substance of the issue. 6 And the Operating Guidelines appear to say that 7 committees are advisory to the SEG, and 8 therefore whatever the committees do comes back 9 to the SEG for action or decision. 10 So under that premise, the Beach Erosion 11 Committee wrote a recommendation that basically 12 said the work, the Corps of Engineers had done 13 and their plans to build this island and such 14 were good. So we recommended to the SEG that 15 they accept these plans and go on from there. 16 And the Operating Guidelines, when you 17 look at it, that's the document that sort of 18 governs what we do. And it appears that the 19 SEG is advisory to Georgia Ports Authority. I 20 guess the Georgia Ports Authority is advisory 21 to the Corps or they're a partner with them or 22 something, but the linkage between the 23 committees and the SEG appears that the 24 committees are advisory, and then the SEG does 25 whatever it does. 13 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 The SEG is also a public forum, and I'm 3 not sure what we do as a public forum. 4 Do we accept the input from the public and do 5 something with it or do we just accept it? 6 Regardless, the substance of the issue is 7 what to do with recommendations from 8 committees. And it turns out that the Beach 9 Erosion Committee, apparently, is the first 10 committee to come back to the SEG with a 11 recommendation. So we're sort of the pioneers 12 in the process. 13 And it in doing this, the people wanted to 14 rethink was the function of SEG is, and what 15 the relationship of committees were to the SEG, 16 and that sort of thing. So that was the delay, 17 since this was the first recommendation from a 18 committee coming back to SEG, what to do with 19 it if anything. 20 And it appears there's two options. 21 Committees are either advisory to the SEG, or 22 they have their own authority equal to or 23 greater than or whatever than the SEG itself. 24 And the Operating Guidelines appear to be 25 specific in that they are advisory. So that's 14 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 the substance of where we are, I believe, and 3 that's the end of the sermon. 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. Couple of comments 5 here. Perhaps it would be useful to get some 6 sense of whether the body is comfortable -- 7 what we heard was a soft, a soft presentation, 8 the recommendation that this -- you know, this 9 be adopted. 10 The two of you and Hope, so forth, tell 11 me, does there appear to be any -- any 12 difference of opinion as to whether each 13 beneficial use and beach nourishment, so forth, 14 is basically a desirable thing. Is that an 15 issue or is that not an issue? 16 MS. MOORER: I think what started the 17 discussion after -- and I may be wrong, people 18 help me here, but I think what started the 19 discussion was the specifics that were laid out 20 in the resolution, the amounts of sand and 21 things like that. 22 And Georgia DNR raised a concern with 23 approving specific amounts of sand. And if I 24 remember correctly, that's kind of what started 25 the discussion on well, do we approve of this 15 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 resolution or not. You know, it's very 3 specific. It has amounts in it, and that's 4 what I believe Georgia DNR -- I'll let them 5 speak for themselves -- raised their hand and 6 said we have a question about this, and would 7 like to take a look at that and review it, 8 the recommendation itself. 9 MR. DYSART: Kelie, please. 10 MS. MOORE: Since that proposal was put 11 forth to vote here, the Georgia DNR has written 12 a five page letter on that report asking for -- 13 to the Corps of Engineers asking for more 14 information to clarify some things. 15 We have not received answers yet on that 16 letter, and feel it's still premature to back 17 such a specific plan with amounts and so forth. 18 We're certainly supportive of the concepts 19 involved, but it's -- we feel premature to say 20 yea or nay, because it is so specific a 21 resolution -- premature for a vote. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. David Kyler. 23 MR. KYLER: I feel like I'm stating the 24 overwhelming obvious, but I'll go on the 25 record at least to -- 16 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 MR. DYSART: Just shows how smart you are, 3 if you can state the obvious then you get 4 credit for it, unless it's ridiculous which is 5 probably not going to be the case -- 6 MR. KYLER: Oblivious to the nuance, it 7 seems to me one of the major issues here is how 8 reliable is the modeling, or predictive ability 9 of the placement of sand, and where that sand 10 ends up, what rates of deposition, and what 11 location. 12 I assume the huge volume being proposed is 13 distributed over time and space in a way that 14 is predicted to satisfy the needs for 15 renourishment on Tybee. 16 From what I've her in the past about these 17 sorts of projects and predictability, I would 18 like to know more about how reliable and what 19 basis those predictions are made. 20 And who could argue with the concept of 21 all committees reports being advisory, I 22 thought that was well-accepted. I assumed it 23 was, so that's perfectly understandable and 24 acceptable. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. I might just as a 17 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 small aside before I let Will speak, Kelie 3 mentioned voting. It is unlikely that this 4 facilitator is going to call for votes, and 5 ayes and nays and so forth. 6 I think we kind of past that point some 7 years ago and we work toward a consensus. I 8 think sometimes there are people who are more 9 comfortable saying, I choose not to go on 10 record or what not, everybody else can. But we 11 have been doing very well, in my opinion for 12 several years, working to get to a point where 13 there was general comfort around the table. 14 And so we're not going to put something to 15 14 to 12 vote or what not. And Will, comment 16 sir? 17 MR. BERSON: I appreciate Bill not killing 18 me because I bushwhacked him and didn't tell 19 him I was going to ask him to do what he did. 20 I think he did a great job of framing the 21 issue. I would add to it, and I think that 22 Hope is right in the way it came up was in 23 approving the Beach Erosion Committee's 24 recommendations, we were in a sense approving 25 something that was, in a sense, under 18 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 negotiation between the Corps and the DNR. 3 But there is another element to this I 4 think I need to speak to, as Operating 5 Guidelines chair which is that we haven't been 6 approving studies or recommendations as they 7 have come to us as a body. 8 I think this presents us with a precedent 9 that is an important one and one that we need 10 to think, because if we decide we're going to 11 formally bless or approve elements of studies 12 that come before us, there are lots we haven't 13 done. We might have think about doing them 14 retroactively. 15 If we are going to be consistent, I think 16 we should be consistent, that's something we 17 need to consider. That sort of why -- there's 18 both the substance I think Kelie spoke to, and 19 sort of the procedure which I'm trying to 20 speak to, neither of which I think is 21 insurmountable. 22 I don't want to give the idea I have the 23 some sort of bias against doing this project 24 element or not. I actually don't. 25 The question is, is the SEG -- I think a 19 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 third question besides those two I just laid 3 out is, you know, are -- in a sense the Corps 4 hasn't decided to do a project yet. 5 If I'm not stating this correctly, 6 somebody correct me. Until there is a GRR 7 there is no project, and it seems a little odd 8 to me that we would be suggesting project 9 elements for a project that doesn't 10 theoretically exist. 11 That's just one element. There are lots 12 of things, like the mitigation plan, that 13 contain parts we're obviously going to comment 14 on. So again, I'm pointing my own 15 inconsistency here. I'm doing so so people 16 will comment on what they think is important 17 in what is the port dynamics, and also, how it 18 is we work this out. 19 If we want to sit here and discuss it, 20 that's fine. If, again, you want to trust me 21 to do something about, between now and the next 22 meeting. I will accept that charge. You will 23 understandably be reluctantly to do that. 24 Be that as it may, I just want to lay out 25 the way I see it, which is that what we decide 20 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 on this is going to set some precedent for how 3 we have to deal with other elements of the 4 project moving forward. 5 MR. DYSART: Like David Kyler let me state 6 a thing or two that is obviously. We have a 7 variety of types of committees. Some are very 8 active and worked hard intermittently, 9 regularly, or what not. 10 I think the Beach Erosion Committee is one 11 of them that has a history of being very much 12 engaged in looking at issues of concern to 13 their constituents. 14 I think the Aquifer Committee is in the 15 same category. I'd say the Economic Study 16 Group, and there are others. So I think that 17 -- I think that Will is correct that we have 18 not been endorsing in detail, but it is, as I 19 recall, a responsibility of this body to 20 express its views, to give its views on the 21 adequacy, the general adequacy, has it done the 22 sort of things that this body said needed to be 23 done. 24 I would ask the question again, is there 25 -- if we kind of go up to the 50,000 foot 21 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 level, is there a problem with the general 3 notion of beneficial use of sand and this sort 4 of thing, or is the specifics or the 5 specificity, and getting out ahead of ongoing 6 negotiations and so forth? 7 Is there something that can be agreed upon 8 now without a lot of trouble? Judy, Bill 9 Bailey, and David Kyler in that order. Judy. 10 MS. JENNINGS: I think you're getting at 11 the point. I think you're trying to head us in 12 the direction where the answers to my questions 13 lie; one of which I think the crux of this 14 issue, no matter how much apple pie it is, is 15 this body ever going to approve anything before 16 there's a project on the table, before there's 17 a GRR on the table. 18 I think that's just a big elephant over 19 us. I think we need to answer it. I don't 20 care how sweet -- of course, we want beneficial 21 uses of sand, but are we ever, as a body, going 22 to say that. That's a question. I think we 23 need to face it. 24 The other thing is about the -- I'm sorry, 25 I have trusted the Beach Erosion people and the 22 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 others' work on it so completely, is there that 3 much; I heard 27 feet here. Is there that much 4 difference in the report? I mean the Corps 5 says negligible. And obviously Bill didn't 6 just pick a number out of a hat, so is there 7 that much difference? 8 MR. FARMER: Yes. 9 MS. JENNINGS: I mean, do we have experts 10 that disagree that much? I wasn't aware of 11 that. 12 MR. FARMER: No, in the Corps' studies, 13 they examined what has happened to the beach, 14 and all the renourishments that occurred 15 through time. The last beach renourishment 16 occurred, I think, in the year 2000. They put 17 1.7 million cubic yards of sand on to the 18 shoreline. 19 They dug a hole out to the ocean a mile or 20 so away from the beach and pumped the sand on 21 to the beach. The lowest depth, which is the 22 46 feet and 48 feet depth, had 8,000,000 cubic 23 yards of sand coming out of that part of the 24 channel, where it was going to on to make this 25 island and so forth. 23 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 Just the ratio of those two numbers, it 3 comes out 4.7. So the island of the adjoining 4 areas where they were going to put this sand 5 from the harbor deepening, the volume was 4.7 6 times the volume of the last beach 7 renourishment project enjoyed. 8 So that's just the statistics of the 9 numbers in the report. And of course, the 10 Corps' document the committee looked at was a 11 plan. When it comes time to do the project, 12 I'm sure there will be more current data, and 13 the numbers may go up or down or whatever, but 14 at this point in time it's a plan. 15 So the thing that the SEG is being asked 16 to approve is basically a plan. Now this GRR 17 or whatever you call it, to get that approved, 18 what needs to happen? Are there a lot of 19 subsidiary recommendations that go before that, 20 or does nobody recommend anything until that 21 happens and then we all start recommending? 22 I don't know that process. That might be 23 another discussion. What's needed to make this 24 GRR occur? Is that the right word, GRR? 25 Whatever that is. 24 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 MR. DYSART: Bill, answer that first. 3 MR. BAILEY: Yes, GRR is correct. There's 4 a report, General Reevaluation Report. 5 MR. FARMER: Now to make that happen, what 6 needs to happen first, second, third, what are 7 the elements to make that happen? 8 MR. BAILEY: All the studies have to be 9 completed, put together, and different 10 alternatives are then evaluated, and a 11 recommendation will be made in that report. 12 MR. FARMER: Okay. So it appears that all 13 these studies and all these presentations that 14 SEG gets, it needs to do something with those 15 before the GRR is done? 16 MR. BAILEY: The Corps will do that, and 17 the Corps will make those recommendations, as 18 it writes the documents. SEG is advising, as 19 you said, SEG is advising GPA, and is a public 20 forum for this project. 21 MR. FARMER: Okay. So the question as to 22 the proper timing for SEG to decide something 23 appears to be before the GRR, rather than 24 after; could we say that is true? 25 MR. BAILEY: The other -- the other 25 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 function of the group, I think, was to come up 3 with a consensus mitigation plan. 4 MR. FARMER: Right. 5 MR. BAILEY: I don't know how we're doing 6 that. 7 MR. FARMER: We'll hear about this later 8 on, I guess, but it looks like the time is 9 appropriate, so that question should be put 10 aside. It comes down to whether the committees 11 are still in the recommending job to the SEG, 12 and then the SEG, it's their job to do 13 something with the recommendation. 14 MR. DYSART: Are you through, Bill? 15 MR. BAILEY: No, I'm sorry. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. Bill. 17 MR. BAILEY: I guess I want to start off 18 by saying I'm not speaking now as a 19 representative of the Corps of Engineers. 20 Operating Guidelines, I think, specifically 21 addressed that. The agency employees, they 22 don't speak for the agency when in they're in 23 this forum, so I'm not speaking for the Corps. 24 As I see the question the group has, the 25 SEG has requested that some studies be 26 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 conducted. I think the question is what 3 happens when they're finished? I guess I see 4 two options. 5 One is that you can either approve and 6 agree with the findings, or you can agree that 7 the study fulfilled the scope of work and meets 8 the intent of the SEG at the beginning. 9 I think either of those would be helpful 10 to other folks. The SEG is supposed to advise 11 GPA. You asked them to spend money. They did 12 spend money. They produced something. I think 13 it would be nice to let them know yeah, that's 14 good enough, or no, it's no good. We want you 15 to do it all over again or something. 16 I think it's incumbent to give them some 17 response, when those studies are done. And one 18 of the actions is yeah, that was the type of 19 study we're looking for. Yes, that work is 20 done. 21 That doesn't mean you agree with the 22 results. That could be it. That's a different 23 decision. 24 MR. DYSART: David and then Hope, please. 25 MR. KYLER: I was getting a bit brain 27 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 cramp from Ben's last comment, because I 3 thought we were talking about unless. The last 4 speakers would confirm that we were talking 5 about a procedure, not the merits of particular 6 recommendations of the beach renourishment, 7 so -- 8 MR. BAILEY: I'd say it's all tumbling 9 around in the wash. 10 MR. KYLER: Yeah, let's clarify what we're 11 talking about. We can handle both, but let's 12 clarify what we're talking about as we speak. 13 I speak from a vast ignorance or profound lack 14 of knowledge about the Operating Guidelines. 15 I guess what we're concluding is we don't 16 have specific procedures for a sort of 17 provisional approval of reports, as they come 18 in from committees, is that correct? 19 MR. BERSON: Well, we -- it hasn't come 20 up. 21 MR. KYLER: So there are no guidelines for 22 that, you're seeking to establish them. So it 23 sounds to me like we need some sort of set of 24 criteria that would apply to all reports coming 25 in. That would lead to or aims to establish a 28 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 provisional approval, provisional in the sense 3 we don't necessarily all accept it as the final 4 word, or as accept the implications of what 5 these studies report. 6 But as a tentative acceptance, so for 7 example we could have criteria like 8 reliability, as I mentioned, reliability. If 9 we take the analysis used to produce that 10 report, any control of adverse effects 11 including monitoring mitigation that would be 12 implied by application of that report in the 13 project, the decision-making, the contingencies 14 for alternative actions to that, because I 15 guess to some extent that's already done in the 16 process with producing reports, according to 17 what Bill has just said, but this group may 18 have some other ideas that could add to that 19 analysis, and interactive and cumulative 20 effects of each committee's report on the whole 21 project. 22 Because as we all know, there is a fatal 23 flaw in all these kinds of analyses, when you 24 consider each element of the project 25 independent of the other. 29 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 So all those factors, in my mind, make any 3 acceptance provisional, but each one of those 4 could be considered, to some extent, in 5 establishing a procedure for provisional 6 approval and reaching provisional approval on 7 reports as they're made. 8 There may be other dimensions of that 9 analysis -- just speaking off the top of my 10 head and having taken a few notes as they 11 occurred. 12 MR. DYSART: Hope, please. 13 MS. MOORER: To follow up a little bit on 14 what Dave was saying, I think the specifics, 15 the scope of the recommendation, we discussed 16 last time about how do you look now, at this 17 point, without a final mitigation plan. 18 Do you look at the exact quantity, where 19 it is supposed to put, and how it's supposed to 20 be done out of the recommendation, or do you 21 look at did it meet the scope, did it meet the 22 intent of what the GPA and Corps was asked to 23 study, in terms of impacts? 24 Did it meet those questions of impacts, 25 and what to do about those impacts. And are 30 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 people going to be comfortable with specifics, 3 out of recommendations, without a final 4 mitigation plan that would appear in general 5 reevaluation report and EIS? Are people going 6 to be comfortable, at this point, voting on 7 something like that? 8 And to the questions that David raised 9 about reliability and contingencies for 10 alternative analyzes and cumulative effects, 11 are people here going to know enough to know 12 that information, I think there are a lot of 13 questions that need to be asked, and a 14 recommendation -- does Operating Guidelines 15 require specifics in a recommendation back to 16 the SEG, or do they require did this study meet 17 the scope. I think that's a lot of people what 18 people need to think about. 19 MR. KYLER: Quick response to that, what I 20 was thinking of was not conclusive capacity to 21 make conclusive findings, but rather to raise 22 the questions, and firm up what exactly remains 23 undecided about having more confidence in that 24 recommendation. 25 MR. DYSART: Will. 31 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 MR. BERSON: Then sort of applying that 3 idea to the issue at hand, one approach would 4 be that, you know, we accept the Beach Erosion 5 Committee's recommendations under the 6 understanding that DNR, CRD will work out 7 whatever outstanding issues there are about the 8 implementation. Is that sort of what you're 9 proposing? 10 MR. KYLER: I would say to the extent we 11 have any specific concerns, whether they 12 confirm with DNR's report or DNR's concerns or 13 not, we should raise them at the time we 14 discuss, or tentatively accept their report 15 recommendations, you know just to try to raise 16 as many questions as we think are justified. 17 Then I think it would make sense to have 18 some kind of standard procedure to begin -- 19 which could be as amended and refined as we 20 want it. 21 That would apply to all reports, from 22 various committees as they come in, so we 23 have degree of consistency on how we respond to 24 them. 25 MR. DYSART: Lou Off and David Schaller 32 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 please. 3 MR. OFF: I think we're trying to mix two 4 different ideas here. One is the 5 administration and the other is the actual 6 scope of the work. And when we start talking 7 about the scope of the work, I'd like to talk 8 as a customer, probably I guess the only person 9 here that lives on the beach. 10 One of the things, as David says, there's 11 something obvious here. Tybee cannot survive 12 without sand on the beach. I think that's very 13 obvious to anybody who has been down to Tybee. 14 I'd like to talk a little bit about some 15 history. In 1975, the federal government 16 placed Tybee in the Shore Protection Program, 17 at which time they provided 60% of the cost to 18 renourish Tybee. 19 The project was set up for renourishment 20 of the beach every seven years. We had 21 renourishment in 1977, 1983, 1999 and 2000. In 22 the interim, in the mid '90s, we had a state 23 renourishment, a very small amount, and also 24 built some jetties on the south end. 25 Right now we are three years behind in 33 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 having the feds do anything for us. We should 3 have had a renourishment in the seven year 4 cycle in 2006 or 2007. 5 I'm projecting now we're going to miss 6 2008, maybe even not 2009, since that budget 7 has already been worked on by Corps. Our beach 8 has reached, what like to say, a tipping point. 9 After the 1999/2000 renourishment, there 10 was about 400 feet of sand placed at Second 11 Street, which for you that drive on Tybee is 12 where the anchor is, where the right-hand curve 13 is. 1999, as you may remember, there were 14 waves breaking over in the Butler, breaking 15 over the seawall at that point. 16 Approximately 300 to 400 feet of sand was 17 put at that point. It's all gone. That sand 18 has been actually over the last seven years 19 keeping the rest of the island in some somewhat 20 stability. 21 Right now what we're seeing with that area 22 now back again, with the rock shelling, seawall 23 shelling, houses 10 feet from the breaking 24 waves, we're not getting any sand. We're not 25 going anywhere. 34 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 The beach has changed. This year we've 3 had five deaths on Tybee by drowning, four of 4 them in the front beach. One of the 5 contributing factors that people that 6 supposedly know these things are saying is 7 we've never had rip tides like we have before. 8 We also have places in the intertidal 9 zone, when the tide is high, where we have as 10 much as a 30 foot slope. Basically, you walk 11 out 10 feet, you have lost three feet of 12 altitude. We have a lot non-swimmers, a lot of 13 people, unfortunately, who drink too much on 14 the beach. 15 These are also contributing factors, but 16 our whole nearshore has been changing. One of 17 the things which, to get to the point is, I 18 think what Bill Bailey has suggested is a great 19 plan. It was a great plan six months ago. 20 Things have changed since then. I don't 21 think the plan is adequate today. One of the 22 things which has changed, which I've already 23 mentioned, is the federal government in 24 probably the mid '90s the administration, the 25 OMB decided that they would not fund any 35 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 renourishments anymore. They want this to be 3 done at the local level. 4 Up until a couple of years ago, the 5 Congress was putting funds back in, on that 6 nasty word earmarks, for refunding the beach. 7 The funds this year followed the President's 8 and the OMB's recommendations. 9 The only beaches for nourishment that got 10 funded in this budget were those beaches that 11 were initial renourishments, which OMB is still 12 recommending. 13 So what we're looking at right now is a 14 failure of the federal government to do what it 15 did in the authorization of 1975 to keep our 16 beaches renourished for the Shore Protection 17 Program. 18 We need sand. One of the things Tybee is 19 now doing is we started, about two months ago, 20 doing this project on our own. 21 It's going to be about $10,000,000 22 project. We do state money of $3,000,000, and 23 we do have approximately half million that the 24 county has given us. 25 Tybee's budget is less than $10,000,000 a 36 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 year. When you take out transfer payments of 3 some of the things like water bills, sewer 4 bills and so forth, a $10,000,000 project to 5 Tybee is a big thing. 6 A couple of the other things which are 7 changing, the Army Corps is doing a channel 8 impact study. Preliminary findings of that 9 study state that since 1887, 25,000,000 cubic 10 meter loss of material, in the Tybee near 11 shore. 12 I haven't figured out how many feet we've 13 lost in the nearshore, but the last time I put 14 pencil to paper, it was probably five or six 15 feet. Why is this important? Well, it's 16 changed everything in front of Tybee. 17 The steep of the slope, the deeper the 18 water, the greater the energy which reaches the 19 beach. In that same report, they came out with 20 37,000,000 cubic meters have been taken out of 21 the bar in Noel Channel. 22 When you do a computation there, 70% of 23 the material which is taken out of the bar 24 channel is approximately how much has been lost 25 off of Tybee. 37 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 You know, put in black and white, what 3 they're basically saying is that the channel is 4 causing a 70% material, sand cubic foot for 5 sand cubic foot loss in the Tybee near shore. 6 A couple of other things which are hurting 7 what we want to do is, up until a few months 8 ago, there were three dredging companies that 9 could put a dredge in the deep water and pump 10 sand on to Tybee. There are now only two. 11 Obviously, this is less competition and more -- 12 more money. 13 The mitigation that Bill Bailey 14 recommended, as supplement to the Shore 15 Protection Program, I think would be a good 16 thing for Tybee. I would like to correct one 17 thing that Bill Farmer was saying. 18 Even though there's 6, $8,000,000 or 6 or 19 8,000,000 cubic yards of material that are in 20 Bill's plan, there's somewhere and people 21 disagree as to how much, but only 10 to 30% of 22 that is actual quality sand, that is going to 23 be beneficial to Tybee Island. 24 Our beach consultant, Eric Olsen feels 25 there is negligible amount of that sand and 38 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 material to help our beaches. 3 We need sand on the beach itself. I think 4 the federal government is no longer working for 5 us and is actually working against us. They do 6 certain things like saying everything has to be 7 done by the least cost method. 8 This project, if and when it gets done, is 9 going to have equipment involved in the 10 project, a cutterhead dredge with pump out 11 capabilities here in the river itself. 12 The amount of money which we're talking 13 about, putting sand on the beach, is a very 14 small amount. We're talking about right now 15 the project is about $10,000,000 estimate. 16 Tybee is willing to pay its share as a delta 17 cost to whatever is being done. 18 I feel with these various changes, which 19 are happening in this dynamic situation, that 20 the committee -- and I'm not a member of the 21 committee, but I'll say the SEG finds a way 22 that they can help Tybee. 23 To say that only the four feet deepening 24 is the only thing to be considered is not the 25 right thing to do at this point. 39 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 This channel, and everybody here knows it, 3 has been causing Tybee's trouble since the 4 early 1900s. It's a cop out to say, we're not 5 going to do anything for Tybee's beach because 6 we're lowering it another four feet. 7 I appeal to the SEG to do the right thing. 8 Find a way. I know there's rules. I've heard 9 them all. The federal government is going to 10 come in with a million different ways. 11 I have been sitting here for six years. I 12 hear about taking care of the sturgeons. I 13 hear things taking care of the marshes. I 14 hear things taking care of the turtles. They 15 get 100% government funding for their 16 mitigation. 17 It's time to take care of the people, not 18 only the people who live on Tybee, but the 19 people who live in Chatham County, Effingham 20 County, the rest of Georgia, the rest of the 21 United States that come and use our beaches. 22 We get sometimes on a weekend in the 23 summertime 30,000 people coming to the beach. 24 We're spending 700 some thousand dollars just 25 to put lifeguards on the beach. 40 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 This is coming again out of a less than 3 $10,000,000 budget. I don't know how many 4 people from Tybee go to the beach, but it's 5 probably less than 10% on any given weekend. 6 We need the help. We need the support. 7 The big bucks are here. I'd like to see a I 8 can do, instead of a I can't do, feeling out of 9 this group to recommend a way to make Tybee 10 whole. 11 MR. DYSART: David, did you have comments, 12 sir? 13 MR. SCHALLER: None, thank you. 14 MR. DYSART: Hope. 15 MS. MOORER: Judy's been up for a while. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy, Hope and Tom. 17 MS. JENNINGS: I've let it ride because I 18 was hoping that a lot stuff would be said, and 19 a lot of it has. But I'm going to repeat it 20 because I think it's worthy for everybody in 21 this room to know that. 22 Regardless of whether we ever come to a 23 meeting again ever, the GRR and final EIS will 24 be done. The Corps of Engineers has 25 Congressional -- they have a mandate to do that 41 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 actually. Somewhere in July of 2001 or 3 something like that they got it, and you have 4 to do it, unless Congress tells you not to do 5 it. 6 So that goes back to this body being 7 advisory to GPA. I don't mean this to 8 provocative, but I guess a question that could 9 be asked along the way, does this body, does 10 GPA have the authority and the ability to do 11 any -- to do anything with our recommendations, 12 should we ever figure out how to make them, 13 which we haven't done yet. 14 So, not being provocative, I'm part of the 15 group. And another thing I think that needs to 16 be said about beach erosion -- two things also, 17 we could talk here about the aquifer too is 18 that we have experts. Not picking on you, but 19 I would respect you, Bob, on something you said 20 about the aquifer. 21 I would think we have experts that could 22 argue a point of science. But we're going to 23 have reports where I can't find anybody that 24 can do that. I'm going to have to take what's 25 on table at best effort, so I think we need to 42 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 realize we're going to have two or maybe a 3 continuum of kinds of situations where we have 4 experts, who see a real vital need, and a real 5 people need to protect it. 6 Now how different -- when do we cut the 7 line between that and harbor deepening. And 8 that's really where I had, that was my 9 heartburn, with the report, as it came to us, 10 is implicit in it was a Harbor Deepening 11 Project. 12 So you know what, just as a suggestion for 13 Bill said -- he said does it meet the scope of 14 studies, is it good enough, did it meet our 15 expectations? And I don't know how many of you 16 guys are Rotary members, but everytime we have 17 to recite this little pledge, and it's like, is 18 it fair, is it good to all concerned, and 19 there's two more. I'd have to read it. But 20 the point is, are we doing our good and fair 21 job? 22 Until we come up with a recipe for doing 23 that that meets at all the situations, 24 including the ones with experts at the table, 25 and when we don't, because we're going to have 43 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 economics today and I'm going to read it with 3 great interest, but I may not be able to 4 critique it with credibility, to the Corps at 5 least, I might find somebody to believe me. 6 Just some comments that we're building up. 7 I think we've got to have -- I mean, if we're 8 going to bake the cake, let's pick out the 9 recipe. We just keep not doing that. 10 MR. DYSART: Hope. 11 MS. MOORER: A couple of things, Judy, as 12 far as SEG and its advisory to GPA -- 13 MS. JENNINGS: Because we haven't asked 14 that question in a long time. 15 MS. MOORER: No, and I think it's a good 16 question. Anything that the SEG advises GPA 17 would be presented to the Corps. We can't 18 guarantee what the Corps would do with that 19 suggestion. It's the lead agency on the GRR 20 and EIS, but we are the cooperating agency, and 21 would like to think as that we have a little 22 bit of say. 23 As to Lou's comment, I couldn't -- I heard 24 both things. I heard that the recommendation 25 by the committee was no longer valid, and I 44 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 also heard that it was a good recommendation. 3 So I don't know whether the committee needs to 4 meet again and reconsider that recommendation. 5 I need to follow up with that with Lou and 6 Bill, because I didn't quite understand exactly 7 what you were asking for there. And then Judy, 8 your last comment as to procedure as to what 9 SEG should be doing with committees, I think 10 maybe, maybe the Operating Guidelines Committee 11 could take that up. 12 But I would plead with everyone, who has 13 had anything to say here today about procedure 14 and operations of this group, to attend the 15 meeting, so that we will have a plan and input 16 to a plan. That would be greatly appreciated. 17 MS. JENNINGS: Just for emphasis, that 18 probably should have been my whole comment, 19 Hope. 20 MR. DYSART: Tom and then Lou. 21 MR. WRIGHT: I think one of the major 22 roles of the SEG is to review every one of the 23 required and necessary studies, in terms of its 24 scope and content. And I believe that we've 25 been doing that. 45 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 We've been doing that by having every one 3 of the reports presented here, giving the 4 public and all the members the opportunity to 5 say, tell us more about this. You didn't cover 6 the following. 7 And we saw that in the modeling, and in 8 the other things where the advice and the 9 comments of the body changed the scope and 10 content of the report, and made it an effective 11 report for the Corps to use, when the time 12 comes for them to use it. 13 I believe that that is really our main 14 function, and by consensus with our 15 facilitator, we've been doing that. And we've 16 been doing that pretty well. 17 I don't recall an issue of scope or 18 content, that's been raised in terms of 19 depth of content, that hasn't been addressed 20 one way or the other, or at least made clear to 21 all the participants. 22 And in this particular case, we've been a 23 very good forum for beach erosion, so that the 24 issues can be discussed and all. But I don't 25 think it's the roll of this body to approve the 46 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 technical details of a report. 3 I believe that that's the responsibility 4 of the government organizations that are doing 5 that. I don't think that's us. I think we do 6 have a little bit more responsibility when it 7 comes to mitigation. 8 If you read the documents that set this 9 place up, the -- in mitigation we have a 10 responsibility to be more active, or aggressive 11 if we see an area that needs to be addressed. 12 But for the rest of the studies, our role 13 is to provide a public forum and to ensure 14 adequate content and scope. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. Lou, Bill. 16 MR. OFF: I know I rambled on. I 17 apologize, Hope. I didn't mean for there to be 18 any confusion. I think there's two subjects. 19 When we talk about the beach 20 renourishment, we talk about beach 21 renourishment and essentially all we do is we 22 meet an existing slope from a template that the 23 Army Corps has come up with. 24 I think that there's a second question 25 too, and that is what has happened to our 47 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 nearshore, basically from the beach of Tybee to 3 where if you look at a map you can see that the 4 channel almost turns due south out in front of 5 Tybee. 6 That area has been deflated. What kind of 7 a problem does that mean for Tybee? We hate to 8 ask, because everytime we ask that question, we 9 end up with a 500,000 or $2,000,000 study being 10 done by the Army Corps of Engineers. They ask 11 us for 50% of the money. I would also like to 12 acknowledge that Georgia Ports Authority has 13 given Tybee $375,000 to do this channel impact 14 study. 15 We probably couldn't have afforded to do 16 it without them. So I guess the point I'm 17 saying is what Bill has come up with, putting 18 material in the nearshore, what we now need, 19 because of the federal government's negligence 20 in funding their authorized project, is we need 21 help on the beach. 22 We're not coming with a 100% request 23 somebody else do this. When this channel is 24 being dredged, the equipment's here. That's a 25 $2,000,000 charge to get the equipment here, 48 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 mobilization and demobilization. 3 So the cost of putting sand on the beach 4 could be decreased. All I think, as an 5 addendum to what Bill Farmer's committee has 6 come up with, is a way of Tybee as a sponsor to 7 the federal project, and GPA as a sponsor to 8 federal project of the channel. 9 Somehow work together to see how the 10 efficiency of scale can be done to get sand on 11 the beach. Does that kind of clarify? 12 MS. MOORER: It sort of does. I don't see 13 that as an addendum to the approval of the 14 studies that have already been study -- maybe 15 see that as a separate consideration. 16 MR. OFF: I think that the day is going to 17 come when the SEG asks for an official Tybee 18 statement. 19 I am now speaking for myself, not for 20 tybee. I think that will be a combination of 21 the Beach Task Force, Eric Olsen, and the City 22 Council of Tybee. 23 I think at this particular point we are 24 grasping for straws. Plan A is not working. 25 plan B is for us to do it ourselves. Our mayor 49 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 was on the telephone last night for three 3 hours, with Washington, trying to get any help 4 we can through emergency funds, from the 5 previous tropical storm that came through here, 6 in order to pay for this project which now 7 looks like it could be done in the spring 2009 8 at the earliest. 9 If this project for the channel goes 10 through, and there's a dredge brought here in 11 2009, it's a possibility that this could be 12 part of a Plan C. 13 All I'm saying is the channel is affecting 14 Tybee. The channel is being deepened. The 15 channel was deepened, and I think there is the 16 right thing to do includes the help for Tybee. 17 MR. DYSART: Bill, please. 18 MR. FARMER: Okay. If we could, I think 19 we need to take the all the sub-issues one at a 20 time. And the first sub-issue would be what's 21 the function of the committees, and what's the 22 function of SEG, and so forth. 23 And then the other sub-issues are how to 24 help Tybee, and whether this project needs to 25 address the impacts of all previous channel 50 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 happenings, or just the upcoming channel 3 happening. 4 So anyway I'd like to go to the basic 5 question of what is the function of the 6 committees and what is the function of SEG. 7 It turns out the Operating Guidelines 8 answers some of that question. And in slight 9 disagreement with what Tom says, as far as what 10 our function is, I'd like to read in the very 11 first paragraph of the Operating Guidelines 12 what is our deliverable, or what are our 13 deliverables. They give two sentences -- 14 MR. DYSART: Our being the committees or 15 SEG? 16 MR. FARMER: SEG, SEG, and we as an SEG 17 are supposed to delivery a consensus as to one, 18 the impacts of the project, and then the 19 resulting appropriate mitigation actions. 20 Okay. So focusing on the first part of 21 that, the impacts of the project; beach erosion 22 is one possible impact. 23 I think the Corps' study indicates that 24 the new impact from the new upcoming project is 25 negligible because the channels is already so 51 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 deep. However, we have the state law that came 3 in and said, you must use the sand 4 beneficially. 5 So I think the SEG has to think about 6 that. So procedurally, I think we need to come 7 up with what the SEG believes to be the impacts 8 of the project, and then secondly, what are 9 the appropriate mitigation actions. 10 I think the particular report the 11 committee came up with, the Beach Erosion 12 Committee answers that. I think we'll have 13 more of it here. Bill's going to present lots 14 of mitigation actions that the Corps proposes 15 here, you know, what to do up and down the 16 river. 17 When he is done, we're going to have to do 18 something that information. We might say we'll 19 think about it for a month or two, we approve 20 it or whatever. But again, the Beach Erosion 21 Committee report is the first committee 22 determination that's coming to the Corps, I 23 mean to us, to the SEG. 24 So procedurally if we could focus on that, 25 what is the right procedure to handle that, I 52 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 think we'd make some progress. 3 MR. DYSART: Will. 4 MR. BERSON: I -- I can appreciate why the 5 questions of how the SEG addresses these issues 6 is getting mixed with the issue at hand being 7 beach erosion. 8 Bill, I guess, I wanted to ask you a 9 question which is, I mean you are responsible 10 for mitigating the impact from this particular 11 project, and is the Beach Erosion Committee's 12 proposal, would that be considered mitigation 13 for this project, I guess? 14 I mean, would this be conceivably be part 15 of the mitigation proposal, or is it outside 16 the scope of this project? I'm slightly 17 dancing past the subject of how should we deal 18 with this, but if it is part of the mitigation, 19 if it would be considered part of the 20 mitigation project, it seems to me it's 21 slightly more in the purview of the SEG, under 22 the Congressional mandate, than if it would not 23 be. 24 MR. BAILEY: It's not considered 25 mitigation. It was a plan of where we put the 53 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 material. So the previous studies have shown 3 that no mitigation was necessary. 4 MR. BERSON: Okay. It seems to me then 5 that, and I'm putting this out for discussion, 6 it seems to me then that we're back to the 7 question of the SEG suggesting an element of 8 the project that I'm not sure is part of the 9 project. 10 I'm not arguing that there's been an 11 impact from the channel on the north end of 12 Tybee, but I'm wondering if these two things 13 are related in a project sense. 14 I'm not arguing that the Beach Erosion 15 Committee had a right to look at what they're 16 looking at and all that. I'm just sort 17 questioning -- the ultimate question for me 18 is should the SEG be recommending elements of 19 the project, prior to the GRR. 20 It seems to me like we're back at that 21 question again, if this is not a mitigation 22 element for this project. It's mitigation in 23 a larger sense. I completely accept that, for 24 what's happened as a result of the channel. 25 But again, we're making several leaps here 54 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 that do cause me some problems. And again, I 3 apologize for bringing this up. It is a 4 distraction, from the operational sense of what 5 does the SEG do, what should it do with respect 6 to this and other things. I just wanted to put 7 those $.02 in, because in listening to the 8 discussion, that's what occurred to me. 9 MR. DYSART: I see three cards up. Bob, 10 David and Bill. One, two, three. Okay. Bob 11 MR. SCANLON: Sitting here listening to a 12 lot of this, I think I see this very analogous 13 to the DO issue in the river, in that what we 14 really uncovered, as we've gotten into these 15 studies is really that the future deepening is 16 probably going to have significantly less 17 impact than the cumulative effect of past 18 issues, which really is beyond the purview of 19 the SEG as it is set up. 20 It doesn't diminish the fact we've got a 21 very serious problem, and I think the analogy 22 really falls apart, because with the DO issue, 23 there were some other potential parties to come 24 to the table to help continue the study. 25 And we really broke off and looked at 55 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 addressing that issue, the cumulative impact 3 issue of past deepening as a separate project. 4 I really think this is situation that 5 really probably warrants the same type of 6 study, because we really are looking at 7 cumulative impacts of past issues. And I think 8 the focus is on Tybee, because there has been a 9 significant impact there. 10 But I think all this mitigation, I think 11 this is probably what Kelie is really driving 12 at, we're really having an impact on all the 13 barrier islands. 14 It really broadens this thing, but it's 15 way beyond the scope of what we really came 16 together to talk about, which was what is the 17 impact of future deepening. 18 So from GPA's standpoint, I have to be 19 somewhat sympathetic that let's not hold up 20 this project to -- because of the impacts of 21 past projects, which I think we all agree we 22 can't back up on. 23 There's no way correct those. We don't 24 want change. We don't want to fill the harbor 25 in. I think most of the people here don't want 56 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 to. There may be a few who might -- sorry 3 John. 4 But I think somehow there's got to be a 5 jumping off, and at what point do we start to 6 look at how do we address cumulative impacts. 7 That really is something which is beyond the 8 purview of what the SEG was set up to do. I 9 don't know, how does that get funded? I think 10 that is a big issue is how do we fund those 11 types of studies? 12 I think we're really dancing go around a 13 very, very serious issue that's got very, very 14 serious implications to, basically, the entire 15 economy of the coastal area. 16 I think we've got figure out a way to get 17 the interest on the state and federal level to 18 really do what's right. It's beyond what we 19 came to start -- here just looking at the SEG. 20 This is a much bigger issue. I mean, the 21 fact that this channel has been there for what, 22 the last 130 years, 120 years, has been 23 impacting Tybee and all the coastal islands. 24 And somehow we've got to generate the 25 interest, and we've got the state and federal 57 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 government that's saying all these things are 3 local issues. Let the locals take care of it, 4 but they are -- they're regional causes. 5 This harbor -- this harbor is a regional 6 thing. It's the entire Southeast United States 7 that is benefiting from the fact that this 8 harbor is here. 9 Yet they're saying the City of Tybee 10 should address the impacts. That's not fair. 11 Somehow, we've got to get that message out, but 12 it's not with this deepening. It's a broader 13 issue. Somehow we need to somehow get the 14 state's and federal governments to recognize 15 what they have done. 16 MR. DYSART: David. 17 MR. KYLER: Yeah. I just wanted to back 18 up what Bob said about the ports and cumulative 19 long term impacts. We need to make some 20 considered recommendation, as a group, what to 21 do about them, whether they're incorporated in 22 this project or not. 23 I just wanted to clarify something that 24 Bill said I find kind of amusing in an ironic 25 sort of way. Is it true, Bill, you said the 58 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 analysis concluded that the project as 3 proposed, up to four additional feet of depth 4 or is it six, would not adversely affect 5 erosion on Tybee, is that correct? 6 MR. FARMER: That is correct. 7 MR. KYLER: So what we have here is a 8 co-incidental mitigation, because of the choice 9 of, maybe obligation of under federal law to 10 place the disposal material in an area that 11 will provide some benefit, without recognizing 12 that projected or historic adverse effects of 13 projects have had any such adverse effect on 14 the area the benefit will be provided. 15 So it's sort of like a co-incidental 16 mitigation project, without anyone -- the 17 emperor has no clothes situation, where no one 18 admits, and apparently scientific content 19 concludes that there are such relationships 20 exist, projected or historically that have to 21 do with the problems being mitigated. 22 I just wanted to clarify that. There's 23 also a suggestion, another aspect of review 24 of reports coming to the SEG, I listened with 25 interest to what Tom said. 59 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 I agree we do hear things and have 3 influenced presentations before us. To me 4 that's the most superficial sort of analysis we 5 can do. We hear and respond spontaneously, 6 extemporaneously on the spot which is entirely 7 different than receiving a written report, 8 pouring over it, dwelling on it, and then to 9 the extent we think necessary responding to 10 what we see in writing. 11 So I think it needs to be a multilevel, 12 multicycle sort of review, of what material we 13 get and how we influence the outcome of it, the 14 application of it. 15 So I still think there needs to be some 16 sort of provisional process, officially adopted 17 as procedure for receiving reports from various 18 committees. What I said just said about the 19 ironic twist here, I think it also implies 20 although this may not officially part of the 21 existing procedure of the SEG or anything done, 22 by aegis of the federal law of the Corps, we're 23 looking at not only the impacts and mitigation 24 of impacts, but the impacts of the mitigation 25 we're proposing to do, which is certainly the 60 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 case with the de facto mitigation of the beach 3 renourishment. 4 Because we're not only concerned about the 5 productive use of that material to benefit the 6 recognized problems at Tybee, but possibly 7 adverse effects of where that material may go 8 else where that have nothing to do with 9 benefiting Tybee, and may have adverse effects 10 in some other way. 11 MR. DYSART: Bill. 12 MR. FARMER: Okay. Co-incidentally, the 13 beach erosion report has two parts to it. One 14 part is to agree that the impacts of the 15 project, on beach renourishment are negligible. 16 One of our jobs is to determine what the 17 impacts are as an SEG. The Beach Erosion 18 Committee agrees with the Corps that the 19 impacts on the beach erosion are negligible. 20 So we're passing that on to the SEG to 21 confirm. We aren't disagreeing with that. And 22 the second part of the committee's 23 recommendation is to agree with the Corps' 24 plans on what to do with the dredged materials. 25 There's apparently two options. One is to 61 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 throw it away in the disposal site about five 3 or so miles offshore, and the second choice is 4 to put it somewhere else that it would be 5 usable and beneficial. 6 And the committee agrees with the Corps' 7 plan to not throw it away, but to put it near 8 the shoreline so it would be beneficial. 9 Those are the two recommendations of the 10 committee. Now, up and down the channel, the 11 Corps has plans to do something with the dredge 12 materials in the upper part of the channel. 13 I would assume that this committee would 14 approve or consider those plans also, at some 15 future time, because it's part of the project, 16 what to do with the waste materials. 17 So I'm thinking we're going to have to 18 decide if their plans are suitable to all our 19 preferences also. But it turns out that out in 20 the ocean, that has nothing, nothing to do with 21 the fish up the stream, or the marshlands, 22 whatever, sort of independent of all that. So 23 it doesn't have to be considered as a joint 24 effect of all the other mitigations going on. 25 So it's sort of independent of those, so 62 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 it could be considered separately. Now, I 3 think David brought up a point, does this 4 committee want to consider all the past evils 5 that have occurred, or do we need to only focus 6 on the possible future evils and how to 7 mitigate them. 8 We talked to the fish people. Are you 9 interested only in trying to keep the fish at 10 their current level, or do you want to figure 11 out how to make it even better. 12 I'm sure you would like to make it even 13 better, if at all possible, but that's going 14 back in history to try to figure out what the 15 past evils were, and what this new project 16 might do to remedy some of those. I think 17 legally we're only concerned with the possible 18 future problems and mitigating them. 19 So again, it comes down to what is the 20 function of the SEG, to again determine what 21 the impacts are, and secondly to determine what 22 mitigation is necessary. 23 As far as the Beach Erosion Committee 24 report, we say that the impacts are negligible, 25 and that we agree to that. We recommend that 63 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 the SEG accept that finding also. 3 And further, that due to the state law, 4 the powers have focused on the fact that we 5 should use that sand beneficially, rather than 6 throw it away in some dump site about five 7 miles offshore, which has been done in the 8 past, but it seems more logical to use it 9 beneficially, you know. 10 MR. DYSART: John, Hope, Judy, then we're 11 going to see if we can wrap this up and take a 12 break. I think we've got a consensus that it's 13 break time. John. 14 MR. ROBINETTE: I'd like to address 15 something that Bob said about this being a 16 local issue. This is not a local issue. 17 Wassaw Island's a national Wildlife Refuge. It 18 belongs to everybody in the United States. 19 It's a national issue. 20 Our beach on the north end, Lou, have you 21 been through there recently? It's up in the 22 trees. Our beach is gone. Everytime you 23 renourish Tybee, our beach builds up, because 24 you put sand back into that system. Sand has 25 been robbed from that system from the harbor. 64 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 We're impacting sea turtles. We're 3 impacting Piping Clubbers, an extremely 4 endangered species. Yes, it is a national 5 interest. I think Kelie would agree with me, 6 it's impacting every barrier island on the 7 coast of Georgia, taking that amount of sand 8 out of the system every year. 9 So it's not a local issue. It is a 10 national issue of national importance. So when 11 you are lobbying for money to renourish your 12 beach, you need to remind some folks of that. 13 The other thing I'd like to address is the 14 thing of cumulative impacts. The harbor 15 started off with an initial dredging, and there 16 was few impacts, insignificant, but there are 17 impacts and there are impacts to your beach 18 from this deepening. 19 They're just not significant as compared 20 to how deep that harbor is already. So we're 21 asked to sacrifice, incrementally over the last 22 100 years, until we're up against the wall, 23 natural resource agencies, the City of Tybee, 24 City of Savannah, DO problems, on and on and 25 on. 65 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 It's going hurt just a little bit. I just 3 want a little bit more. You know, we can't 4 look at this without looking at cumulative 5 impacts. Cumulative impacts have resulted in 6 over half of the tidal fresh marsh, on that 7 national wildlife refuge on Savannah being 8 lost. 9 The last deepening we had, we traded 10 taking the tide gate out of operation for 11 additional four foot deepening. 12 We got striped bass reproducing in the 13 river for the first time probably in 20 some 14 years, since that tide gate was put into 15 operation. We got that back. We gained some 16 tidal fresh marsh. 17 It was a good trade. It was a win win 18 situation. I think we're being put in a 19 position that we're being asked to lose all of 20 that that we've gained, and we will look at 21 cumulative impacts. We have to. Those 22 national wildlife refuges have to look at those 23 cumulative impacts. 24 MR. DYSART: Hope. 25 MS. MOORER: And we will look at 66 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 addressing the impacts from the project. We 3 have to mitigate for the impacts of the 4 project, so that will be addressed. The Corps 5 will address that. 6 There is a Dredge Disposal Committee that 7 has not met a whole lot, but there is a Dredge 8 Disposal Committee that was set up for looking 9 at how material would be disposed of. 10 In terms of the studies, that the SEG is 11 being asked to just lightly consider the 12 studies, and have a presentation, and just 13 considering being asked to comment on it, those 14 studies are posted, every single one of them on 15 the Internet. 16 Presentations are on the Internet. The 17 minutes from all these meetings are on the 18 Internet. They're out there for you to 19 consider. 20 I don't know how many people in this room 21 have even read the nearshore placement studies, 22 but it's out there. I would beg people to read 23 it before taking a vote or commenting on it. 24 MR. DYSART: Judy. 25 MS. JENNINGS: I preface this by saying I 67 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 think it probably is an outside SEG comment, 3 but there have been so many comments made about 4 cumulative impacts, such as -- I'm sorry if I 5 haven't copied everybody on the e-mails I 6 should have been copying, but there is a small 7 but determined few, at this point in time, that 8 strongly believe that state and federal 9 agencies should be doing more to address 10 cumulative and incremental impacts of many 11 activities in the Savannah River. 12 And I, you know, there's not much I can 13 say because I don't know where it's going to 14 go, expect there's a giant handful of us, at 15 least a small handful of us, that probably will 16 push it and beg for help on it. 17 I think it's vitally important. I don't 18 think it's all to be said in this room, because 19 certainly harbor deepening is not the only 20 thing that is in part of the picture. But a 21 few of us really would like to talk about that. 22 I think we'd all like to talk about that. 23 MR. DYSART: Steve, do you have something 24 to add, please, sir? 25 MR. WILLIS: Yes, one thing. This is sort 68 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 of a question, also a comment, and that is I 3 wasn't here. I don't know exactly what the SEG 4 agreed its perimeters would be when it was 5 created. 6 I do understand the different state and 7 federal bureaucrats involved in this project, 8 and the businessmen involved in this project 9 have had very obvious constraints and tight 10 parameters by law and regulation on what they 11 say and do and think. 12 But as a citizen's group, it seems to me 13 unless people have just sort of adopted some 14 kind of restrictions on what they can say and 15 think, it seems like this group should have the 16 -- almost by definition does have the authority 17 to make it anything they want to. 18 That would include -- include thinking 19 about not just this particular tight set of 20 proposals, specifically, the exact deepening of 21 the river, but where things are going in 22 general, you know, what the general conditions, 23 the environment surrounding this activity looks 24 like it is going to be, how it's going to play 25 out in the future. 69 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 Without any can I kind of legalistic 3 you know, who shot John kind of parameters, and 4 I'm just asking, is that -- which is true? 5 Does this group have the responsibility to look 6 forward to what the interest of the whole 7 region is in the future, or is it to look very, 8 very carefully at just the direct implications 9 of each physical activity done relating to the 10 harbor deepening. 11 MR. DYSART: I'd make a very brief 12 comment, not authoritative, but there is 13 records that support the creation of this that 14 go back to the Congressional committees and so 15 forth, that make it reasonably clear what the 16 objective, the scope of the tasks are. Those 17 words are such, you know, they can sort of get 18 -- can get -- be interpreted as broad or narrow 19 by various people. 20 But there is some specific wording, and I 21 would suggest that you take a look at that. 22 Kelie did you have a comment? You put your 23 name tag down. 24 MS. MOORE: I was going to ask Hope maybe 25 if she would put the Coastal Resources 70 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 Division's five page letter -- 3 MS. MOORER: I have on my list here to 4 check and see if it has been posted. We asked 5 Larry to post Larry at the interim meeting. Do 6 I remember correctly, Judy, we asked Larry to 7 post that there? 8 MS. JENNINGS: I remember that we asked. 9 MS. MOORER: I don't know if it had been, 10 and Larry left shortly after that for a trip. 11 That's why the agenda was not posted but sent 12 out. 13 Larry was out of town. He's the 14 controller of the website. So that -- we'll 15 check. If it's not up there, we'll certainly 16 get it posted. 17 MR. DYSART: David, last comment. 18 MR. SCHALLER: Okay. I hope it's 19 appropriate. If we go back to the beginning of 20 our conversation here this morning, that began 21 at 9:15 I think, I'm reminded of my assignment 22 as a labor negotiator many, many, many years 23 ago. 24 I think there's an analogy here that fits. 25 You don't have any deal until you have the big 71 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 deal done. So when you have these committee 3 reports coming at us, one aspect of that may 4 influence another committee action or report or 5 recommendation. 6 We're probably going to learn today that 7 there's a menu of mitigation options that are 8 being considered right now, one that may impact 9 what happens to another mitigation feature. 10 So I think that the reports from the 11 committees are what they are. You know, they 12 go into the big hopper. The Corps has to 13 decide ultimately what's picked ultimately. 14 MR. DYSART: Having gone through extensive 15 American Arbitration Association training, I 16 know that a fact is not a fact unless it is 17 agreed to by the parties. 18 So I almost feel a consensus. We've been 19 going on for about an hour and a half. I think 20 this is something that needed to happen. 21 I think there is -- my perception is there 22 is a great deal on the table, regarding the 23 substance of this particular issue and also 24 procedure. 25 And I think Bill Bailey said something 72 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 very helpful, agree on the findings, or agree 3 on the scope, the desired scope. 4 My suggestion that I think I hear is that 5 this needs to go back for -- for the 6 interested, most interested parties to reflect 7 on this the things that have been teed up, and 8 bring us something back clarifying the 9 procedures that have been suggested here. 10 I think that the Beach Erosion Committee 11 has done something important in bringing, 12 perhaps, the first of these forward and saying 13 okay. 14 What is the procedure? What do we do with 15 it? Would there be any objection to referring 16 this back to the group that was to look at it 17 last time, which is a totally open group under 18 the leadership of Will Berson, and can you 19 bring us something back that speaks to the 20 procedural aspects of what we do with committee 21 reports and roles and so forth? 22 And if you find something that you suspect 23 that can be widely agreed upon, endorsed, or 24 accepted, or held up; feel free to bring that 25 back. Is there any objection to that? 73 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 MR. SCHALLER: Yes. 3 MR. DYSART: David, yes. 4 MR. SCHALLER: Well, I think it's been 5 back two or three times. It's been lingering 6 out there for six months. There's been lots of 7 discussion about the subject. 8 The study is what the study is, and it's 9 up to Corps, I think, to sort out, eventually, 10 what features and mitigation and placement 11 issues. The public, you know, there's a series 12 of opportunities for people to comment on what 13 the Corps finally puts together. 14 They're guided by regulation, law, rule, 15 what have you. They're not -- I don't think 16 they're going to be influenced by -- by what we 17 say here and now. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. Anybody got any 19 thoughts on that? Is there some kind of phrase 20 or some kind of statement that can be agreed 21 upon, rather broadly here, about what this body 22 feels with respect to the Beach Erosion 23 Committee report? Will. 24 MR. BERSON: Well, I'm air sick from 25 trying to be at 50,000 and down at the bottom 74 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 skimming the ground. It seems to me there are 3 sort of two elements here. 4 MR. DYSART: I think those are the trees 5 you hit, the barn that you hit. 6 MR. BERSON: I have no -- I mean, speaking 7 personally here, I have no problem accepting 8 the work of the Beach Erosion Committee. I 9 have a problem with project elements that I 10 think are still sort of being worked out 11 between CRD and the Corps. Just how you would 12 do it, if you did it, that's my sense of where 13 things are right now. This is where the whole 14 thing started, if I'm not mistaken. 15 It still doesn't -- it still doesn't 16 address the question of whether or not the SEG 17 ought to retroactively go back and look at the 18 aquifer report and make some sort of official 19 statement about it. 20 It also doesn't address what we want to do 21 going forward. I'm willing to pass along, 22 without comment, the Beach Erosion Committee's 23 report. 24 MR. DYSART: Is that the same as the body 25 accepting it as information? 75 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 MR. BERSON: We're talking about 3 semantics. I would like to hear what anybody 4 else who would like to -- I guess what I'm 5 saying is if it helps matters to remove the 6 specific and talk about the general, I'm 7 willing to do that. 8 I think there are some real problems with 9 what the Beach Erosion Committee is expecting, 10 vis-a-vis the specific Harbor Deepening 11 Project. I think probably there are some 12 issues there. 13 Whether or not that's reason for SEG not 14 to endorse them, or at least accept them, is a 15 matter for everyone to discuss. I'm willing to 16 say just I think one way forward is to let the 17 SEG just accept, without comment, the 18 recommendations. And, you know, let's put it 19 on for another day how we actually intend to 20 move forward, as a matter of policy, on other 21 reports. 22 MR. DYSART: Is that similar to are we 23 accepting it as information? 24 MR. BERSON: I would call it that, yes. 25 MR. DYSART: Last comment, Bill Farmer. 76 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 MR. FARMER: There's a provision in the 3 Operating Guidelines that reads as follows, 4 that all committee work products will be 5 subject to approval and acceptance by the full 6 SEG. 7 Now, being subject to approval and 8 acceptance is -- there's two words; one's 9 approval and one's acceptance. 10 I think Will says let's go ahead and 11 accept. He's silent whether we should approve 12 or disapprove. 13 We would partially be fulfilling the duty 14 of SEG if we accepted. Now, the fact that we 15 have not done this before, I think we should 16 admit the mistake and go back and correct the 17 mistake, or change the Operating Guidelines and 18 say we don't want to approve anything, you 19 know. 20 MR. DYSART: Do we have a consensus here 21 for being willing and able to accept the report 22 of the Beach Erosion Committee as information? 23 Objection -- yes. 24 MR. WILLIS: Could there just be a 25 category called like noted, you know? Yeah, we 77 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 reviewed this and approve it or really 3 disapprove, you know. 4 This is produced. This is reviewed. We 5 saw it, noted it. I guess what I'm concerned 6 about is time goes on, and we look at the 7 bigger picture that becomes the present. 8 It may be some of these things will be, 9 you know, that really should be looked at in a 10 different way. If we have approved something, 11 it might be hard to go back and say well now 12 we're going to disapprove it. It ought to be 13 something like we saw it noted. 14 MR. DYSART: What were the two words, 15 Bill? 16 MR. FARMER: Subject to approval and 17 acceptance by the full SEG. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. I think there's a huge 19 number of verbals that could be used. I think 20 we can probably say that receiving and so forth 21 includes noting and so forth. I would say is 22 there any objection to receiving the report? 23 Hope. 24 MS. MOORER: Approval and acceptance of a 25 mitigation plan -- 78 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 MR. FARMER: No. It said all committee 3 work products will be subject to approval and 4 acceptance by the full SEG. 5 MS. MOORER: Does it say what point of the 6 process? 7 MR. FARMER: Doesn't say when. 8 MS. MOORER: Right. So would that be at a 9 time if you accepted it now, accepted the 10 report now as the work product, and then once a 11 final mitigation plan is assembled, that's when 12 the work is considered -- the result of the 13 work is considered. 14 You're able to see all the components at 15 one time, and how one piece of mitigation 16 impacts another piece of mitigation, because 17 we've talked about this before in this 18 discussion; how do you judge an individual 19 component of mitigation until you see the whole 20 picture. 21 That's another thing. It doesn't say at 22 what point of the process, I think, you can 23 accept the work as being done, and maybe move 24 on. 25 I mean, as you suggested, Steve, maybe 79 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 accepted is the word you wanted -- to meet, to 3 meet the charge of Operating Guidelines. 4 MR. DYSART: Burning bit of wisdom. Judy. 5 MS. JENNINGS: Only since the last four or 6 five comments have said exactly the same thing, 7 that's getting real close to consensus. Like 8 David said, the reports are what they are. 9 Put them on the table. The picture's 10 going to change. Who knows how many times? 11 There's absolutely nothing you can do right 12 now. The last four or five comments have been 13 almost identical. 14 MR. DYSART: Is there a consensus to 15 accept or receive -- accept or receive the 16 report. David. 17 MR. SCHALLER: Approval might also mean -- 18 MR. DYSART: I didn't say approval. 19 MR. SCHALLER: I understand. I wanted to 20 go back to the points made, sorry. I believe 21 we're just kicking the dog here. The question 22 of approval Steve said, well, I think we all 23 said it a long time ago. 24 We don't have the scientific wherewithal, 25 in this group, to approve of the findings of 80 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 the study, we don't, but we can approve the 3 scope. And they did what we thought they were 4 going to do, what they were tasked with doing, 5 so forth. 6 That could well indeed be the meaning of 7 approval and acceptance of a report, and it is 8 what it is. 9 MR. DYSART: I think what we were talking 10 about was the first layer. Receiving, 11 accepting, accepting this information or what 12 not, which did not denote approval. 13 And I would ask again, or we could kind of 14 put together all the last half dozen comments; 15 is there anybody that couldn't live with 16 accepting this report, receiving it, its 17 information, without applying scientific 18 approval. I see a consensus. I doubt very 19 seriously there is a broad consensus about 20 accepting the specific numbers. 21 If anyone wishes to propose something you 22 think would be acceptable, feel free. We have 23 been -- this, I think, has been necessary. 24 It's been productive. I think about two 25 hours is probably enough on either dealing with 81 1 SPECIAL ACTION ITEM 2 the substance with which we have been, and 3 we've also been dancing on the head of a pin, 4 high levels and low levels. Is this a good 5 stopping point for -- 6 MR. DYSART: David. 7 MR. KYLER: I was going to just make a 8 recommendation to deal with the approval part. 9 We need to go back to the Operating Guidelines 10 Committee and come up with a list of criteria 11 under which approval would be exercised. 12 MR. DYSART: It is my view there has been 13 enough discussion about the need for clarifying 14 this that would be appropriate. Is there -- is 15 that acceptable to the body to refer this back, 16 as has been discussed and recommended by 17 numerous people. Hope. 18 MS. MOORER: I would ask, please, if you 19 are interested in the discussion to attend. We 20 did not even have enough people to have a 21 meeting last time, and there was not enough 22 substantive discussion. 23 If you want to move forward on this issue, 24 please attend the meeting. I pledge we will 25 get out the date early enough for everyone to 82 1 MITIGATION PLANNING UPDATE 2 consider the date. 3 MR. DYSART: It is my understanding there 4 have been instances sometimes that people have 5 been a little uncomfortable that all of the 6 major parties, who are interested, were not 7 there, and were not comfortable with making 8 decisions for other major players. 9 And so I think this body has confidence in 10 the Operating Guidelines Committee and so 11 forth. And we would like for the people who 12 have something to say to be there, so that this 13 large body could be comfortable when something 14 comes in that is ripe for action. I declare a 15 break, a 10 minute break. 16 (Short Break) 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. So we have now 18 completed item IV prime. We'll move on to the 19 scientific briefing. What we have now is a 20 mitigation planning update, Bill Bailey. 21 MR. BAILEY: Okay. I just wanted to give 22 you a quick update of where we are, what we're 23 doing with the mitigation pieces. 24 We are continuing to model the different 25 mitigation plans with the hydrodynamic model. 83 1 MITIGATION PLANNING UPDATE 2 We're looking at the plans that replumb the 3 estuary, change the flows in the rivers, using 4 the plans that we showed you before. 5 And these up here in front, we have -- 6 they have completed looking at the wetland 7 aspects of plans one through six, using average 8 flow conditions. We've distributed those 9 results to the natural resource agencies. 10 They're still modeling plan seven. Plan 11 seven is removal of the tide gate -- no, I'm 12 sorry. Plan seven is rerouting flows through 13 Steamboat River. 14 They have also completed some fisheries 15 impacts for plans one through six. When they 16 complete the wetland impacts for plan seven, 17 then we will select one of the replumbing plans 18 to proceed on with. And at that point, then we 19 will turn it over to our contractor who is 20 designing the dissolved oxygen system, so they 21 can do their final design work on that. 22 While that contractor is working on the DO 23 system, we will go back and we will continue 24 the work with the hydrodynamic model looking at 25 the effects on drought flows, sea level rise, 84 1 MITIGATION PLANNING UPDATE 2 and also rechecking the chloride impact 3 evaluations. 4 As all these things are underway, we've 5 also begun to evaluate ways to mitigate for the 6 remaining wetland effects. 7 We've searched for sites to grade down, 8 upland sites to grade down to create freshwater 9 marsh, and we looked at one tract along I-95 10 that had been a borrow site when that highway 11 was constructed. 12 We also looked at three pretty large 13 tracts, on the South Carolina border of the 14 National Wildlife Refuge, in between basically 15 Houlihan Bridge and I-95. And we intend to put 16 one site on the Georgia side up one of the 17 creeks. 18 I have forgotten the name -- St. 19 Augustine, thank you. If anyone has a 20 suggestion of a site where we could restore or 21 enhance wetlands, freshwater wetlands I guess 22 is what we're looking for the most. I guess 23 what we're thinking of was a site, on the 24 Savannah River, that maybe was used for timber 25 production or was recently logged and has 85 1 MITIGATION PLANNING UPDATE 2 drainage ditches. 3 That could be plugged, kind of following 4 some of what David Kyler was talking about, in 5 the last meeting, about those types of sites 6 that have changed due to stormwater run-off in 7 the river. 8 So if we can identify a site like that, 9 we'd be interested in seeing if we could 10 restore it. That's pretty much where we are 11 with the mitigation planning. Things are -- 12 there are a lot of things going on right now 13 with that. 14 And we will be making decisions pretty 15 soon as to what -- how to put the final pieces 16 of a plan together, or about the various plans, 17 one for each depth. 18 MR. DYSART: Comments, questions? 19 MS. JENNINGS: I wanted to make sure I get 20 it. You're looking at all the depths for seven 21 plans. That's not right is it or is it? 22 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 24 MR. DYSART: Will, Steve. 25 MR. BERSON: This actually is a question 86 1 MITIGATION PLANNING UPDATE 2 towards what he GRR will look like. Do you 3 typically have a discussion of alternatives 4 and, you know, a synopsis of their -- you're 5 going to present what your choice is for a 6 project; does that also include a discussion of 7 the other topics? 8 You mentioned you're doing mitigation 9 modeling for each depth increment. Would you 10 present that information in the GRR or would 11 that be, you know, just present the one that -- 12 I mean the analysis that underlies your choice? 13 MR. BAILEY: We'll have the information 14 for the recommended plan, as well as the other 15 plans that we considered. 16 MR. BERSON: Okay. 17 MR. BAILEY: We will have a write-up of 18 the rationale for how we got there. So for all 19 the things we looked at, starting with those 20 three pages of mitigation options we had with 21 this group years ago, how we started with that 22 and how we've narrowed them down. 23 MR. BERSON: Okay. Thank you. 24 MR. DYSART: Steve. 25 MR. WILLIS: One thing that is actually a 87 1 MITIGATION PLANNING UPDATE 2 really big problem around here is so much of 3 the forest land has been ditched and drained, 4 in order to provide better pine forestry, and 5 that's affected a huge area, and clearly 6 contributed a lot to forest fires we've just 7 experienced, and we'll probably have a lot more 8 problems in the future if drought conditions 9 continue. 10 And I was just wondering if you were 11 seriously considered the possibility of using 12 rewatering of large forest areas, and maybe 13 changing them from monoculture to a mitigation 14 possibility. 15 MR. BAILEY: Yes. I thought that I asked, 16 if you have sites like that, we'd be glad to 17 see them. 18 MR. WILLIS: It wouldn't be a freshwater 19 marsh, it would be something else -- different 20 kind of mitigation but real easy. 21 MR. BAILEY: It would be freshwater 22 wetlands, bottom-land, hardwood wetlands. 23 MR. DYSART: Judy. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, I ask only because 25 I've never watched a Corps process in this much 88 1 MITIGATION PLANNING UPDATE 2 detail, as you go along with each of the 3 pictures, are agencies giving you feedback as 4 you go along? 5 MR. BAILEY: When I send them things, yes, 6 they are. 7 MS. JENNINGS: I guess maybe I should have 8 asked differently; are you asking for -- how 9 much are you asking for feedback as you go 10 along? 11 MR. BAILEY: I'm not asking. So far what 12 I've been -- essentially, when we have 13 completed pieces of work, I've just sent it out 14 as information of here's what we've got. 15 Here's where we are at this point. There 16 aren't -- I have not asked them for decisions, 17 asked them to make a decision. 18 MS. JENNINGS: But comments would be 19 different from decisions or not -- another 20 question, sorry? 21 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. And the Service, Fish 22 and Wildlife Service has -- they expressed 23 their views from time to time and say what they 24 would prefer. 25 And we've -- when I send out a table of 89 1 EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW - AQUIFER 2 numbers, they will say well, this number looks 3 better than this other one over here, just kind 4 not necessarily expressing an agency opinion or 5 agency decision, but just kind of a technical 6 level of their initial thoughts on it. Those 7 things are -- they help. They help me, so -- 8 MR. DYSART: Further comments? Okay. 9 Thank you, Bill. Next we have the external 10 peer review of the aquifer study. If it's 11 complete -- is it complete? 12 MR. GARRETT: It is complete and we're 13 waiting right now to get the transmittal letter 14 to Mobile District and the field district for 15 final approvals. That will be wrapped up. 16 That's all we're waiting on on that. We've 17 answered all the responses, made changes to the 18 report that were necessary. We're waiting now 19 on final approval. It should be in the next 20 couple of weeks -- deliberated on it a long 21 time. 22 MR. DYSART: Old business. Hope. 23 MS. MOORER: Alan, nothing has changed 24 since Card's last presentation? 25 90 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 MR. GARRETT: No, no. 3 MR. DYSART: Economics study update. 4 Alan. 5 MR. GARRETT: I actually made 30 copies 6 and distributed them around the room. I got 7 this last evening from Mobile District, who is 8 our planning arm. As you know Savannah 9 District is done out of Mobile. Our 10 engineering is done out of Wilmington. 11 This indeed was received last night from 12 Mobile. In lieu of reading all this, I'll just 13 let you read it at your leisure. 14 Mobile has taken the updated Institute and 15 Water Resources vessel operating costs, and 16 incorporated the impacts of the Panama Canal's 17 completion, and new forecasts for vessel 18 fleets, and the GEC that the contractor's put 19 together. 20 Updating all of that, put the benefits 21 calculations in the model which they ran. That 22 itself is under peer review in San Francisco, 23 SPD, the division out there. We fully expect, 24 within the next month or so, to be getting 25 some economic information from them. That's 91 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 the status of economics. 3 MS. JENNINGS: I'm sorry, what's San 4 Francisco? 5 MR. GARRETT: Internal peer reviewer, 6 Kevin Knight in San Francisco. 7 MS. JENNINGS: I'm sorry, I knew that. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. David Kyler. 9 MR. KYLER: I haven't really done much 10 analysis of this -- haven't had time. I just 11 saw it today. When I look at the commodity 12 forecast, I have reached the conclusion there 13 seems to be a difference in world view here. 14 That is, I can't fathom a world given the 15 condition of all kinds of global issues now, 16 we're assuming trade is in portion to any other 17 impacts of significance, which in my mind has 18 got to be. How could we possibly increase 19 trade globally by that much and bare the 20 consequences. I can't fathom that. 21 Maybe I'm lacking in imagination, 22 considering the implications of transport on 23 the environment globally. Air, water quality, 24 just a sustainable global capacity of using 25 materials and moving them around; I have 92 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 trouble believing that that is a realistic 3 world that we could survive in. 4 MR. DYSART: Will, what do you say to 5 that? 6 MR. BERSON: I'm sorry. You caught me 7 looking at my papers. I was just curious, does 8 this, with the change in the Panama Canal, was 9 the chosen design vessel used in these 10 forecasts? I mean is this -- you chose a 11 theoretical design vessel as your -- did that 12 change as a result of this economic -- the 13 fleet forecast changed such that's not the 14 right design vessel to be using, I guess is 15 what I'm asking? 16 MR. BAILEY: I don't know. 17 MR. BERSON: Okay. 18 MR. DYSART: Judy and Tom. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Well, that was my question. 20 There is a phrase on page six that says the 21 data was updated in 2007, and additional vessel 22 size not previously recorded, 6,500 and 8,000 23 TEUs. So that was my question, did anybody -- 24 but the answer was we don't know? 25 MR. GARRETT: We'll get clarification for 93 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 that. 3 MS. JENNINGS: And how much is this 4 online; for instance, the regional port 5 analysis, how much of these reports are 6 online? 7 I mean, I've made note of BC model is 8 under peer review. There might not be much of 9 this online, except just the broadest 10 commodity, world trade ship commodity. That's 11 probably all that's online. 12 MR. GARRETT: We haven't actually put the 13 regional in yet. That's the only thing that's 14 left. 15 MS. JENNINGS: That's the only thing 16 that's left is the regional port? 17 MR. GARRETT: Uh-huh. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Do either of you know what 19 they mean by a report on the environmental and 20 institutional constraints? That's a new term 21 for me. 22 MR. GARRETT: That was part of the 23 regional port analysis. It addresses the 24 SELC's concerns, the Southern Environmental Law 25 Center. These were the regional impacts, what 94 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 Dave was just saying. This project had a very 3 limited scope, in terms of what it looked at. 4 MS. JENNINGS: I guess I don't understand 5 the word institutional constraints. 6 MR. DYSART: Hope. 7 MS. MOORER: On the design vessel, the 8 design vessel did not change. We discussed 9 that, and Morgan correct me if I'm wrong, we 10 looked at the size of the 6,700 to 8,000 TEU 11 ships to the draft, the dimensions of the 12 vessel, and they are pretty similar in terms of 13 draft and length. 14 So the design vessel, from what I 15 understand, did not stay the same -- I mean 16 stayed the same. But they will be able to come 17 and address why, and issues like that. Mobile, 18 they just wanted to come when there was a point 19 of some more data to give, you know. 20 There's not much data to give yet, until 21 the benefits model is accepted, and they can 22 talk about that. I think that will be a good 23 time to raise a lot of that. 24 The regional port analysis hadn't finished 25 completely going through approvals, from what I 95 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 understand. That's why that hasn't been 3 posted. I think all the other pieces are 4 posted. 5 MR. GARRETT: Yes, they are. 6 MS. MOORER: Now, their update numbers 7 will be used in the economics analysis itself 8 from -- there won't be a separate report 9 update, but I think it would be the economics 10 analysis. 11 MR. DYSART: Tom. 12 MR. WRIGHT: The economic analysis 13 includes an economic evaluation of passing 14 lanes in the river, based on computer modeling 15 of river traffic. I would like you to also 16 consider the fact that, in realty, the ships 17 don't move like computer models, and passing or 18 meeting lanes are necessary for vessel safety 19 as well as for the economic impact. 20 MR. DYSART: Steve. 21 MR. WILLIS: Yeah, I think it would be 22 really important to know, and maybe it is 23 available somewhere, but I'd like to have it in 24 this report how many ships that could take 25 advantage of the Panama Canal that couldn't fit 96 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 into the Savannah Harbor, the Savannah Channel 3 now; how many are there, how many under 4 construction, how many are projected to be 5 created in the future, and how likely it is 6 that those ships actually would frequent 7 Savannah and how many wouldn't frequent. Those 8 are just basic economic questions that need to 9 be answered. 10 MS. MOORER: It's in there. 11 MR. WILLIS: It's in this report? 12 MS. MOORER: If you look at like the ship 13 projections, it has vessel orders. It has all 14 the projections of the orders of the vessels, 15 the projections of the larger vessels, and 16 things like that. In the final report they 17 address the information such as what you're 18 raising right there. 19 MR. WILLIS: It's already available? 20 MS. MOORER: Most of the vessel 21 information is available online in the fleet 22 forecast. 23 MR. DYSART: Alan, Morgan. 24 MR. GARRETT: Judy, you had a question 25 about the definition of the term institutional 97 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 analysis. As I've read those reports, Morgan 3 you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's 4 looking at the various port facilities and what 5 they're able to -- the capacity, the capability 6 of the ports from Norfolk down to Jacksonville. 7 That's the institutional capacity. 8 MS. JENNINGS: I didn't know the word. 9 Thank you. 10 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 11 MR. REES: I just wanted to comment on the 12 design vessel question surrounding that, but 13 what I'm going to say applies to a lot of stuff 14 like Steve has raised. You know, we monitor 15 the world fleet and vessels on order. And it 16 turns out that even as the TEU capacity 17 increases, there are exceptions, but generally 18 the design depth of the vessel has not been 19 changing much. 20 They have been designing a little wider 21 and a little longer, and using design 22 techniques to cram more boxes into the same 23 volume of space, so that one might say okay, 24 you used a 6,000 TEU vessel, but now the common 25 vessel is 8,000. What are going to do about 98 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 that? 3 That doesn't mean that the channel 4 dimensions are going to have to be 5 significantly different. It's the matter of 6 vessel design. So there are lots of things 7 going on in the industry, and they're changing 8 almost daily. 9 It's hard to keep up with them, but all 10 the latest information that goes to the kinds 11 of questions Steve was just asking, analyzing 12 the trade projections and analyzing the fleet 13 projections, that's all continuously being 14 monitored. 15 When the report comes out, all the latest 16 stuff will be in there, but that's not to say 17 it's not going to change over the next year or 18 two. 19 If you go back historically, you know, go 20 back to the early '80s when containerization 21 really started to become a significant factor, 22 the rate of change continues to be extreme. 23 And you can graph it out from 1980 to now, 24 and not just the change, but the rate of change 25 keeps going. You know, it's pure speculation 99 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 as to when it is going to end. 3 MR. DYSART: Judy. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Morgan, the reason I asked 5 that question, I know what you just said is 6 true; however, I don't know things like -- Tom 7 you might be able to answer this, other 8 questions that get at the engineering aspects 9 of the boats, for instance when we ask you 10 questions about water quality, I mean, if we 11 are expecting more, bigger boats, are the 12 engineering specs for the boats such that water 13 quality impacts would be less, or air quality 14 impacts would be more or less? 15 Also I ask because they do carry more, and 16 I'm wondering, that affects turnaround time. I 17 know y'all have another name for it, but what I 18 mean is how long it takes a boat to drive up, 19 get unloaded and drive off. 20 Those are the kinds of reasons I ask. I 21 mean because, you know, I know they're about 22 the same draft. I know they're about the same 23 width and length, but they are stacking more 24 box on them. 25 MR. REES: What Judy? 100 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 MS. MOORER: They are stacking more boxes 3 on them. 4 MR. REES: Yes, yes. 5 MS. JENNINGS: That is the point. They 6 are newer and bigger boats. I mean, it's not 7 an anti-deepening question. It's just an I 8 don't know question. 9 I don't know the engineering specs of the 10 boats that would -- I mean do you -- do they 11 look at stuff like that? I don't know if they 12 do or they don't. 13 MR. REES: When you say engineering specs, 14 are you -- 15 MS. JENNINGS: Anything about the boat 16 that would impact water quality, anything about 17 the boat that would impact air quality, and 18 things about the boat that might -- for 19 instance, about air quality, the longer it has 20 to sit here, the more air impacts we'll have. 21 I mean, we don't cold iron in Savannah, 22 unless y'all are going to have a great big 23 announcement tomorrow which I would love to 24 see. While the boat is here and still running, 25 the more you put on it the longer it's going to 101 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 have to sit there and run. 3 MR. REES: That may or may not be so. 4 Again, the whole operation of container 5 shipping changes so rapidly, and one of the 6 constraints -- I don't want to jump ahead of 7 the regional port analysis, but one of the 8 things you're going to see in there is the 9 challenge is going to be getting all the boxes 10 through the whole system of regional ports that 11 can reasonably be expected; in other words, the 12 capacity of the ports to handle the trade is 13 going to be a constraint in the future. 14 And we can see that there are changes in 15 technology of the handling the boxes faster, 16 more per hour, more moves per hour, so forth. 17 So I wouldn't necessarily assume the 18 ships, even though they contain more boxes, are 19 going to be there any longer than they are 20 currently, because the technology is keeping up 21 with the demand at this point. 22 Whether that's going to continue to happen 23 in the future, you know, it's anybody's guess, 24 but it's likely. Let me back up. My personal 25 judgment is that because we have a history of 102 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 the technology, accommodating those kinds of 3 changes, and that we see other ports around the 4 world that have a much higher thru-put of boxes 5 per hour than any US ports, it's likely that 6 that technology will be transferred as needed 7 to US ports. 8 Now, how that leads back into air 9 emissions is another question. But it's also 10 likely the more newer vessels that call, in 11 place of the older vessels, is going to help in 12 the air quality issue, because of the 13 technology that would be built into the new 14 vessels will anticipate that issue. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Which I guess I should have 16 been able to answer my own questions. Those 17 kinds of things will be factored in, 18 regardless. 19 The design vessel, the length, width and 20 depth, all these other issues that I'm talking 21 to you about, will be in the economics analysis 22 somewhere. 23 MR. REES: Well, I don't know that the air 24 quality or the water quality would be in the 25 economics analysis, but certainly will be in 103 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 the environmental analysis. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Based on the information on 4 the Savannah port of call -- 5 MR. REES: Based on the -- based on the 6 projections -- 7 MS. JENNINGS: I do apologize, but I don't 8 get access to Morgan all that much. I'm 9 picking on him a little bit. I'm sorry. 10 MR. REES: And we just -- our esteemed 11 reporter here can handle anything. She's done 12 so well over the years. 13 MR. DYSART: Steve, do you have another 14 comment? 15 MR. WILLIS: No, I'm sorry. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. Next item. 17 Discussion of how the proposed Jasper County 18 terminal will be addressed within the study, if 19 final decision has been determined by the 20 Corps. Alan. 21 MR. GARRETT: There's been a lot of 22 discussion about that over the last few weeks. 23 Last Wednesday, we met with the Mobile District 24 economics folks, Ken Classman and Johnny 25 Grandes (phonetic), who have been charged with 104 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 heading that up in Mobile. 3 They're going to go back and get us a 4 final plan, if you will, that included a 5 scenario in the analysis of the most likely 6 plan, which at this point is pure speculation. 7 We don't have any hard numbers, facts, 8 locations or timing. So they haven't yet 9 submitted that to us, but that's what we expect 10 in the next week or two, we can address that 11 in the report. We have to address it. 12 MR. DYSART: Judy and then David Kyler. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. Alan, I'm so sorry. 14 I wish you could say again what you said, you 15 don't have enough yet to know? 16 MR. GARRETT: We are drawing a lot of 17 speculation at this point, drawing inferences 18 from a Moffat Nichols report, which the Georgia 19 Ports Authority -- who actually did that 20 report? 21 MS. MOORER: It wasn't us. I don't know 22 who did it. 23 MR. GARRETT: State of Georgia, I guess. 24 That reports contains some information. We're 25 looking at that. Trying to site the port is 105 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 one issue, and looking at the timing of it is 3 another. 4 MS. JENNINGS: You know, Moffat Nichols 5 report, I don't know that. You know, help me 6 if I'm right or wrong, but the only thing we 7 have on the Jasper port is that piece of paper 8 that the governor signed that day. That's all 9 we've got. 10 MR. GARRETT: Right. 11 MS. JENNINGS: I just want y'all to help 12 me, if I've got this right. I scanned that 13 thing a couple of times, and then I finally 14 read it. What it says is they appointed those 15 six people. That term paper, white whatever, 16 said that they would do that. 17 And it also said that the governors of 18 both states would do what they could to -- this 19 is what I'm wondering, why don't you know 20 enough, because there are questions you could 21 ask? 22 For instance, the paper gave directions 23 that said you guys work together on getting 24 that land, and work together on removing that 25 federal easement. That's what the paper said. 106 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 It went on to say -- it also went on to 3 say, you guys create -- I read the same paper 4 as everybody else, right? 5 It also went on to say that you guys 6 create a compact. And if by, I think at the 7 end of March of next year, that the compact 8 hasn't been passed by both states, then it's 9 -- it's null and void. Okay. 10 So I guess, when you say you don't know 11 enough, you could at least ask the governors, 12 are you guys working on a compact? That's one 13 thing we know and it's a deadline we know. 14 MR. GARRETT: What are we asking? 15 MR. DYSART: Hope has clarification here. 16 MS. MOORER: They are. What they're 17 working on, the Corps, for the project, what 18 hasn't been determined, it's going to be a 19 scenario-based analysis because nothing is for 20 certain. Don't know the size of the terminal, 21 don't know this, don't know that. 22 You can make guesstimates, so there will 23 be various scenarios that the Corps is trying 24 to determine, based on limited information or 25 projections or final plans for a terminal. 107 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 They will make scenarios. Okay, this 3 could be happen. A higher end of that would be 4 this happening. What's kind of midline, and 5 they haven't come up with a scenario yet. 6 That's what we can't share with you yet, 7 what scenarios the Corps has finally, this is 8 what we're going to use for the analysis. 9 So yes, they are -- they do know some 10 things, what's in this term sheet, but as to 11 what Alan said, as to exact location of the 12 terminal, or a size of a terminal, or whether a 13 terminal can be built, or anything like that, 14 how much volume a terminal would handle, that's 15 not for certain. 16 So as a result, we have to address it in 17 the study, and the Corps has to address it in 18 the study. We all do. They're using -- they 19 have decided to use a scenario-based approach. 20 The final scenario is not yet agreed upon 21 by -- blessed from headquarters down within the 22 Corps. 23 MR. DYSART: David and Steve. 24 MR. KYLER: Again, back to the commodity 25 forecast, I assume this projection for Savannah 108 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 is a proportional to projections of world 3 trade? 4 MS. MOORER: Yes. 5 MR. KYLER: Savannah's not getting any 6 greater share; it's just growing along with 7 everybody else? 8 MS. MOORER: (Nods head up and down.) 9 MR. KYLER: This represents a six-fold 10 increase greater in 50 years, between '04 and 11 50. 12 As I understand it, the population is 13 growing. The United States might conceivably 14 double in 50 years. That's a 100% increase, 15 this says a 600% increase. World population, I 16 think, will total out, if we're lucky so to 17 speak, in a dubious use of the word, nine 18 billion. We're at six billion now. So that's 19 a one third increase. 20 Yet we're looking at 600% increase in 21 trade. I don't get it. I can't imagine this 22 linear projection reflecting a reality we will 23 be able to sustain. 24 MR. DYSART: Quick answer to that, Hope. 25 MS. MOORER: I do. David, I think if you 109 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 wait for the final report, there are other 3 things that limit what might be able to come 4 here. I think if you wait for the final 5 report, while that's the trade forecast, it 6 might be for here, I just think if you wait 7 until the report is complete, they're here to 8 answer your questions, maybe they can better 9 explain that. 10 MR. KYLER: Well, in a way my question is 11 more global, whether here or somewhere else, if 12 it's happening it seems quite a strain to the 13 imagination. 14 MR. DYSART: Steve, Morgan. 15 MR. WILLIS: The fine print here says this 16 was -- this was a projection that was the done 17 on steroids. There was a sense that the 18 original projection was too low. It was made 19 higher. 20 But I had a question for Hope; is the 21 Corps working with the state representatives 22 and working up these scenarios; are they 23 waiting to have the scenarios delivered? 24 MS. MOORER: I would -- the Corps on 25 various parallels, I think, is working with the 110 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 states to determine what to do about Jasper, 3 from what I understand. 4 A study, where is the bi-state port 5 authority going, where is the commission, where 6 does it want to study? I understand that the 7 Corps is working on that with them. 8 In relation to this project, you have to 9 take what's projected coming to Savannah, and 10 how that might be impacted if a terminal is 11 constructed in Jasper County, what that does to 12 this deepening project. 13 And that's the scenario -- scenarios that 14 I believe that the Corps is working on. 15 MR. DYSART: Morgan. 16 MR. REES: To just comment on the 17 projections, with respect to the issues of 18 world population and all that. I think Hope's 19 advice is the best. Let's wait and see when 20 the report is all put together, because it will 21 come into context. 22 I did want to point out that the 23 contractor, who did the economic report, hired 24 a subcontractor that is -- the company has 25 changed names. I don't remember what their 111 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 current name is, but it is the most relied upon 3 world economic projection company that I know 4 of. 5 What they did was they looked at 80, I 6 think about 80 different countries, and what 7 their growth rates would be, and what their 8 production rates would be, and what their 9 participation in international trade would be. 10 And they worked up a computer program that 11 projected certain growth rates worldwide in 12 container trade. So it is a world focused 13 effort. 14 And the bottom line of all that is in 15 terms of what it means to any individual port, 16 not just Savannah, is the container trade 17 worldwide will significantly outpace world 18 population growth. 19 Now whether the exact numbers are right, 20 in terms of percent per year, there's certainly 21 a lot of debate about that. Fundamentally, 22 there is an expectation by everybody in the 23 world who studies this. 24 This isn't something coming out of the 25 contractor that the Corps hired, or coming out 112 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 of GPA. This is the expectation that's pretty 3 well-developed that the container trade is 4 significantly outpacing world population 5 growth, for a lot of reasons. 6 We talked about this, Judy may recall, 7 when we did the economic analysis in 1998, that 8 projections at that time were for greater 9 growth at Savannah than could be supported by 10 looking at world population. 11 And we went through all that evaluation 12 and showed that the two are related, but not 13 proportional by any means. 14 MS. JENNINGS: If I could make a comment, 15 Morgan and I went around and round this a bunch 16 of times. I finally became a believer in what 17 Morgan says. 18 One of the reasons is the way we make 19 trade agreements. And we circle the world with 20 stuff that's -- I mean, it amazes me how we 21 circle world with stuff because of the way they 22 write trade agreements. 23 That didn't make logical sense to me at 24 first, but it does if you read a trade 25 agreement. 113 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 MR. DYSART: Will and David Kyler. 3 MR. BERSON: I just wanted to reiterate 4 that we're very interested in the analysis of 5 Jasper terminal. I don't know if the idea -- 6 if you were planning on releasing the scenarios 7 and the conclusions, prior to the GRR, but I 8 would urge to do that, if not, because I think 9 it's something that a lot of people, the 10 Georgia Conservancy specifically, but a lot of 11 other folks are going to look at that 12 alternatives analysis real closely. 13 And the sooner I think it is, the better I 14 think it is as a whole. 15 MR. DYSART: David then Judy. 16 MR. KYLER: I don't doubt that what's been 17 true in the recent past and probably in the 18 near future would be that container trade is 19 growing faster than population. I just 20 question the extent it would be sustained as 21 displayed on the 50 year production. 22 I predict it will peak sometime in the 23 period and then start declining relative to 24 population. 25 MS. JENNINGS: I have thought about that 114 1 ECONOMICS STUDY UPDATE 2 too, David, but that's not what the literature 3 says. However, about Jasper, there's going to 4 come a time where there will be a lot less 5 uncertainty. Because in January, when those 6 two general assemblies reconvene, if they don't 7 act by March 31st, there will be a point in 8 time when there's not nearly as much 9 uncertainty. 10 It's all -- it's political and I don't 11 know how you guys are going to figure it out. 12 I mean, you know, get a political consultant, 13 but if you could do it well, I don't doubt that 14 you could, I'm just saying it would be hard 15 for most people. There will be a time when the 16 legislators, who are in charge of this, will 17 either have acted or they won't have acted. 18 And another thing that I just want to 19 mention, since we are on the record, that I 20 thought was extremely interesting about that 21 agreement, it can stay in there or it might 22 not, but what that white paper says is, I'm not 23 sure about this, y'all help me; it says that 24 South Carolina would pay half of the harbor 25 deepening price, from the ocean up to Jasper, 115 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEMONSTRATION UPDATE 2 of harbor deepening. That's what that 3 agreement said. 4 Now, what I'm not sure from the white 5 paper, and whether or not that will come 6 through in the compact or not, but I'm assuming 7 y'all will be asking this question, is that 8 statement dependent on whether Jasper happens 9 or not. 10 To me, wouldn't that be a question y'all 11 would have to be looking at? Don't y'all 12 remember, in that white paper, it says that 13 South Carolina would pay the non-federal cost 14 share of harbor deepening from the ocean to the 15 Jasper. 16 What the paper doesn't say, but a compact 17 might say, is that it's dependent on 18 development of Jasper. And so I know that 19 y'all -- I'm just assuming y'all are looking at 20 all of these things. 21 I mention them just because I think they 22 should be said for the record, but not that I 23 envy your task. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. Seeing no further 25 questions, thank you. Dissolved oxygen, Hope. 116 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEMONSTRATION UPDATE 2 MS. MOORER: The study has another week of 3 running. The system -- a lot of you came out 4 and saw the system and still have an 5 opportunity, this week, for anybody who wants 6 to come out and look. 7 Just give me a call. I'll be happy to 8 take you out there. They really learned a lot 9 by operating these units, and just how the 10 oxygen affects the pressure coming in at a 11 different pressure. 12 And it will shut the down the system if 13 the oxygen pressure drops too low, and what 14 types of defusers, if it is employed in the 15 harbor, should be used on the system to reduce 16 the aeration that's caused at certain 17 pressures. 18 They have really have learned a whole lot. 19 They also have seen some impact with the 20 addition of the oxygen into the harbor, not 21 dramatic, but while you would expect the oxygen 22 levels to continue decreasing at this time of 23 year within the harbor, they have seen more of 24 a leveling off. 25 I didn't know this, but apparently when 117 1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEMONSTRATION UPDATE 2 water enters the system in the area, it remains 3 within the system for about 21 days before 4 exiting the system. So what you saw was as the 5 systems were turned on, the oxygen levels 6 continued to decrease somewhat. After a couple 7 weeks, they leveled off. And then a slight, 8 you know, slight increase or decrease, 9 depending on weather at the time, rain events, 10 different kind of events in the harbor, but all 11 the data that's being collected -- and they're 12 going to try to incorporate a longer run into 13 the data collection too. 14 Because they have been concentrating on a 15 certain reach from Corps depot just up past 16 GPA's Ocean Terminal, they're going to try to 17 do a longer reach, within the harbor, to see, 18 just to get a measure of levels throughout the 19 harbor further distances away from the units. 20 But the data will all be collected in, 21 analyzed, put into a report that will tell 22 about all those things they have learned during 23 this operation. 24 They have kept a log of all the things 25 that have gone wrong, the things that have 118 1 SCHEDULE MILESTONES 2 worked. And the contractor with them says they 3 will produce a report in 60 days. 4 They will have 60 days to go through the 5 data and produce a report. Around December is 6 when we should get a report back from MacTec. 7 That will be shared and posted and given 8 to the Corps, because we hope this information 9 will be useful in any kind of final design for 10 mitigation too purposes. 11 MR. DYSART: Questions, comments. Will. 12 MR. BERSON: I went out and took the tour. 13 I have to admit until I did I didn't appreciate 14 the amount of work that GPA, and Hope, have had 15 to do to set this thing up. It wasn't a small 16 thing. I think it deserves some real 17 consideration and thanks, because I don't think 18 anything is as illustrative as seeing something 19 on the ground working or over the water and 20 working. 21 Win, lose or draw on what the conclusions 22 are, it was a really, really good idea. I know 23 it was extra work and I thank you. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Here here. 25 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Schedule 119 1 SCHEDULE MILESTONES 2 milestones update. Hope. 3 MS. MOORER: These were updated by Larry. 4 MR. BAILEY: Hope, were you going to say 5 something else about that demonstration? They 6 were proposing to do something tomorrow. 7 MS. MOORER: Oh, they are proposing to do 8 this. It's not finalized yet, because we are 9 trying to get -- one of the agencies requested 10 this, and they did configure the system at the 11 very beginning of the process, they configured 12 the system so if they decided, or if we decided 13 to do a dye test to see how the movement of the 14 oxygen and the water, once it goes into the 15 harbor how it moves in the harbor. 16 They configured the system so you could 17 add dye to the outflow. They have got the dye. 18 It's an aqua shade which is a pond dye. I 19 requested, however, because there's no 20 permitting process out there, essentially, to 21 go through to be able to do this dye test, I 22 can't remember if it is 150 gallons or 250 23 gallons. 24 It's not like 1,000 gallons or 3,000 25 gallons, but they say you might be able to see 120 1 SCHEDULE MILESTONES 2 it. So it's -- but we sent out -- I requested 3 yesterday that they please try to get something 4 in writing from the agencies that this was okay 5 to do it. 6 So we're waiting on that. Dependent on 7 what we get back is whether or not the dye test 8 will be conducted. But it was requested by the 9 agencies. When they think they will see the 10 most results from it is at low slack on 11 movement end, in movement too high. 12 It's when they think they will possibly, 13 if they put all the 150 gallons at one time at 14 low slack, that possibly they will see the blue 15 dye -- I thought the water was blue, but the 16 blue dye move in the harbor. 17 So they would have people posted, and also 18 within the proposal there's some proposals for 19 grab samples to then look at the water that 20 they have grabbed, and determine if it moved 21 at various locations in the harbor too. 22 It's a pretty big effort, the dye test, 23 but I'm trying to get some -- if people really 24 want to see it, you were copied on that note, 25 send in your approval, because we're not going 121 1 SCHEDULE MILESTONES 2 to do it without some kind of approval on hand. 3 MR. SCANLON: You got a bunch of them this 4 morning. 5 MS. MOORER: Did we -- I haven't had 6 access to e-mail, so yeah. 7 MR. SCANLON: Yeah, DHEC, EPD, Coast 8 Guard, the City have all responded saying no 9 objection. 10 MS. MOORER: Okay. So we'll be doing the 11 dye test. I'll go call the police and let them 12 know why we're on the bridge. 13 MR. DYSART: Will. 14 MR. BERSON: I was going to say, we are 15 living in a post-911 world. Let the first 16 responders know this isn't an attack. 17 MS. MOORER: We've been coordinating with 18 the Coast Guard, and we'll contact the police 19 to make sure they know why we're on the bridge. 20 All that, it's a lot of coordination with this 21 type of in-water testing, that's for sure. 22 MR. DYSART: I might just say as a light 23 note here, 150 gallons is a lot of dye. I, 24 many years ago, when I was in academia, I did 25 an unauthorized dye study in a tributary to a 122 1 SCHEDULE MILESTONES 2 tributary to the Savannah River. 3 It was, I think, five liters in a creek, 4 you know, that was about 15 feet wide. And 5 when we saw what was happening, I sent one of 6 my graduate students to make a call to DHEC and 7 tell them it was possible that some people from 8 Clemson might be doing a dye test in Henderson 9 County, South Carolina. 10 And I said, do not give any names, 11 particularly mine. We went down to the 12 Savannah. There was a bridge going across it, 13 and it was generating boiling water through it. 14 You could see pink going down the bank, 15 descending bank. So that's what five liters 16 will do. Come see it. Further questions? 17 Committee reports. 18 MS. MOORER: I have milestones. The 19 milestones are posted on the Internet are 20 up-to-date. Larry did get those before he 21 left. 22 The things to point out, I think, is -- 23 are around the end of year is when a mitigation 24 plan is supposed to have been assembled. 25 So a public information meeting, on the 123 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 impacts and the mitigation planning, that we've 3 discussed before would be shortly after that, 4 say around the first of the year, January 2008. 5 After that, in April, is when the first -- 6 the draft of the EIS and GRR is scheduled for 7 release right now, March/April time frame. 8 So then you're looking at public comment 9 period, and a final later on in the year around 10 October. And so we're -- it looks like the 11 schedule now. 12 So you're looking at around the end of the 13 year before finalizing mitigation plans and 14 economics and all of that. NED plan not until 15 after, likely the first of the year. So look 16 at the Internet. You'll see the milestones. 17 As they change, we're able to accomplish 18 anything with greater speed or any delays, they 19 will be reflected on the milestones on the 20 Internet. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. Questions? Committee 22 reports. Aquifer Committee. Bob. 23 MR. SCANLON: No report. 24 MS. JENNINGS: I'm sorry. Before we leave 25 all these reports. 124 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Where in here would I find 4 -- okay. Most of it's online you said 5 except -- 6 MR. GARRETT: Except for regional. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Where would I find their 8 analysis from the benefits from LNG? 9 MS. MOORER: I think it's posted. If you 10 go down to the bottom of the website where the 11 study reports are, I think that's posted. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Just -- that's all it's 13 going to say. 14 MS. MOORER: I'll check with Larry if not. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. We finished the 16 Aquifer Committee. Beach Erosion we've had 17 enough of that for today. Dredging and 18 Disposal Committee. Economics Working Group, 19 Judy, do you have anything for us? 20 MS. JENNINGS: Not except for the final I 21 get to read. 22 MR. DYSART: Fisheries and Aquatic 23 Resources. Will. 24 MR. BERSON: No report. 25 MR. DYSART: Interim agenda, we did 125 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 reports. Operating Guidelines. 3 MR. BERSON: I think we've laid it all 4 out. I assume, though, that we will be meeting 5 in conjunction with the next interim group 6 to discuss the sort of criteria we were 7 discussing about what should looked at, and 8 under what circumstances they should be looked 9 at by the SEG as a whole, relative to previous 10 studies. 11 So again, I want to second Hope's 12 statement that we really benefit from more 13 people being at these meetings, and I really 14 hope you can make time to do it. We don't 15 serve snacks, but if it would make a difference 16 I'll promise. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. Do we have anything 18 from the Striped Bass -- Judy. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Before we leave committees 20 in general. 21 MR. DYSART: Striped bass, is there a new 22 committee chair? 23 MS. COLVIN: Sure. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. And Gail, did you 25 introduce yourself when came in a little bit 126 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 late? 3 MS. BOWERS: No. I think Steve and I 4 came in together. Gail Bowers, League of Women 5 Voters. 6 MR. DYSART: Say who you are and who you 7 are representing. 8 MR. WILLIS: Steve Willis and I'm with 9 Dave on this. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. Did you introduce 12 yourself -- okay. Next meeting date. 13 MR. DYSART: Judy, excuse me, before we 14 leave committees. Judy. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Back to dredging, you know, 16 the fact that the committee is not meeting 17 doesn't mean anything. Where can -- there's 18 got to be a lot of work on dredging. I mean 19 I'm just assuming. 20 MS. MOORER: Judy, I think you were absent 21 -- were you absent a meeting? 22 MS. JENNINGS: I missed one. 23 MS. MOORER: Fred Beason was at a meeting 24 and he polled the members of dredging about 25 work that had been produced, and asked them to 127 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 read it, any comments on it, if I'm remembering 3 correctly. 4 I don't know if he reported back, but we 5 can ask Fred to do that. There is a lot that's 6 out there on disposal. I think Fred has asked 7 the committee members he can pull together to 8 look at it. 9 But I'll commit to look back in the 10 meeting minutes and call Fred and see what was 11 done. But I can't remember if he came back 12 here or not to the group, but I thought he did. 13 MS. JENNINGS: So it would be online? 14 MS. MOORER: I'll look and let you know. 15 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Next meeting 16 date. Would it be reasonable to say let's have 17 the interim meeting, and kind of tentatively 18 pencil in a couple of months and see what 19 happens; does that seem reasonable? 20 I see a consensus, so that would be 21 November the 6th is a tentative date. Pencil 22 it in. Hope, do you have anything else for us? 23 MS. MOORER: I don't think so. If you'll 24 pencil in October 2nd right now for the interim 25 meeting, depending on room availability. 128 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 We'll check with Larry, as soon as he gets 3 back, and send out a room for the interim SEG, 4 and maybe Operating Guidelines Committee too. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Will. 6 MR. BERSON: We've mentioned this several 7 different times, and I just wanted to bring it 8 back to the SEG and let them know. 9 The Georgia Conservancy is exploring 10 options for funding, for a repository, for all 11 the materials associated with a review of the 12 harbor project. 13 Any suggestions would be welcome. My 14 thoughts for leaning towards an academic 15 institution holding them, that would be the 16 model, as well the all other associated 17 materials that are now currently on the 18 webpage. 19 I think it would be important to keep that 20 -- those materials intact for future reference, 21 and we're going to work towards that. Any 22 suggestions y'all have would be welcome. 23 MR. DYSART: Any further thoughts, 24 comments, suggestions? If not, I declare the 25 meeting adjourned. I appreciate the wonderful 129 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 discussion we had today. 3 (Concluded at 12:15 p.m.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 130 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 G E O R G I A : 5 CHATHAM COUNTY : 6 7 I hereby certify that the foregoing 8 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 9 caption, and the questions and answers thereto were 10 reduced to typewriting under my direction; that the 11 foregoing pages 1 through 129 represent a true and 12 correct transcript of the evidence given upon said 13 hearing, and I further certify that I am not of kin 14 or counsel to the parties in the case; am not in 15 the regular employ of counsel for any of said 16 parties; nor am I in anywise interested in the 17 result of said case. 18 This the 8th day October, 2007. 19 20 _______________________________ 21 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 22 Reporter, B-2041 23 24 25