1 2 3 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP MEETING 4 5 OF 6 7 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 8 9 10 11 12 MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 13 POOLER, GEORGIA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 I N D E X 5 6 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------ 3 7 AGENDA DISCUSSION ---------------------- 6 8 COMMITTEE REPORTS ---------------------- 7 9 10 11 UPDATE BRIEFING 12 By Bill Bailey --------------------- 11 13 By Bill Bailey --------------------- 50 14 By Alan Garrett -------------------- 72 15 By Joe Hoke ------------------------ 76 16 17 NEXT MEETING DATE ---------------------- 90 18 19 CERTIFICATE ---------------------------- 91 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 THE REPORTER: I am appearing today on 3 behalf of my employer, Tom Crites & Associates. 4 My office was requested by Georgia Ports 5 Authority to provide a court reporter today at 6 9:00 a.m. at this address. 7 Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well 8 as at the instructions of my employer, I wish 9 to disclose that, other than accepting to serve 10 as your reporter, we have not entered into any 11 other contractual agreement with any party 12 involved in this case.) 13 MR. DYSART: Good morning. I'm Ben Dysart 14 and let's start the meeting. The first thing I 15 would like for us to do is to introduce 16 ourselves on the record. As is customary, we'd 17 like for you to speak very clearly, so madam 18 court reporter can hear your name very clearly, 19 and indicate what your affiliation is, how ever 20 you decide you wish to declare your 21 affiliation. 22 And simply an interested citizen is a 23 suitable affiliation. Our custom here is 24 anybody who walks through the door is, indeed, 25 an interested party. And so, everybody has 4 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 standing at the table. We're going to start 3 with Joe and we'll come around this way. Joe. 4 MR. HOKE: Joe Hoke, Hydraulic Engineer 5 with the Corps of Engineers. 6 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, the Corps of 7 Engineers. 8 MR. GARRETT: Alan Garrett, Project 9 Manager, Corps of Engineers. 10 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Island. 11 MR. LIAKAKIS: Pete Liakakis, Chatham 12 County. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia 14 Sierra. 15 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, District Director of 16 Georgia Wildlife Federation. 17 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 18 Service. 19 MS. WENDT: Priscilla Wendt, South 20 Carolina DNR. 21 MS. GRIESS: Jane Griess, U.S. Fish and 22 Wildlife Service. 23 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, U.S. Fish 24 and Wildlife Service. 25 MR. FENWICK: Charlie Fenwick, Ft. Pulaski 5 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 National Monument, part of the National 3 Park Service. 4 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 5 Authority. 6 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant to 7 georgia Ports. 8 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia 9 Ports Authority. 10 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant 11 to Georgia Ports. 12 MS. BOWERS: Gail Bowers, League of Women 13 Voters. 14 MS. GRAINEY: Karen Grainey, Savannah 15 Riverkeeppers. 16 MS. LANDERS: Mary Landers, Savannah 17 Morning News. 18 MS. RADA: Melissa Rada, South Carolina 19 DHEC Coastal Resource. 20 MR. JOYNER: Curtis Joyner, DHEC Coastal 21 Resource. 22 MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of 23 Savannah and also the Savannah Harbor Committee 24 MR. GRIFFIN: David Griffin, Georgia 25 Department of Transportation. 6 1 AGENDA DISCUSSION 2 MR. WRIGHT: Tom Wright, interested 3 citizen. 4 MR. DYSART: Everybody is invited to sit 5 at the table so we can see you and you can 6 hear and so forth. 7 MR. TOMA: I'm Mike Toma, from Armstrong 8 Atlantic State University in the Economics 9 Department. 10 MR. DYSART: Welcome. Okay. We will 11 repeat this as others might be joining us. You 12 should have a draft agenda in front of you that 13 was posted several days ago, and you can be 14 looking at that while we get down to that. 15 The item number three on the agenda is -- 16 okay. The agenda for today, why don't you look 17 at that for just a moment. Let's go down to 18 item four. That is action concerning the June 19 transcript. 20 That should have been posted. You should 21 have had an opportunity to review that. Our 22 custom is, if there is any correction that 23 needs to be made, we make it at a subsequent 24 meeting on the record as opposed to going back. 25 Is there anything that needs to be -- any 7 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 errors that were noted in the June 2006 3 transcript of the SEG meeting? Seeing no 4 indication to that effect, we will consider the 5 June 2006 transcript to be accepted by this 6 body. 7 Now, looking at the agenda in front of 8 you, is there any change you would like to 9 make, any additions, any modification 10 whatsoever? Seeing no request to do that, we 11 will consider that this agenda before you will 12 be the agenda for the conduct of this meeting 13 and we will proceed. 14 Zipping right on down to committee 15 reports, and then we have a number of items of 16 new business following that, so let's proceed 17 with the committee reports. Bob Scanlon, 18 Aquifer Committee. 19 MR. SCANLON: There's nothing new to 20 report on the Aquifer Committee. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Anybody 22 from Beach Erosion Committee here. 23 MR. OFF: Alan's got a report on that. 24 MR. GARRETT: I was just going to report 25 that we do have input coming in from the 8 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 waterways experiment station. They will 3 presenting a briefing, on the 19th, to the 4 folks in the district and consultants. Anybody 5 who would like to attend, you're more than 6 welcome. It has to do with the impacts of the 7 channel on the beach at Tybee. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. 9 MR. GARRETT: 9:00 o'clock on the 19th at 10 the Savannah District. 11 MR. DYSART: Everyone hear that -- next 12 Dredging and Disposal Committee. Anyone from 13 that committee? Okay. The Economics Working 14 Group, Judy Jennings. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Yes, thank you, Ben. I do 16 have some things to say. 17 MR. DYSART: Prominent candidate for 18 school board. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Thank you. I appreciate 20 that. Hope was good enough to call me last 21 week and bring me up to speed on where some of 22 the things are with the economic analysis. The 23 multiport analysis we thought would be online 24 by today, and I didn't have time to look, but 25 it is -- okay. It is online today. 9 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 The regional port analysis is being done 3 in phases. It's not totally complete yet, but 4 some of it has been done, some hasn't. That 5 work is ongoing. 6 The benefits model will probably be ready 7 in October. It is expected to be ready in 8 October. The inputs to the model are still 9 being worked on, and the model runs will be 10 done later. 11 The NED choice will be made later, and 12 depending on how all of these things come out, 13 that I told you are still being worked on, it's 14 possible that we'll schedule an Economic 15 Working Group meeting in conjunction with SEG, 16 if we meet in November, and possibly an 17 Economic Working Group whenever we meet next. 18 MR. DYSART: Questions or comments. 19 MS. JENNINGS: I encourage everybody. I'm 20 sorry I'm deficient because of multiple 21 obligations, but I will go on line and read the 22 multiport analysis. 23 When get posted, before we come to an 24 Economic Working Group meeting, this is a 25 really complicated topic, not nearly as simple 10 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 as you think, so it's really hard to follow the 3 experts unless you've done as much homework as 4 you can. Larry says the multiports is posted. 5 MR. DYSART: My comment about Judy's 6 T-shirt was not a political comment. Being a 7 Georgia Tech graduate, my presumption was that 8 there were probably a lot of Georgia graduates 9 that couldn't read what was on Judy's T-shirt, 10 so I wanted to tell you what it said. 11 That's part of the wake-up process. Okay. 12 Thank you, Judy. Fisheries and Aquatic 13 Resources, anybody from that committee. Okay. 14 We got input from the Agenda Committee, and I'm 15 sure the next meeting of that will be announced 16 in the near future. Operating Guidelines, 17 Striped Bass Committee, any comments or any 18 activity there? Okay. Hope, why don't you 19 introduce yourself? 20 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 21 Authority. 22 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Okay. We're now 23 to new business. The first item under new 24 business, this sort of looks like the Bill 25 Bailey Show, model update, Bill Bailey from 11 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 the Corps of Engineers; do you want to 3 introduce it, Bill, or just take off? 4 MR. BAILEY: For model update, not a lot 5 to report. We do have the model has been 6 approved, by the agencies, for us to use on 7 this project, and we are busily using it. 8 We have people doing analyses in 9 Wilmington and Savannah and Mobile and we have 10 lots going on, now that they've they said it's 11 okay to use, we're going off and doing the 12 impact analyses and mitigation analyses. 13 The model isn't anything -- there have 14 been models for a number of years. It's just 15 a way to try to figure out the system, and be 16 able to make predictions of how it may react if 17 you made a change to it. So that's what we're 18 using it for now is seeing what -- how it would 19 change if we made a change to it. Let's switch 20 seats here. 21 MR. DYSART: Judy has an early question. 22 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Already? 23 MR. DYSART: Yes, you confused her earlier 24 than usual. 25 MR. BAILEY: All right. 12 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 MS. JENNINGS: You know, Bill, I always 3 did think when we got down to the final bottom 4 line it was going to extremely complicated. 5 When you work with the model, are you kind 6 of doing the impact and mitigation at the same 7 time? 8 I mean I always thought gee, what if you 9 change this, then we're going to have another 10 impact, what if we mitigate for that, that will 11 be a different impact? 12 MR. BAILEY: We tried looking at -- we 13 started off with them being in sequence. We'd 14 look at impacts first and we did that and 15 produced a report. We gave it to the agencies 16 to look at, and they -- they wanted additional 17 information. Some stuff we gave them they said 18 wasn't of any value, so we had changes to that. 19 Now, basically, we're doing them at the 20 same time. So we are making revisions to that 21 impact report. 22 We did look at it, so we had an idea of 23 what it said by itself. And what we looked at 24 was changes to salinity pretty much, and also 25 dissolved oxygen. 13 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 We looked at that so we know -- and that 3 was what would happen at different amounts of 4 deepening, what would those changes look like. 5 So we have that information. We don't 6 have that finalized report yet, but we have 7 that information, that general understanding of 8 where what would happen. So now we're going 9 and doing the mitigation work, working on both 10 of them at the same time. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Uh-huh. 12 MR. BAILEY: I want to talk to you now 13 about the screening that we've done on 14 mitigation options. We've got a number of 15 presentations. This one may have more -- more 16 importance in the overall project long-term, so 17 if you are going to pay attention, this is the 18 one to pay attention to. 19 MR. GARRETT: Nothing against you, Joe. 20 MR. BAILEY: Nothing against you, Joe or 21 you, Alan. Like I said, we did have the draft 22 impact report. It's being modified. We can't 23 look at all the effects on all the things at 24 the same time. 25 It's like 160 runs for just one plan. So 14 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 we need to be able to screen that down some. 3 So we've got the models approved and they're 4 available for use. 5 Salinity is what we're focusing on, 6 because that impacts wetlands and fisheries and 7 dissolved oxygen and chlorides. That one thing 8 affects a lot of things. So we can -- the 9 approach was to look at mitigating for 10 salinity. If we could do that, we'd also be 11 mitigating for all those other things that spun 12 off salinity. 13 And then we refined it a little bit and 14 we're looking at surface salinity. The model 15 -- the model makes predictions. The model has 16 six different layers, so you can look at 17 surface or bottom or in the middle or anything 18 you want. So we're choosing to look at 19 surface salinity. We've been asking for this 20 model and wanting it, now you can get it. You 21 can get so much information that it's hard to 22 sort through it all. 23 So we're trying to narrow our focus so we 24 can make sense of the information we're getting 25 out. 15 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 A couple of the areas are well-mixed, 3 they're shallow. That was another reason why 4 we decided surface salinity was the one to go 5 with. What we're focusing on is things that 6 can alter the flows in the estuary. It's not a 7 natural system anymore. We've been making 8 changes to this thing since -- since the Civil 9 War was over. 10 When we started, there was a braided -- 11 all the rivers were braided and go back and 12 forth. Now we've kind of filled some of those 13 in, so now all the flows are confined to just a 14 few channels. We've made lots of changes. The 15 rice fields were filled in. Some of those 16 ditches are still there. There are a lot of 17 changes to the system. 18 Altering flows is something that takes a 19 long time to evaluate. That's why -- those we 20 do have to run through the model. So that's 21 why we started with those potential mitigation 22 actions. 23 So we want to protect the freshwater 24 wetlands and the areas along the navigation 25 channel, where there's development on both 16 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 sides of the river, we said that those areas 3 are the ones that are not as ecologically 4 important, and we could accept an increase in 5 salinity in those areas. 6 So where we're talking up in here is the 7 areas we're trying -- we really want to 8 protect, and this area down in here is where 9 we're willing to accept a little more salinity 10 increase. 11 The thought is as you deepen the salinity 12 will come up the river, so it's kind of where 13 do you want to put it, where are you willing to 14 accept that salinity flow. 15 So in discussions with the agencies, 16 the upper areas is where we want to protect is 17 where the existing freshwater wetlands, the 18 intertidal freshwater wetlands are. 19 We really want to protect those areas. So 20 that's what we're focusing on on mitigation. 21 So we looked at seven sites where we thought 22 we could do something to change salinity. We 23 ended up with 38 different options. Those 24 options are different sizes. 25 If you deepen something, you can deepen it 17 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 different amounts, or if you want to widen it, 3 you can widen it different amounts. Filling it 4 in, you can make it certain depths for how 5 shallow you want it. 6 So these are those areas. It starts at 7 the top -- well, I guess we could start with A. 8 The first one is A, the sediment basin down 9 here. One of the options we're looking at is 10 filling the sediment basin. 11 The next one is B and that's the tidegate 12 and that's removing that. So we can run those 13 through the model and see what would happen, 14 see what changes that would make, those things 15 would make to salinity and dissolved oxygen. 16 C is closing off the Middle River and 17 reopening New Cut. And D is Rifle Cut. It's a 18 ditch, as some of you know, connecting those 19 two rivers. There's a lot of water that goes 20 through there. Salinity comes from this river, 21 from Middle River and gets over in the Back 22 River through that little cut. 23 It's one of the things we wanted to look 24 at is closing it, see what would happen. E Is 25 widening instead of closing it, and what 18 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 happens if you do it the other way. What 3 happens if you widen and deepen it. 4 The model will let you look at any of 5 those changes. And that is closing this little 6 cut, Houston Cut. 7 And G, one of the proposals was to reroute 8 the river around the Steamboat River. The 9 Corps, a number of years ago, made a cut 10 through here and cut off that oxbow to make it 11 shorter so barges could go up to Augusta and 12 make that easier. It was all part of that 13 work. 14 So one of the proposals is to reroute the 15 river back around there again so we can look at 16 that. 17 H is up here at McCoy's Cut. It's 18 deepening these channels. So the purpose there 19 is to bring more freshwater down into these 20 two rivers. 21 I'll quickly go over those again, but 22 these two down here, the purpose of these would 23 be -- the purpose of filling the sediment basin 24 would be to keep salinity from going up the 25 Back River. That's the hope there. 19 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 Removing the tidegate, that's to allow 3 more flow back and forth through here. Right 4 now there is a restriction there to see what 5 would happen if we remove that restriction. 6 These things, I think I talked about a little 7 bit -- 8 MR. SCANLON: Before you leave that first 9 one, can I ask a question? 10 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 11 MR. SCANLON: When you say refilling the 12 sediment basin, just talking about bringing it 13 back to natural depth or changing the channel 14 flow in there? The reason I'm asking is 15 because independent of this, Pete, you need to 16 be aware of this, the city and county right now 17 are looking at doing a mitigation bank on 18 Hutchinson Island. 19 What you are telling me is scaring me a 20 little bit about what we're going to be 21 focusing on and having to guarantee for five 22 years. If this is happening during the time 23 we're trying to establish a new marsh in the 24 area, I just want to understand what it is. 25 Maybe we can talk about this offline. 20 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 MR. BAILEY: We've looked at different -- 3 we've looked at different -- lots of options, 4 but the basic, the end thing is natural depths 5 there, which I think is about something like 12 6 feet. What we did was pick the depths up in 7 here and model that part with those depths. 8 Now, when I said fill the sediment basin, 9 we still don't exactly how we would implement 10 that. Some discussions -- well, one of the 11 features would be some kind of sill across 12 here. 13 Whether we then actually fill it or just 14 allow it to fill on its own, that's -- we'll 15 still be working through that, during the 16 course of this study. Fish and Wildlife 17 Service, and I think South Carolina DNR have 18 expressed concerns about putting material in 19 there and filling it with the turbidity that 20 that would cause. 21 Even though it will continue to say fill 22 the sediment basin, we may not be depositing 23 material in there. We may let it fill on its 24 own. The purpose of these is to keep salinity, 25 the saltier water from here from getting over 21 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 into -- up in Middle River and over into Back 3 River. 4 So we block that off, and of course when 5 you block it off, you still have to then 6 provide some other place for that water in 7 Middle River to go. So we'd reopen the cut 8 through there. So the Middle River, the water 9 would come down in the Back River, and flood 10 tides the water would come back up that way. 11 I talked about Rifle Cut and the purpose 12 of that, keep the salinity from here from 13 getting over in Back River. Right now at 14 Houston Cut, the model shows salinity getting 15 from -- from this bend into Middle River, and 16 then all the way across. 17 One of the things we're looking at is 18 plugging that to keep -- again, to keep the 19 salinity from here from getting over into these 20 other parts of the system. 21 This change through Steamboat, the main 22 purpose is to keep the salt -- the salt comes 23 up -- from getting as far up in the system up 24 here. This would add another mile to its path, 25 so if we went around that mile then it would 22 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 shorten the distance up here a mile or so. 3 So it's kind of keeping the salinity down 4 -- down lower in the system, and in that way 5 protecting the marshes up in here. And this 6 one, the purpose of all that is to bring more 7 freshwater down into those -- these two 8 channels, these two rivers. 9 MR. DYSART: Judy, comment? 10 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, one of the very first 11 things you said I don't understand about 12 choosing surface salinity. 13 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 14 MS. JENNINGS: That I don't understand at 15 all. I'm not arguing, I just don't understand 16 it. 17 MR. BAILEY: Okay. We're going to look at 18 salinity because that affects a lot of 19 resources. So then it's just a question of 20 where -- what type of salinity, where in the 21 water column you're going to look at, because 22 the model gives you so many options. 23 Surface salinity is the one that directly 24 affects wetlands. It's the top of the tidal 25 prism that floods the marshes. So that's the 23 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 one we're using anyway to look at impacts to 3 the marshes. 4 MS. JENNINGS: I guess that's what caught 5 me about what about the, you know, the mixing 6 of the water when the tide turns around? 7 MR. BAILEY: Okay. The second part where 8 those are shallow areas and well-mixed now, 9 there's not much difference. I mean, it's only 10 six feet of water there to begin with, so each 11 layer is pretty small up in that area. 12 So it is well-mixed. The model shows the 13 salinities pretty much the same. The field 14 data shows they're pretty much the same. In 15 those areas, Little, Back River, and Middle 16 River it doesn't make much difference. 17 We did check. We had this concern and 18 thought we ought to be looking at bottom 19 salinity too. We did produce the same 20 information both ways in the data and it looked 21 about the same. 22 MR. BAILEY: Priscilla. 23 MS. WENDT: Yeah, Bill, you would probably 24 acknowledge, and I think it's important to note 25 the bottom salinity is very important for 24 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 demersal fish like shortnose sturgeon. So I 3 think the agencies will be interested in 4 looking at changes in the bottom salinity on 5 fisheries. 6 But also I think it's important to note 7 that the Front River and Middle River are also 8 very important for shortnose sturgeon. When 9 you are talking about the wetland impacts, I 10 would agree the Back River is certainly 11 important to protect from changes in salinity, 12 but as I recall some of the analyses that were 13 done on critical habitat for shortnose 14 sturgeon, it showed salinity was limiting for 15 shortnose sturgeon in the system, as well 16 as dissolved oxygen, but salinity more so than 17 dissolved oxygen as it turned out. 18 I think it's important that we look at the 19 effects of all these mitigation options on the 20 Front River and Middle River, and how they're 21 going to affect shortnose sturgeon in 22 particular. 23 MR. DYSART: Go ahead. 24 MR. BAILEY: When I said we're looking at 25 the surface salinity, this was to screen the 25 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 mitigation options down, and I'll be going -- 3 explaining a little bit more. Once we've got 4 them screened down, then we'll do the modelling 5 work on all of the impacts. 6 So we run the models on everything. Then 7 we look at the bottom salinity and effects on 8 sturgeon and we look at all those things. This 9 surface salinity was to screen things down of 10 what we look at. 11 Then we're going to looking at all the 12 different parameters, do all the runs. Ed. 13 MR. EUDALY: Just a couple comments. On 14 the Middle River, I think your general 15 statement is probably correct, in terms of 16 stratification of the Back and Middle River. 17 On the lower Middle River, there is 18 stratification to a degree, considerable 19 degree, and that is one reason you've got that 20 conduit up through the Middle River. 21 There is some stratification in lower 22 Middle River. Now, the upper Middle River, 23 I'll agree with you, and the Back River, it is 24 well-mixed. But I think that general 25 statement's a little iffy. 26 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 Just to follow up on the surface salinity, 3 I had the same concern on the bottom salinity, 4 and that's one reason that the Corps did agree 5 to run the bottom salinity also, even for the 6 screening options because -- for several 7 reasons -- because of the fish impacts, and 8 because at some point that bottom salinity does 9 get mixed. 10 The surface salinity model runs should 11 show that eventually, but I think it's 12 important to know what's happening on the 13 bottom too. Some of the results we saw on the 14 surface did not seem -- did not seem totally 15 reasonable. So it's a good idea, I think, to 16 look at the bottom. 17 It gives you a better picture of what's 18 happening in the whole system and the way 19 salinity is shifting around. We do have that 20 information available even for the screening 21 runs, and I think you mentioned that option. 22 MR. BAILEY: Okay. So in the screening, 23 we looked at the existing conditions, and then 24 we again narrowed -- narrowed our focus down. 25 We just looked at the deepest channel, and then 27 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 the deepest one with each of those 38 options. 3 The reason we did the deepest one, again, 4 in looking at mitigation, to evaluate 5 mitigation we needed an impact to be there. If 6 there was no impact, then we couldn't tell 7 anything about mitigation. 8 So we picked the biggest one, the biggest 9 channel. We figured that's the one, if there's 10 an impact, that's where it is going to show up, 11 so then we can look at the effectiveness of 12 different mitigation options. 13 So we did some work. Joe did lots of 14 work. And we met in the middle of July to look 15 at the results. We had some resource agencies 16 there, and we looked at the different sizes 17 that Joe had modelled, and we identified some 18 additional things that should be conducted. 19 What we -- this is one of the results, 20 kind of existing conditions, and this is kind 21 of the type of information that we looked at. 22 This is, of course, salinity over here. The 23 boxes, before you get distracted by the boxes, 24 that's just part of the model. 25 In the model we have water that floods out 28 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 into the marsh, and it comes through that box. 3 That's the location that floods a certain 4 acreage. There's a certain acreage of marsh 5 associated with each of these little boxes. I 6 left -- told Joe to leave them on there. We're 7 going to need them later on for the impact 8 evaluation part. 9 We just used the same basic figure for it. 10 What we're doing is looking at different colors 11 and seeing where those colors change, when we 12 look at different mitigation actions. 13 I know you can't read this stuff too much, 14 30 parts -- 30 ppm for salinity down here. Up 15 here you've got zero. So we've got a pretty 16 wide range. And this is -- this area is where 17 the freshwater and saltwater come together, so 18 that's a critical area. 19 As an example, for this McCoy's Cut 20 option, with this option white -- all these 21 things that are white up in here, when we have 22 48 foot channel and that option and those 23 things up there, all those things there will be 24 no -- there will be no effect on salinity in 25 those areas, no effect from what's there now 29 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 when you do those things. 3 So as a mitigation action, just this 4 McCoy's Cut stuff takes away all the impacts 5 for that area. That's kind of what we gather, 6 what we take from this one figure. 7 We're going to look at different actions 8 at different locations, and they all have 9 different effects on different parts of the 10 system. This one, McCoy's Cut, this was 11 telling us it is effective and it helps this 12 area up here. We've got -- the sediment basin 13 is just another example. Here you can see that 14 we don't have McCoy's Cut in there. We only 15 looked at the sediment basin by itself. So 16 here you see there are effects. There are 17 impacts up in here. 18 The sediment basin, you have a sill down 19 here at a certain elevation, minus 4.5 meters 20 is where the sill would be, and we're assuming 21 that in the model. We have 4.5 is the entire 22 depth of the entire basin. I'll flip back and 23 forth between the last one, just so you can see 24 the differences in here. 25 You've got some darker colors which are 30 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 between a .4 and a .9 increase in salinity in 3 this area. And then with this option, it's 4 about the same .9 to 1. So in there that 5 option didn't do much. 6 So we look at these one at a time trying 7 to figure out what benefit it would have, what 8 it would produce. 9 MR. DYSART: Bill, we have another 10 question. Judy. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, I assume all of these 12 options could be impacted by it, but it seems 13 to me like McCoy's Cut option could be or would 14 it not be impacted by reduced upstream flows? 15 MR. BAILEY: All these options, we're 16 looking at the same river conditions coming 17 down, the same tidal conditions coming in. So 18 we're isolating so we can see what the effect 19 of that one change is. 20 Yes, they all would be effected by -- they 21 probably would all be affected by the change in 22 river flow. 23 MS. JENNINGS: It seemed like McCoy's Cut 24 might be particularly affected, that that 25 option might be particularly sensitive -- it's 31 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 a question? I don't know. 3 MR. BAILEY: That's one pulling freshwater 4 off, so yes, probably so. We looked at 5 narrowing the tidegate to see -- one of the 6 ideas was well, if we're concerned about 7 saltwater going up in the system, what if we 8 restrict that opening even more, close it down 9 so saltwater can't get up there. 10 It ended up that was not a good idea. 11 This thing says that wouldn't work well. We 12 ended up in our understanding of it was that it 13 would restrict it so much it would create a lot 14 of disturbance there, and it increased the 15 salinity upstream of it instead of decreasing 16 it. 17 So that one had an effect opposite to what 18 we were hoping for, so not everything we looked 19 at was a good idea. That's the advantage -- 20 MR. HOKE: It's also limiting -- when the 21 freshwater was coming down, it was limiting the 22 amount of freshwater that could get through 23 there. 24 MR. DYSART: Did everybody hear that 25 comment? 32 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 MR. HOKE: I said when -- the restricting 3 the gate opening was also limiting the amount 4 of freshwater that could pass the downstream 5 direction, so we were wanting it to restrict 6 the saltwater coming upstream, it had more of 7 an effect on freshwater going downstream. So 8 it wasn't doing what we wanted it to do. 9 MR. BAILEY: Which is one of the benefits 10 of having this tool is that you can try 11 different things. Somethings you think would 12 work may not have the effect you initially 13 thought. 14 So you can look at it and see what would 15 happen, try different options. It says 16 restricted by a third. Well that kind of let's 17 you know they tried different things; one 18 third, two thirds, we tried different amounts, 19 different sizes. 20 So decisions in that meeting were continue 21 looking at these five options and the Service 22 wanted us to look at bottom salinity and get 23 those outputs. 24 We also identified a couple of things 25 we wanted the modellers to go back and look at 33 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 again, to make sure because like Ed said, some 3 of them, the results, weren't what we expected. 4 We just wanted to make sure they had -- 5 the model was working correctly. So in those 6 three areas up there, we wanted to go back and 7 look at those again. Then this last thing, we 8 determined the order in which we would look at 9 them. 10 It's important so okay. There's a lot up 11 here. The Corps has to look at things 12 incrementally, so that we have to be able to 13 explain why we need to spend different amounts 14 of money. So what we need -- what we need to 15 look at is, basically, these things added on, 16 one of these features added on to something 17 else. 18 We can't just say, well of those seven, 19 what happens if you put these five together, 20 what does that look like, or what happens if 21 you put these four together? We can do that, 22 but we can't ever get approval if that's -- if 23 that's all we do is just say well, here's a 24 nice package. We think this is what you ought 25 to authorize, Congress. 34 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 We have to show that each step is needed. 3 So the way we do that is we start with the 4 lowest cost, the lowest cost option, and then 5 add things, add pieces to it. 6 So here we started with one action and 7 then you add one to it, then you go and add 8 another one to it, and you add another to it, 9 and you add another one. 10 So you keep building, and at this point, 11 since we don't know, the economics aren't done 12 yet, we don't have the whole system of all the 13 impacts yet, we don't know what depth we're 14 going to end up at. 15 What we're -- what we're looking at is 16 each of these plans for each of the depths. So 17 it may end up, hopefully it would end up you 18 would need a smaller plan. It would be all you 19 need to take away the impacts of a smaller 20 depth. 21 Hopefully, when we do all this, it will 22 fall out that one of these things is all we 23 will need for a two foot deepening, one is all 24 you would need for a four foot deepening, 25 another one is all you would need for a six 35 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 foot deepening. 3 We're trying to do a bunch of stuff at one 4 point. We're trying to develop plans for each 5 of the depths, and also be able to explain why 6 we need to spend that last dollar, why we need 7 to do that last action, why that's necessary 8 for that depth. 9 MR. DYSART: Judy. 10 MS. JENNINGS: All right. I'm just -- 11 okay. In terms of the dollars, and the cost 12 benefit, I mean, wouldn't you take all these 13 options, and the cost, and in the final 14 analysis won't the plan be the one that the NED 15 chooses? 16 MR. BAILEY: Yes, yes, and the NED, the 17 costs that go into that will be a cost for 18 mitigation. There's a cost for digging channel 19 and a cost for mitigation. Both of those costs 20 will get compared to the benefits. And then -- 21 then you pick the NED plan, which then -- which 22 one looks best when all the costs are included. 23 That was a concern of this group years 24 ago, include all the costs, basically include 25 the environmental costs as well as the dredging 36 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 costs. This is the way we do that. 3 There will be some things that we can't 4 put dollars to, and we'll have to keep that in 5 our minds and have a system in the report to be 6 able to show the effects that we weren't able 7 to put in dollar terms. 8 MS. JENNINGS: But there won't be a 9 possibility of choosing a NED plan without full 10 mitigation? I mean, I can see where choosing 11 an NED plan might lead you to an option that 12 doesn't fully mitigate. 13 MR. BAILEY: We'll have to decide where, 14 you know, where to cut this off for a given 15 depth. The goal has been to fully mitigate for 16 impacts. I'll just stop there. Okay. 17 So that's how the Corps has to do an 18 incremental analysis, and this is what we came 19 up with in July. We had run some preliminary 20 costs of some of the different mitigation 21 actions. 22 So that's what I used to kind of 23 stack them up. Those aren't final costs. 24 They were ball park costs. So go ahead. 25 MS. JENNINGS: These are all salinity 37 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 issues, there's no DO in there? 3 MR. BAILEY: Correct. Okay. So after the 4 July meeting, the modellers went back and 5 checked out the performance of those actions. 6 The Service gave us a different plan they 7 wanted us to look at. It was one of, you 8 know, something we want you to look at this 9 combination, so some combination. We went, we 10 looked at that. 11 We looked at bottom salinity, and then the 12 modellers, once they got in there to do the 13 model, they came up with other ideas, other 14 combinations they wanted to look at. So they 15 did that. 16 So then we met in August to see what 17 progress we made. We found out that in 18 combining things, the tidegate removal didn't 19 do much, when it was used in combination with 20 filling the sediment basin. Rifle Cut looked 21 like it did a lot when -- when that one was 22 used in combination with the sediment basin, 23 just some different things they observed when 24 they were doing more work. 25 And here's a few more. Houston Cut was 38 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 pretty effective, when used with those two 3 options, the Middle River and rerouting through 4 Steamboat River. 5 The second one, filling the sediment basin 6 above the tidegate. Now, there is a point 7 where you can do something where the results 8 starting going the other way. You can make it 9 too shallow, and then that wasn't good for 10 salinity. 11 So after seeing those results, then we 12 ended up modifying that incremental analysis. 13 So they understood that one, not the changes. 14 Okay. So this one, before we had one pyramid. 15 Now we have two pyramids. Okay. We had a 16 break here. You add these pieces, add D and 17 then F. What we're doing is starting with 18 McCoy's Cut and add the sediment basin and 19 Rifle Cut. That's one set, one pyramid. 20 The purpose of that was McCoy's Cut looked 21 effective in that upper end. I Showed you that 22 one picture. We said well, that's -- that's a 23 very effective measure -- appears very 24 effective up in the area we really want to 25 protect. 39 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 So that may be something we base 3 everything else on, so we're going to start 4 with that one, and it was a lower cost one 5 besides being effective. 6 So since the order is important on how we 7 look at things, we said well, we'll start with 8 that. It looks effective. It's a lower cost. 9 Let's start looking at that. The sediment 10 basin looked effective too, and Rifle Cut 11 looked like it had a lot of effects. 12 So we decided to order them in that way. 13 Then we said, well, we're not sure about the 14 sediments. We're looking at -- this is the 15 Corps of Engineers, but the Corps of Engineers 16 is not unified. There are implications on 17 operating the existing harbor, the existing 18 channel, to fill in the sediment basin. It's 19 going to drive up annual maintenance costs. 20 The sediment basin, from an annual 21 maintenance perspective, the sediment basin 22 is a good thing. It saves money each year. If 23 we fill it in, it's going to cost the federal 24 government and taxpayers money every year to 25 have that filled in. 40 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 So we said well, we're not -- well, maybe 3 that one -- we're not sure about that one. We 4 would be able to increment it. 5 Maybe we don't want to base everything on 6 that one being second. So we said well, we'll 7 add a different one. We'll still start with 8 McCoy's Cut, but we'll add a different one. 9 We'll have a second pyramid. 10 So with McCoy's Cut, we added this Middle 11 River, and the New Cut, Houston Cut, stuff in 12 the middle of the area, middle of the impact 13 area, and it would keep salinity from getting 14 over, from the Front River over in the Middle 15 River and Back River. 16 This was a fairly effective way of doing 17 that. So we add that to it and then we add 18 sediment basin to this one. So then we said, 19 well, we still want to look at these two. This 20 one is really expensive. This one, again, was 21 not going to produce a lot more -- didn't 22 appear it was doing much more than this one 23 would, but we know folks want to see what would 24 happen with the tidegate out. 25 We're going to have it in there. We don't 41 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 think it's -- we didn't want to base a lot of 3 analyses on it, but we're going to have it in 4 there. 5 So what we're going to do, we had one 6 pyramid that goes to here, another one goes to 7 here, and then we're going to do all the 8 modelling on those, and then look at them and 9 see which of those two pyramids looks better. 10 And then we'll look at adding these things 11 one at a time to the best of those two 12 pyramids. So we would come to here and then 13 add the tidegate to it and see what that looks 14 like. We don't expect these two will show up 15 as being real good, but we'll look at them and 16 see. 17 MR. DYSART: Question, Judy. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah. You mentioned in 19 particular with the sediment basin, but I guess 20 it could be as with any of them, does the cost 21 include additional O and M? 22 MR. BAILEY: It will. 23 MS. JENNINGS: It does -- you'll go ahead 24 and put that in there. 25 MR. BAILEY: Yeah, all the costs. 42 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 MS. JENNINGS: Like increased dredging 3 costs. 4 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. One of the concerns 5 we've had in closing Middle River and closing 6 some of those other cuts is one of those 7 non-quantified costs, can fisherman -- if you 8 close off everything, can fishermen get from 9 the boat landing at Houlihan Bridge, can they 10 get from there to fish over in Middle River and 11 Back River; if you close off cuts, how do they 12 get over there? Then there's an effect, 13 there's a cost on fishermen, so you try to 14 balance everything. 15 MS. JENNINGS: We've been talking about 16 that for years. 17 MR. BAILEY: Yes, but O and M costs, doing 18 one action causes some other cost to go up, 19 yeah, we want to include them. 20 MS. JENNINGS: Do you include the O and M 21 costs for the duration of the project or -- 22 MR. BAILEY: Forever, forever. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 24 MR. BAILEY: What other questions do you 25 have? This is what -- this is where we are. 43 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 This is where we're going. What we're doing is 3 now we gave that to the modellers and said go 4 do it. Do 160 runs on each of these 70 -- each 5 of these seven plans. I guess they will stop 6 at five. 7 So they're running salinity and water 8 quality models. Separately we're running -- 9 looking at DO mitigation, doing marsh secession 10 models. We'll run the chloride model whenever 11 we get that wrapped up. 12 So they're doing 160 runs on each of those 13 five anyway right now. So they're busily 14 cranking away. What questions do you have? 15 MR. DYSART: Comments, questions -- 16 Priscilla. 17 MS. WENDT: Actually, I was asking Ed 18 this, but for the Middle River closure option, 19 did you look at just building a sill or 20 something in there, as opposed to total 21 closure, is that one of the options? 22 MR. BAILEY: No. I mean, we considered 23 it, but the purpose was to keep that -- the 24 water there in the Front River -- that deep 25 channel is right there. So that is pretty 44 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 salty, so even on the surface salinity it is 3 pretty salty. We're trying to get the most 4 effect, the most protection of that upper area, 5 so we just cut off all the flows. 6 MS. WENDT: I think, as you recall, the 7 juvenile shortnose sturgeon like that lower end 8 of the Middle River. 9 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 10 MS. WENDT: And I think Mark Collins 11 speculated that one reason they liked it in 12 there is because there is an existing sill of 13 some sort. The salinity was actually lower at 14 the lower end of the Middle River than it was 15 in the Front River right there. So I wondered 16 if increasing the height of the sill might have 17 an added benefit, in terms of limiting 18 salinity, but I don't know whether it would 19 affect the wetlands further up. 20 MR. BAILEY: We're going to have look at 21 all the effects on these designs. We'll run it 22 through. Part of the 160 is to run it through 23 and to look at the effects on sturgeon and 24 sturgeon habitat. So we'll have to see what 25 the results after we run them. 45 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 If we made it less than a full closure, 3 then we're -- then some water would go in 4 there. We may be able to allow sturgeon to 5 continue to use that. We'd be putting salinity 6 up in that area, so there are lots of decisions 7 yet ahead of us. 8 MR. DYSART: Further comments or 9 questions? 10 MS. JENNINGS: I'm just curious, do 11 salinity and DO track so closely that you never 12 have to choose between them? 13 MR. BAILEY: Joe, not to put you on the 14 spot. 15 MR. HOKE: Not identical, but it's a good 16 indicator. There's other factors that go into 17 the DO, but salinity is one of the primary 18 ones. 19 MR. BAILEY: The city has been saying 20 depth is a factor. 21 MR. DYSART: Yes. 22 MS. RADA: How many different mitigation 23 combinations are you doing -- these seven? 24 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 25 MS. RADA: Where is the 160 -- 160 runs 46 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 of each of them? 3 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 4 MS. RADA: I lost track, what are the 160 5 different iterations? 6 MR. BAILEY: Well, for -- we are looking 7 at -- pick a number. We'll be doing different 8 channel depths, four depths. We'll be looking 9 at normal river flows. We'll be looking at 10 drought flows. 11 With each of those we'll be looking at two 12 different levels of sea level rise. Things 13 start multiplying real fast. Then we'll be 14 looking at is marsh secession models included 15 in that 160, or is that just -- 16 MR. HOKE: I think they're included. 17 MR. BAILEY: So we have different -- 18 you've got the salinity model, the EFDC. Then 19 you have to take those results, run them 20 through the dissolved oxygen model. You also 21 take the salinity results, run them through 22 the marsh secession model. You have lots of 23 -- it ads up. 24 MR. DYSART: Further questions, comments? 25 Hope. 47 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 MS. MOORER: Should we -- are you finished 3 with that part? 4 MR. BAILEY: Close. 5 MS. MOORER: When you reach the next 6 presentation, I thought we suggest a break for 7 our court reporter. 8 MR. DYSART: Humanitarian of the week. 9 MR. BAILEY: Besides all that, we're also 10 look at other things, other mitigation actions. 11 They don't -- we don't need to look at -- don't 12 need to use the model specifically. The second 13 one you do. 14 We're looking at restoration of one of our 15 upland disposal areas. It's just right next 16 to Houlihan Bridge. It's on the refuge. We're 17 looking at making that disposal area go away, 18 take all that stuff that's been put up there 19 over the years and hauling it somewhere else, 20 so make that -- restore that back to marsh. 21 That's a mitigation action we're looking 22 at, running costs on that, and the effects of 23 the number of acres of wetlands we would create 24 with it. 25 We're looking at impacts to chlorides and 48 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 the city's intake. I guess that one we would 3 -- we will be using the models, but they won't 4 -- that won't alter the flows. That won't 5 affect other things. 6 We're looking at fish passage up at New 7 Savannah Bluff. We know that sturgeon -- I'm 8 not sure how we can impact -- how we can 9 mitigate for them in the harbor. That's a 10 tough one, but we know up at New Savannah 11 Bluff, up at Augusta, their upstream mitigation 12 is blocked at that location. One of the things 13 we can do is remove that blockage somehow, so 14 the fish can go back -- go further. That would 15 be a mitigation action, so we're running costs 16 on that. 17 NOAA Fisheries had asked about getting -- 18 restoring some kind of connection between the 19 Savannah River and Wright River. Our disposal 20 areas we have along the river have pretty well 21 blocked and filled those marshes from, you 22 know, kind of from the ocean up to Highway 17. 23 So they asked about restoring connections 24 across there, so we'll look at that. Those 25 things won't -- we don't -- well, except for 49 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 chlorides, the other things we don't need the 3 modelling for that. We'll look at them 4 separate. You had a question, Judy? 5 MS. JENNINGS: Well, this is just a new 6 idea to me, and it might be directed more to 7 somebody else than you; what's the advantage of 8 connecting Savannah and Wright? 9 MR. BAILEY: So fish can get from one spot 10 to the other. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. It's not so much 12 salinity or -- 13 MR. BAILEY: (Shakes head from side to 14 side.) Initially, it looks like it may be 15 difficult to do because Wright River gets 16 shallower and shallower as goes up closer to 17 17. 18 We're looking at connecting, it was around 19 17, so it may end up being we have to make such 20 a big action, a big ditch, to connect them that 21 it wouldn't be worth it. 22 We'll look and see what it would take. 23 Break time, Mr. Facilitator -- 24 MR. DYSART: Yes. 25 MR. BAILEY: -- I think we are at a 50 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 junction here. 3 MR. DYSART: Carl Hall's official clock 4 and Hope Moorer's suggestion coincide. We're 5 going to take a break. We'll reconvene in 10 6 minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much, 7 Bill. 8 (Short Break) 9 MR. DYSART: Reconvene, thank you. You'll 10 notice on the agenda Bill, from the Corps of 11 Engineers, has completed the model update and 12 mitigation options screening. We will now move 13 on to the dissolved oxygen system update. Bill 14 Bailey. 15 MR. BAILEY: This is going to be shorter. 16 I'll let you know another part of the 17 mitigation actions that we're doing is looking 18 at ways to mitigate for dissolved oxygen. And 19 what we did before was to look at different 20 ways to increase dissolved oxygen, in the 21 harbor, and screen different methods. 22 It looks like the best one being adding 23 oxygen. We came in and talked about that 24 before. What we're doing now is designing the 25 system. Two different actions here, the first 51 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 one is designing systems to mitigate for the 3 incremental impacts, deepening. 4 So they're looking at existing conditions, 5 seeing what's there now, and with the 6 deepening, and try to see what it takes to get 7 it back up to existing conditions. That's one 8 of the efforts at the bottom. 9 Another effort is ways to make 10 improvements to the existing conditions, ways 11 to make the harbor now meet water quality 12 standards. 13 Those two actions are -- just the one of 14 them is dealing with or has to deal with this 15 expansion project. The other one falls under a 16 different project. We're doing them both at 17 the same time. So their work so far, 18 essentially they're using the approved models 19 to do this design work. So they're going in 20 looking, using the models, and in that adding 21 oxygen in different places, so there's a 22 finding it would be effective, but they're 23 going to have add oxygen in more than one 24 location. 25 And these facilities, these designs would 52 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 be on land. Designs can be standardized. You 3 need to add more dirt and higher flows. It's 4 not the drought that's the worst condition for 5 these systems. 6 So they have got right now a draft report 7 so far, and these are just a couple of the -- 8 some of the numbers that came from the report. 9 We had talked about spending money. This 10 is another -- another cost. And for the 11 initial construction, basically, this is just 12 saying it would require more and cost more to 13 mitigate for the deeper depth. 14 MR. DYSART: Clarification, Bill. 15 MR. BAILEY: Okay. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Yes, just for 17 clarification, not to confuse DO with salinity, 18 but you said drought's not the worst for DO. 19 MS. MOORER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear 20 that, Judy. 21 MS. JENNINGS: Drought is not the worst 22 for DO, so I guess you're saying we always know 23 because it's more shallow? I don't understand 24 that. I guess everyone also does, I just 25 don't. 53 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 MR. BAILEY: For these systems in adding 3 oxygen, it's not the droughts that are the 4 worst, it's having more water to treat pretty 5 much. 6 MS. JENNINGS: With the system? 7 MR. BAILEY: With those systems, yes. 8 MS. JENNINGS: I understand. Thank you. 9 MR. DYSART: I suspect that from time to 10 time various people are not clear on something, 11 and the objective is to communicate and help 12 you get familiar. If anything doesn't quite 13 make sense, feel free to be brave and say run 14 that by me again and tell me why that makes 15 sense. I'm sure that is what Bill is wanting 16 to do. 17 MR. BAILEY: Yes, yes. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. 19 MR. BAILEY: So where we are now is 20 getting it from a draft report to a final, and 21 completing the cost estimates on that. What 22 we're going to do with it, we were looking at 23 that, these systems separate from all these 24 flow modifications. 25 Once we've got the flow modifications and 54 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 the DO, we're going to have to bring them 3 together and run the models again, some of them 4 with this adding the DO system to whatever flow 5 modifications we think are good. Yes. 6 MS. GRAINEY: You said it would require 7 more than one, how many is more than one -- how 8 many do you think? 9 MR. BAILEY: I think three locations are 10 what they have got right now in the draft. I 11 think part of it -- kind of you're getting 12 information as -- information as it is coming 13 out. So they had three locations. They didn't 14 give me a map to show where it was, but I think 15 they're basically -- one is down at the lower 16 end around the sediment basin. 17 Another one, somewhere in the middle, 18 around Talmadge Bridge, and then another area, 19 I think, is up at the upper end up around where 20 Middle River comes in, somewhere up in there 21 and it may be further up, I'm not sure. 22 MS. GRAINEY: And this is at all depths? 23 MR. BAILEY: Yes. We had wanted to -- 24 thought it would be nice to have them in just 25 one location, but that's not -- that didn't 55 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 work out well in the model. You could do it in 3 one location, but just have to add a lot more 4 oxygen to get the effects of all those outer 5 areas. 6 So we haven't, at this point, we haven't 7 looked at, really looked at properties on land, 8 where we would put it, but that's coming up 9 pretty soon. And that can be changed. In the 10 model we had them check does it matter which 11 side of the river you add this, so that if we 12 have to switch sides, that won't matter. If we 13 have to move 1,000 feet or a couple thousand 14 feet, up or down the river, that won't have 15 much effect either. We are having them check 16 that in the model and see how sensitive the 17 location is. 18 MR. DYSART: Hope, did you have a 19 question? 20 MR. BAILEY: That's that one. Judy, you 21 must have another question. 22 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I probably asked this 23 of the guys who talked to us about the DO 24 systems, but I don't remember the answer. Is 25 the injection system, oxygen injection, you 56 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 know, when the bubbles come out, you suck them 3 in and then you blow them back out. 4 MR. BAILEY: The system they are designing 5 would, the basic system is up on land, and it 6 has two sets of pipes. It pulls water in from 7 the river, adds oxygen to it on land, and then 8 puts the water back -- back into the river with 9 more oxygen in it. 10 MS. JENNINGS: I guess we asked these 11 questions at the time, but things that occurred 12 to me were have we talked about changes in 13 turbidity or impacts to, you know, various life 14 cycles; I mean, would it only impact the 15 channel? Are there increases in turbidity? 16 MR. BAILEY: No. 17 MS. JENNINGS: There are not. 18 MR. BAILEY: No. The only thing being 19 added to that water, as it makes that loop, is 20 adding oxygen to it. It's the same river water 21 that's going to the river again. 22 MS. JENNINGS: It's got to be -- 23 MR. BAILEY: Added oxygen to it. 24 MS. JENNINGS: It's going to seep back 25 out, there's not like a -- 57 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 MR. BAILEY: I don't think the rate at 3 which it is put back into the river, that's not 4 part of the -- that's not required for mixing 5 in the whole system. The mixing is mostly done 6 by the tide. 7 MR. DYSART: Kay. 8 MS. DAVY: Is there any chance for 9 impingement or intrainment of larval fish or 10 eggs. 11 MR. BAILEY: We have to design the intake 12 the same way anybody else designs the intake, 13 so it will only have a certain velocity coming 14 across the screens to protect from that. So we 15 figure that into the design. 16 Okay. So that's dissolved oxygen. Now 17 we're going to shift to nearshore placement. 18 This one, what we're talking about is where to 19 put material that we would dredge from the 20 entrance channel. 21 The feasibility report that was prepared 22 before had all the material going into the 23 ocean disposal site. That's what the costs 24 were based on, but the GPA committed to look at 25 nearshore placement during the next phase. 58 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 So that's what we're doing. We're looking 3 at nearshore placement. We'd like to use the 4 material, beneficially, as much as we can. 5 It's been a state law change since then, that's 6 been incorporated into the Coastal Zone 7 Management Program last year. 8 We've got those pieces going on in the 9 background. So we want a plan for where we are 10 putting this material. We want it to be 11 implementable, affordable and environmentally 12 acceptable. We want to be able to do it that 13 it works, you can build it, that you can afford 14 it, and that it's an okay thing. 15 We want to use the materials, the good 16 stuff as much as we can. So we've done 17 geotechnical analysis of the materials out 18 there on the entrance channel. 19 They did borings, what's the material 20 consist of, and how much of it, different 21 quantities. Then we did a least-cost 22 replacement plan from pure engineer where we 23 could put it at the lowest cost. Then we did 24 -- looked at it from the environmental side and 25 from the CZM Program side. 59 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 So we went and talked with Coastal 3 Resources Division, Georgia DNR, and then got 4 in Tybee's coastal engineering consultant, got 5 up there and introduced discussions, went 6 around and around, back and forth. We've 7 talked a few times. 8 Some of the considerations we had were 9 grain size of the material, the appearance 10 during and after construction, are there going 11 to clay balls there, compliance with the 12 Georgia CZM Program. Cost was a factor, and 13 with the cost pumping distance is kind of the 14 consideration -- a big consideration. 15 You can pump this stuff in a pipeline 16 dredge. You can pump it a certain distance 17 with the dredge. If you have to add a booster 18 pump to it, if you want to pump it further than 19 what the dredge can pump you can do that. You 20 have to add another pump out there, and that 21 adds significantly to the cost. 22 So we're trying to keep it just within the 23 distance that the dredge could place it by 24 itself. 25 We talked about depth of submerged fills. 60 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 If we put material in the nearshore area, how 3 high do you put it, and there's trade-offs. If 4 you want the material to move later on, if you 5 want the waves to move it closer to Tybee, the 6 waves will move it the shallower it is. The 7 shallower it is the more it will move. 8 The other side, the shallower it is the 9 more people -- the more boaters can have a 10 problem with it. If it is shallower on low 11 tide, somebody may scrape bottom on low tide. 12 So you have trade-offs. 13 We looked at width of fill. If we put 14 material, if you start at the beach and go out, 15 further out, you may get more that you can 16 affect the currents going along the beach. 17 It is wherever you put stuff out there, 18 you may affect the currents. So we talked 19 about all these factors, with Coastal Resources 20 and with Tybee's consultant. So, we came up 21 with something. We've come up with a 22 spreadsheet. 23 This is just an illustration. This is a 24 piece of a spreadsheet of our placement plan. 25 We looked at them. This over here we looked at 61 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 by reach of the channel, by length of the 3 channel. In this case it's a 10,000 foot 4 length. 5 So for that 10,000 foot length, we had a 6 quantity of material in there in that section, 7 a quantity for a certain depth of the channel. 8 So we had a location and a volume of material 9 and then we'd know the percent fines. 10 So we know where it is, how much it is 11 and what it consists of. From those factors, 12 then we tried to figure out where to put it and 13 how -- kind of some design parameters. So this 14 is a piece of our plan, and I've got the whole 15 here if you want to see more of it. 16 Overall, these are some of the different 17 areas. Along the entrance channel, we have a 18 offshore disposal site that we use now to put 19 material in. The existing channel stops about 20 here. With a deeper channel, we have to go 21 further out in the ocean to get deeper water. 22 So in this part the entrance channel would 23 be extended. What we've come up with is we put 24 some material -- put some material along the 25 beach, put it up from the -- starting at the 62 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 north groin and coming south as far as we can 3 pump it. 4 That's another section we would put from 5 the north groin going this way. Out here, you 6 make a mound that would end up making that 7 intertidal mound to come up all the way, come 8 up out of the water at low tide. The way we've 9 got it designed now, it would be at the high 10 tide elevation. At high tide, it would, 11 essentially, disappear. 12 What we're trying to do -- and then we're 13 also putting some material in here, some 14 material in here. The purpose of these areas 15 is to trying to get volumes of material, raise 16 the elevation, bottom elevation some, and give 17 a source of sand so that waves coming in can 18 move that to the beach later on. 19 Again, some of the trade-offs here, if you 20 want it to move faster, you make these 21 shallower, but then there can be a problem with 22 boats. If you have material out here, put it 23 out here and you want it to move, and it has to 24 go across the deeper area, it won't go across 25 that deeper area until it fills it. 63 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 So we're trying to create continuum here 3 of shallower areas all the way to the beach. 4 This area is shallower than this one here. So 5 we felt this would make a continuous path to 6 the beach. 7 This area out here, we had all of this 8 going to a new spot out here. This is so far, 9 such a long distance from the beach, and there 10 wasn't a lot of material in here; what we 11 decided to do out here was to put this into a 12 mound, put it in one location, and we would 13 raise the elevation up so I think there was -- 14 it's like 25 feet of depth out there now. I 15 think we're going to bring it up to a 10 foot 16 depth. 17 It would make a difference in the bottom 18 elevation so there's a change in elevation for 19 fish habitat. With a change in elevation, 20 there will be a change in currents. That 21 would, hopefully, provide some benefits to 22 fish. 23 The material was not all the same quality 24 throughout the whole length. There were 25 sections not as good. So the part that was not 64 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 as good, it's put in here first, put in here as 3 a base. You end up covering that with other 4 material that is better quality. So when it 5 moves there will be more sand there moving. 6 You see this says MLW 500, MLW 200. What 7 we came up with was the material is not great 8 -- great material. It is not clean, white 9 sand. 10 It is not what you would use to build a 11 nice recreational beach. So what we plan to do 12 is put it out in the water in front of the 13 beach. We're not going to be building up a 14 high beach. Building up -- what's above mean 15 high water and up, we're not making that beach 16 any wider. 17 This is just a little bit -- see, it's a 18 little bit smaller section of it. What we were 19 going to do with this 500 was to make it -- 20 we're going to put it at mean low water and go 21 out 500 feet, move the mean low water line 500 22 feet out. 23 It would build up to mean tide is how 24 we're going to -- is as high as we would stack 25 it. For that reach, that would be the design, 65 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 500 feet wide up. Here this one was 200 feet 3 wide. It would push the mean low water line 4 out 200 feet. It would still be, again, it 5 would be below -- at mean high you wouldn't see 6 it. When the tide went down, it would still be 7 some extra material there. Then the waves, the 8 natural waves would push it up further up on 9 the beach profile later on. 10 We do expect some of the material to get 11 up on the high beach, but the waves put it 12 there and it wouldn't be put there as part of 13 this project. So the waves would put it there 14 later on. 15 Zero point is inside end of the jetties, 16 and the plan we've come up with goes up to 17 minus four, so material from minus four out. 18 minus four is about past Ft. Pulaski and up to 19 about the harbor pilot's dock. So from minus 20 four it would come out this way. 21 That's pretty much it. This was just the 22 picture of the outer end. Those segments going 23 into that one site. There will be some 24 material placed in the offshore disposal site, 25 but not a lot. 66 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 So we believe this plan is implementable, 3 affordable and environmentally acceptable. 4 We're running costs on it now. We don't have 5 them back yet. We think we will use as much of 6 the good material as we can, putting it near 7 the beach, putting it in the nearshore shelf 8 off the front of Tybee. 9 We've got some temporary intertidal 10 habitat with birds with that mound. We'll 11 except birds to use that, until the waves knock 12 it all down and move it closer to the beach, 13 and that will be for a little while, and then 14 some habitat for marine fish at the outer end. 15 We believe it complies with the Georgia CZM 16 Program. 17 MR. DYSART: Question. 18 MS. BOWERS: Yes, how far out are you 19 talking about that site to disposal mound, how 20 far out is that? 21 MR. BAILEY: It's about -- well, this is 22 at 30, minus 30, so that's 30,000 feet from 23 here. 24 MR. GARRETT: About two miles offshore, 25 Bill. 67 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 MR. BAILEY: That's 10,000 feet, so at 3 least 10,000 feet offshore, two miles. 4 MR. DYSART: Does that answer your 5 question? 6 MS. BOWERS: Yes. 7 MR. DYSART: Bob. 8 MR. SCANLON: Does this consider impacts 9 to Lazaretto Creek, is that currently a 10 maintained channel? 11 MR. GARRETT: Natural. 12 MR. SCANLON: That's a natural channel -- 13 do you expect it to remain natural, if you 14 change the beachfront there on the north end? 15 MR. GARRETT: We haven't looked at it. We 16 looked at a study about three years ago, and 17 concerns about closing in on the north end. We 18 didn't get much further than that. 19 It is not being used for analysis for this 20 particular scope, in terms of depositing around 21 the north side. 22 MR. SCANLON: It's an important channel 23 from a sportfishing standpoint in the area 24 MR. GARRETT: Would have a hard time being 25 closed in, but there's nothing been, 68 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 specifically, looked at with this study. 3 MR. DYSART: John Robinette. 4 MR. ROBINETTE: How many cubic yards are 5 you talking about moving? 6 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure. I hadn't added 7 them up. I'm sorry. I can find that out 8 before the end of the meeting. I can add them 9 up. 10 MR. ROBINETTE: Would the movements be 11 monitored -- movements of sediment be 12 monitored? 13 MR. BAILEY: We weren't proposing that 14 because we were not, at this point we weren't 15 intending to claim any benefits for that. 16 MR. ROBINETTE: A possibility that we 17 could do this with the next maintenance 18 dredging cycle? 19 MR. BAILEY: This is all based on the new 20 work material. 21 MR. ROBINETTE: Yeah, I know. Isn't there 22 some beach quality sand there that could be put 23 offshore from the maintenance cycles. 24 MR. BAILEY: That is all different 25 material. I think you have to start the 69 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 analysis from scratch, because it's a different 3 material. But when we looked at maintenance 4 material before, you're right, there were a lot 5 of sand in that, although it looks pretty dark 6 when it comes out. 7 I think the next maintenance cycle they 8 are preparing the specs, plans and 9 specifications for -- I think that it's 10 probably going to go in the hopper dredge just 11 like before. 12 MR. GARRETT: Uh-huh. 13 MR. BAILEY: This is probably, this plan 14 is probably not the lowest cost plan, but we 15 think it's the best one overall. 16 MR. DYSART: Lou. 17 MR. OFF: I've been here now for about 18 five years, and I'm appreciate we've finally 19 gotten out to Tybee Island. Just a comment 20 that not only with the harbor expansion 21 project, but with our maintenance dredging and 22 also with Tybee, we have initiated some 23 absolutely wonderful cooperation between Tybee 24 and GPA. 25 Thanks to David, Hope and Robert, and 70 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 also with the DNR, and we're looking forward to 3 the early briefing next Tuesday in some of the 4 things we still have up in the air, things like 5 sand quality. 6 We've got a beginning measurement on that 7 of 20% fines or 80% -- whatever way. Also, the 8 definition of what the law, the HB 727 law 9 which is now included in the CZM as to what 10 range of the area that we come out with 11 materials. 12 So there's been a lot of questions, just 13 like everything else, a lot of variables, and 14 we've had a lot of really great input by what 15 the Corps doing. I think Bill has done a 16 really great job here of combining a whole 17 bunch of stuff, and to be commended to this 18 step. 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. Kay has a question. 20 Also, would you introduce yourself? You came 21 shortly after we started this morning. I've 22 been negligent in not calling on you to 23 introduce yourself on the record. Kay. 24 MS. DAVY: I'm Kay Davy. I'm with NOAA, 25 National Marine Fisheries Service out of 71 1 BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 Charleston, in the Habitat Conservation 3 Division. 4 MR. DYSART: Question. 5 MS. DAVY: Has a biological survey been 6 done of this area? Are there soft corals or 7 will be done? 8 MR. BAILEY. We did -- a number of years 9 ago we did a survey coming through here all the 10 way out to about here. We did a benthic survey 11 of that area. So this one is covered -- has 12 been covered already. 13 We don't have plans to do one as part of 14 this study. We could do one in plans and 15 specifications, if we need to. Before what we 16 had done was, we haven't found any soft corals 17 in this area before, so the basic thought has 18 been, you know, there's no information to say 19 they are out there, but that we -- before we 20 had gone out and done some confirmatory 21 sampling to make sure. That's what we had done 22 before, so we could do that again. Anything 23 else? 24 MR. DYSART: Thank you. There appears to 25 be no more questions. We're ready for the ship 72 1 BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 wake report now. 3 MR. GARRETT: Sure. We can do those very 4 quickly, those two. The ship wake report -- 5 MR. DYSART: What is that that you're 6 prepared to talk about next? 7 MR. GARRETT: Joe was going to get ready 8 for the hurricane surge but I can do these two 9 on the agenda very quickly. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Whatever order you 11 want to go in. 12 MR. GARRETT: We have the hurricane -- the 13 ship forces on the Savannah shoreline report 14 just came in, and I don't have any wonderful 15 slides or graphs to show you at this point. 16 This has got to be translated now by one 17 of our geotechnical engineers into practical 18 application, what does it mean to the shoreline 19 in terms of erosion. He will be working with 20 that and will be completed by the first couple 21 weeks of October. 22 We will put this out. You can look at it. 23 To me looking, reading this, there is going to 24 be negligible impact of any larger vessels. In 25 fact, the draw-down of the turn velocities 73 1 BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 which is what you see when you are out there 3 on the beach, you see the water erode and come 4 back, it will actually be lessened by the 5 larger ships. 6 So it's an interesting report. We will 7 have, probably the next SEG meeting, put a 8 summary together, actually in English, so it 9 would be easier to understand. 10 The next one on the list was the most 11 important one. Judy covered that in the 12 economics, in terms of the status. We do have 13 something else called the regional port 14 analysis. I'll give you a real brief update on 15 that one, as far as the economics is concerned. 16 It was broken down into five different 17 sections or subtasks; one being the coastal 18 ports and infrastructure surveys, the other one 19 being coastal ports capacity analysis, and 20 the coastal ports hub and spoke analysis. 21 All three of those are subtasked and 22 complete. They have been internally 23 technically reviewed, and we'll have all those 24 responses completed by next week in fact. 25 The two remaining tasks are South Atlantic 74 1 BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 coast environmental issue surveys and 3 institutional analysis have also been received 4 and Mobile has got those. They're doing the 5 economics summary. They're working on those, 6 looking at doing the internal technical review. 7 As soon as all that is complete and they 8 wrap up the final report, we can post that. 9 That's the status of the regional report. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Alan, about when do you 11 thing the regional report would be ready to 12 post? 13 MR. GARRETT: We're trying to find a 14 reviewer for the environmental part right now. 15 We don't have that, so once we determine all 16 that, probably mid September -- we're almost 17 mid September, so probably the end of 18 September. 19 They do the review fairly quickly. They 20 do them in about three days. A fellow out in 21 san Francisco does them in about three days, so 22 fairly quickly. I don't know how long it's 23 going to take Mobile to summarize and put them 24 in a final report, but it should be fairly 25 soon. 75 1 BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 MR. DYSART: Hope. 3 MS. MOORER: I was looking at the schedule 4 to see when the regional report analysis was on 5 the schedule to be done and -- 6 MR. GARRETT: Mine has it past due. 7 MS. MOORER: I think it's October. 8 MR. GARRETT: Anyway, it will be soon. 9 MR. DYSART: Judy, another question. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Just going back a minute to 11 the ship wake report; that looked just at the 12 impact along the coastline? 13 MR. GARRETT: Along the channel in four 14 different spots; Tybee, and Ft. Pulaski, around 15 the disposal areas and the city front are 16 the main areas of concerns, mostly turns, that 17 sort of thing. 18 MS. JENNINGS: So it's nowhere near the 19 issue of -- totally different story -- of the 20 discussions right now about ships being -- 21 hitting Right Whales? 22 MR. GARRETT: No. This doesn't refer to 23 any of that. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Totally different, totally 25 different, I understand. 76 1 BRIEFING - JOE HOKE 2 MR. GARRETT: It does have ship speeds in 3 it, but it doesn't correlate to the Right 4 Whale. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Ready for 6 hurricane surge. 7 MR. HOKE: Okay. Some of you that are old 8 timers here, this will be -- the first half of 9 this is kind of a review. I believe it was 10 about a year or so ago that we gave a status 11 report on this. Some of these will be reviewed 12 for you. Then we've got some new things 13 towards the end here. 14 Some background here, the hurricane surge 15 data set came from ATM, and incorporated and 16 developed the data set, and was based on the 17 USGS gauge in Charleston, South Carolina from 18 Hurricane Hugo -- I'll try to be louder -- from 19 Hurricane Hugo in 1989. 20 It was a storm of interest in this area, 21 so we tried to transpose that storm to 22 Savannah. They separated the surge component 23 from the harmonic tide, and that surge 24 component at Charleston measured at about 7.7 25 feet. And that was then ratioed to create 77 1 BRIEFING - JOE HOKE 2 synthetic feets of 5, 10 and 15 feet, which 3 represents the tidal surge at different points 4 outside of Charleston. 5 15 feet was approximately the largest 6 tidal surge that was believed to have occurred 7 from Hurricane Hugo. 7.7 was actually measured 8 at the gauge in Charleston. 9 And then for our model here in Savannah, 10 we selected the period from August 18 to 23 of 11 1997 for our boundary conditions. The basic 12 tide -- and we selected that date because 1997 13 is very close to an average flow condition on 14 the river. August is near the hurricane 15 season, and we had spring tide. 16 We wanted to get the effects of the 17 hurricane surge on top of the spring tide. One 18 of those happened to occur on August 19th, 19 1997. So that was the reason for selecting 20 that time period. 21 So then the hurricane surge component, 22 that was the developed over in Charleston, was 23 then added onto the standard tidal condition 24 here in Savannah. 25 The limitations that we have in our model, 78 1 BRIEFING - JOE HOKE 2 which we're using the EFDC model which is the 3 same model that we used for the salinity 4 modelling that Bill talked about earlier, the 5 limitation that we have here is that we didn't 6 develop this with an emphasis on storm surge 7 calculations. 8 It was really developed for what Bill was 9 talking about earlier, salinity effects. So it 10 doesn't include the full land area inundated 11 during a hurricane such as Tybee. 12 The offshore topography that was found up 13 in Charleston and Savannah is not that similar, 14 and there's no account for some of the 15 variables such as atmospheric pressure, wind 16 speed and direction. 17 What we were trying to get out of that was 18 a comparison, not really what the -- what the 19 storm surge would be, but to compare the 20 existing depth to the worst case deepening 21 which was the 48 foot channel. 22 What we got out of our model was a 23 predicted increase of .9 feet maximum, and that 24 was -- it actually increases as you go 25 upstream, and the increase, maximum increase we 79 1 BRIEFING - JOE HOKE 2 showed was right around the I95 bridge. 3 This was about, I think, the last time we 4 reviewed this. Since that time, we went 5 investigated some other methodologies. There's 6 the SLOSH model that Chatham Emergency 7 Management Agency uses. That's what they do 8 their hurricane inundation mapping with. 9 We know that it better represents 10 hurricane surge flooding, because it does 11 incorporate the overland flooding. 12 But the problem we ran into there was the grid 13 they use for that model was too coarse. 14 Something as narrow as the navigation 15 channel would not show up on the model, so we 16 determined it not to be effective to look at 17 deepening impacts. Another thing that was 18 suggested was to utilize the Chatham County 19 LIDAR data. 20 The hurricane surges that we computed from 21 other models, maybe we could map them more 22 accurately if we use this LIDAR data from the 23 county, which is one foot contour intervals 24 for topo, but the topo interval there, the 25 interval there is one foot and is still greater 80 1 BRIEFING - JOE HOKE 2 than our maximum surge increase that we 3 predicted of 0.9 feet. So we wouldn't really 4 be generating anything that was very reliable, 5 and also by pinning it down to an area like 6 that, we'd really be going outside the bounds 7 of what we developed the model for. 8 The other model we looked at was the 9 ADCIRC model which they were running up in 10 the Wilmington District as part of the other 11 model study Bill was talking about for the 12 offshore mounds. 13 They had that model available, so they 14 plugged our hurricane surge into that and ran 15 that for us. And this ADCIRC model is used 16 extensively in hurricane storm surge 17 predictions. 18 It came up with fairly similar results, a 19 little bit less than what we computed to be 20 EFDC and their maximum surge about .3, about a 21 third of a foot. Kind of expect that because 22 that model does incorporate the land areas that 23 are inundated that the EFDC model does not. 24 And this is a plot of that model, and so 25 what you have here, this is the Tybee and some 81 1 BRIEFING - JOE HOKE 2 of outer islands that are here shown inundated. 3 This is the area we were referring to that 4 would not be incorporated in the model that we 5 used. I think they're showing here in this 6 vicinity. 7 MR. GARRETT: It's the city front area. 8 MR. HOKE: I believe city front is right 9 through here. So their maximum surge was a 10 little downstream of what we did, EFDC. In 11 general, it supported the results that we had 12 before. 13 Our conclusion is that because of the 14 relatively minor impact, from the hurricane 15 surge elevations, it's not expected a hurricane 16 surge will be a factor in selecting a 17 mitigation plan. 18 The other thing is there's not really 19 anything we can do that would mitigate 20 hurricane surge, other than possibly the 21 Steamboat River alternative might be the only 22 one that would have an impact on a hurricane 23 surge. 24 But we're not really expecting to model 25 all of the mitigation plans through the 82 1 BRIEFING - JOE HOKE 2 hurricane surge. We will, though, go back and 3 verify -- once we have a selected plan, we'll 4 go back and verify this. Any questions 5 MS. LANDERS: Where was that highest 6 depth? 7 MR. HOKE: I'm sorry, what? 8 MS. LANDERS: In the previous slide, that 9 blue, where is that -- just before you get to 10 the riverfront downtown. Where is it? That's 11 where you see the .33. 12 MR. HOKE: Yes. 13 MS. LANDERS: Where is it? 14 MR. HOKE: That is -- it should be close 15 to the Savannah waterfront. It's a little 16 confusing to read because of all the islands 17 being inundated. 18 MR. GARRETT: From the Marriott east 19 because that's where the bluff drops off. 20 MS. LANDERS: And what does that mean if 21 you have an extra foot? 22 MR. GARRETT: That would depend on the 23 tide at the time of the hurricane. That would 24 depend on the tide at the time the storm came 25 up. 83 1 BRIEFING - JOE HOKE 2 MR. HOKE: Yes. I mean, from a storm of 3 that size, there would be fairly significant 4 flooding, as you can see all the islands would 5 be inundated. I don't think another four 6 inches would be -- it would be pretty hard to 7 notice. 8 MR. DYSART: Is that enough of an answer, 9 Mary? 10 MS. LANDERS: Yes, thank you. 11 MR. DYSART: Judy. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Do these models take into 13 consideration the fact that things might be 14 changing as the storm happens, like significant 15 erosion on Tybee, or significant changes to 16 what might be -- to what ordinarily would be 17 barriers might not be a barrier at that time? 18 MR. HOKE: No. The ground is coded into 19 the model, represented as best as possible, as 20 it is now. But it's pretty unlikely that there 21 would be any changes that would occur, during 22 the storm, that would be enough, on the scale 23 of the whole model, to have any impact there. 24 MS. JENNINGS: I guess I need to 25 understand this .9 feet. That's one tenth less 84 1 BRIEFING - JOE HOKE 2 than a foot? 3 MR. HOKE: Yes. 4 MS. JENNINGS: At one given place, but 5 that's a huge volume of water. It's spread out 6 tremendously. 7 MR. HOKE: Yeah, I agree with that. 8 MR. DYSART: Hope. 9 MS. MOORER: Joe, this was something I 10 always got confused about whenever we were 11 talking about it. This isn't the flooding 12 model. This is the model that predicts the 13 rise in the level of the river? I mean -- 14 MR. HOKE: Yes. 15 MS. MOORER: -- it's a distinction of 16 you're just looking at the river channel. 17 MR. HOKE: Right. We're looking at the 18 channel. We're not trying to project it onto 19 the flooded area. 20 MR. GARRETT: ADCIRC shows it. 21 MR. HOKE: Yeah, the ADCIRC model -- 22 MR. GARRETT: The ADCIRC does take into 23 account the wider flood plain. That's why you 24 would be looking at .33 versus nine tenths foot 25 in the channel itself. 85 1 BRIEFING - JOE HOKE 2 MS. MOORER: But the ADCIRC model, is it 3 making any flood predictions on land? It's 4 just taking into like a holding area, land 5 included, that the water spreads out over, 6 right? 7 In other words, you looked at -- what I 8 got confused about, I had to look. We're 9 looking -- Chatham County flood maps are very 10 different, in terms of what it predicts, as 11 opposed to this is just looking at depths or 12 heights, I guess, flooding in the channel? I 13 mean, I don't -- 14 MR. HOKE: Right. We're just looking at 15 water coming up the channel, whereas the 16 Chatham County map would have inundation coming 17 in from other sources, around to the south, and 18 to the north, so it would be coming over land 19 in other areas. We're only concerned with the 20 impact right along the Savannah River channel. 21 MR. DYSART: Mary. 22 MS. LANDERS: It would be correct to say 23 that the deepening to 48 feet, you're saying, 24 would add four inches to the storm surge on the 25 river in the second model? 86 1 BRIEFING - JOE HOKE 2 MR. HOKE: Yeah, that's an approximation. 3 MS. LANDERS: What it's saying is absolute 4 storm surge, you're adding four inches to what 5 number? 6 MR. HOKE: That's comparing the existing 7 conditions. 8 MS. LANDERS: Which are what number, storm 9 surge of? 10 MR. HOKE: Well, it would probably be best 11 to go back to the SLOSH model for that to look 12 at existing conditions. We're really just 13 doing a comparison, rather than trying to 14 predict. In other words, we're not trying to 15 predict the aerial extent of flooding. We're 16 just looking at the comparison between existing 17 and deepening. 18 We took the worst case, six feet 19 deepening, and are comparing that to the 20 existing. 21 MR. BAILEY: With a 15 foot surge offshore 22 was that run. 23 MR. HOKE: Yes. 24 MS. LANDERS: So 15 foot storm surge, but 25 it wouldn't be 15 foot right there. 87 1 BRIEFING - JOE HOKE 2 MR. BAILEY: Right, 15 foot offshore. 3 MS. LANDERS: Right. 4 MR. HOKE: That's 15 feet added on to the 5 harmonic tide. Probably, actually, we'd be 6 looking at 19 feet, I guess, adding the two 7 together 20 feet. 8 MR. DYSART: Judy. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah, really there are a 10 lot of numbers. I'm sorry I don't have a 11 handle on all of them. How much -- that's a 12 pretty big difference, the EFDC, and you go 13 down to some of the other methodologies, I mean 14 almost 12 inches compared to four inches. 15 That's a big -- that's a lot of range, so 16 where do you put your confidence? 17 MR. HOKE: Actually, we considered that 18 not to be much of a range because it's all less 19 than the reliability of the plotting that we 20 have. 21 MR. BAILEY: The county rounds to the 22 foot, so all these are less than what the 23 county can predict on. 24 MR. SCANLON: Joe, would it be safe to say 25 the EFDC is assuming you're going up the 88 1 BRIEFING - JOE HOKE 2 channel, and where it's not flooding out into 3 the flood areas, so isn't that going to give 4 you a worst case. 5 MR. HOKE: Yes, that's a conservative -- 6 MR. SCANLON: So in reality where the 7 water's actually coming up, it is going to 8 flood out. So the model is giving you, it's 9 saying -- it's assuming it does not flood out 10 into the lower areas. It's saying it would be 11 .95 feet if it didn't flood out, but we know 12 it's going to flood out, so it's going to be 13 something less, which says your lower number is 14 probably a more realistic assumption, because 15 it in fact does account for the flooding. 16 MR. HOKE: Correct. 17 MR. DYSART: Another question, Judy? 18 MS. JENNINGS: Not right now. 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. Continue. 20 MR. HOKE: That was the conclusion. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any further questions? 22 Seeing none, we'll thank you for your 23 presentation. Okay. The remaining item on the 24 agenda is setting a date for the next meeting. 25 MS. JENNINGS: If I can go back for just 89 1 BRIEFING - JOE HOKE 2 one second, I understand you to say you're not 3 going to model storm surge with all these other 4 permeantations, but once we have a plan that 5 seems to fit everything else, could you go back 6 then and do these storm surges on the plan it 7 looks like we're going to recommend? 8 MR. HOKE: Yes. That's the plan. 9 MS. JENNINGS: So you would go back and do 10 the storm surge on the recommended plan? 11 MR. HOKE: Right. 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. Do we have any advice 13 on when we would expect more material to be 14 ready for presentation. Hope. 15 MS. MOORER: I would suggest, that to be 16 able to have a meeting that has much 17 information as this one does, that we hold till 18 the 14th, November 14th, and have the interim 19 SEG on October 3rd. 20 MR. DYSART: Okay. Madam Court Reporter 21 concurs. Bill. 22 MR. BAILEY: John, you had asked about 23 quantities. 24 MR. ROBINETTE: Yes. 25 MR. BAILEY: I added up quantities. A two 90 1 NEXT MEETING DATE 2 Feet deepening would be 6,000,000 cubic yards 3 and a six foot would be 13 million. 4 MR. ROBINETTE: Thanks. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Is the 14th of 6 November without objection? We will set it for 7 then. Cathy will determine whether the space 8 is available. 9 MS. VAUGHN: It is. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. It is available, good. 11 We thank you for being with us. We thank -- 12 we've got some fresh faces of people who aren't 13 here all the time. We're happy to see 14 everybody, the regulars here, staying alert and 15 asking the questions. 16 We appreciate all the material that the 17 Corps has presented today. It's been very 18 useful. If there are no other questions, 19 we'll declare the meeting adjourned. 20 21 (Concluded at 11:40 a.m.) 22 23 24 25 91 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 G E O R G I A 4 CHATHAM COUNTY 5 6 I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript 7 was taken down, as stated in the caption, and the 8 questions and answers thereto were reduced to 9 typewriting under my directions; that the forgoing 10 Pages 1 through 90 represent a true and correct 11 transcript of the evidence given upon said hearing, 12 and I further certify that I am not of kin or 13 counsel to the parties in the case; am not in the 14 regular employ of counsel for any of said parties 15 nor am I in anywise interested in the result of 16 said case. 17 18 This, the 9th day of October, 2006. 19 20 _______________________________ 21 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 22 Reporter, B-2041 23 24 25