1 1 2 3 4 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP 5 6 MEETING 7 OF 8 MAY 3, 2005 9 10 11 12 MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 13 14 POOLER, GEORGIA 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 9 UPDATE BRIEFING 10 By Alan Garrett -------------------- 9 11 By Bill Bailey --------------------- 52 12 13 COMMITTEE REPORTS ---------------------- 92 14 NEW BUSINESS --------------------------- 96 15 16 CERTIFICATE ---------------------------- 108 17 18 19 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 1:00 p.m. at this address. 7 Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well 8 as at the instructions of my employer, I wish 9 to disclose that, other than accepting to serve 10 as your reporter, we have not entered into any 11 other contractual agreement with any party 12 involved in this case.) 13 MR. DYSART: Let's have a seat and call 14 things to order. I've been threatening to 15 bring a cow bell, but I can't find my cow bell. 16 Okay. I'd like to call the meeting of the 17 Stakeholders Evaluation Group to order. My 18 name is Ben Dysart, and I am the SEG 19 facilitator, in case any of you don't remember 20 me. 21 The first thing we'd like to do is to have 22 introductions, and is customary if you would 23 simply indicate your name, your affiliation, 24 whatever, and anything you want to call it, and 25 move around the room -- let's start with Bill 4 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 and come this way. 3 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of 4 Engineers. 5 MR. GARRETT: Alan Garrett, project 6 manager with the Corps of Engineers. 7 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Island Beach Task 8 Force. 9 MR. DYSART: Ben Dysart. 10 MR. BEACH: Ric Beach with Weston 11 Solutions. 12 MR. BURKE: Roger Burke, Corps of 13 Engineers, Mobile, Alabama. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia 15 Sierra. 16 MS. COLLINS-RAHN: Lucille Collins-Rahn, 17 Sierra Club. 18 MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of 19 Savannah, also the Savannah Harbor Committee. 20 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 21 Authority. 22 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for 23 GPA. 24 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant for 25 GPA. 5 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, the Georgia 3 Conservancy. 4 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 5 Authority. 6 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, Fish 7 and Wildlife Service. 8 MR. PRUSA: Tom Prusa, Savannah Coastal 9 Refuge. 10 MR. GRIFFIN: Ed Griffin, Georgia DOT . 11 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line Echo 12 Services. 13 MR. WRIGHT: Tom Wright, citizen. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. How's the 15 one o'clock time suiting everybody? Everybody 16 happy with that? Seeing no objections, we will 17 consider that we have reached our first 18 consensus today. Many of us can remember when 19 reaching one consensus at one of these meetings 20 was quite an achievement. Okay. You have the 21 draft agenda -- John. 22 MR. ROBINETTE: I'm a little slow on the 23 uptake today. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. 25 MR. ROBINETTE: Is there any possibility 6 1 AGENDA DISCUSSION 2 We could go back to a morning meeting? 3 MR. DYSART: I'll tell you what, let's 4 hold that until the toward end, in case more 5 people come in. We will reopen that and see 6 what the sentiment is. 7 I have no problem whatsoever, and in order 8 to make sure that I'm here at one o'clock, I 9 have to make sure I get here before today. 10 Because back in February, I came in first 11 flight in and ended up sitting on the ground 12 in Jacksonville, and walking in right at one 13 o'clock. 14 So it really doesn't make any difference 15 to me. I'll tell you what, I will try to 16 remember. You help me remember. 17 MR. PRUSA: He'll remember. He's got a 18 good memory. 19 MR. DYSART: The objective is we want it 20 convenient for the membership, and we'll 21 discuss that. So you have a copy of the draft 22 agenda before you. 23 If it looks a little bit confusing, 24 there's kind of -- I think everything that came 25 in is there. You may see some redundancy 7 1 AGENDA DISCUSSION 2 because we got some things that came in on 3 various channels, and somethings saying, I 4 think I want this, and some people said, I 5 think so and so wants that. 6 My view as facilitator is I'm not supposed 7 to be changing peoples' stuff around, and so I 8 have included everything in there. And we will 9 not have redundancies, but anyway, I wanted to 10 make sure all the inputs were reflected. 11 So if you desire to add any topics that 12 are not mentioned there, please put them on the 13 floor now and we will add them. Seeing no 14 requests for additions, we will consider the 15 draft agenda accepted as our order of business 16 for today. 17 What is your pleasure regarding the 18 February meeting transcript, that presumably, 19 you've had an opportunity to peruse and 20 examine? And as is customary, if there is 21 anything that needs to be corrected, or 22 clarified briefly, we do it on the record here, 23 as opposed to going back. 24 Any -- any corrections or errors noted? 25 then madam court reporter will get another gold 8 1 AGENDA DISCUSSION 2 star for doing another perfect job. Okay. 3 Let's proceed now on to old business. 4 And so far as I'm concerned, we have a 5 custom if there are any truly distinguished 6 visiting scientists to give briefings, who need 7 to get away, they can go first. 8 If there's any truly distinguished 9 visitors from afar here that need to go first, 10 please let me know and we will move them up to 11 the front of the line. If not, several of 12 these, I think, Bill have to do with the Corps 13 of Engineers. 14 Could you or somebody indicate what order 15 y'all would prefer to present them in, if you 16 have any particular preference? 17 MR. GARRETT: Where are looking at Ben, 18 where are looking? 19 MR. DYSART: This is under old business, 20 kind of the updates, the briefings, and so 21 forth. 22 MR. BAILEY: I think the one on the 23 project alternative screening will probably go 24 last. 25 MR. DYSART: What will go first? 9 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure. 3 MR. DYSART: Okay. Why don't let's do 4 that, and whoever would like to proceed on the 5 -- is it -- some of these -- you choose which 6 one you want to go with. 7 MR. GARRETT: Let's just start with the 8 hydrodynamic model. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. 10 MR. GARRETT: The model itself has been 11 received in the district, and is actually being 12 used to make trial draft runs, if you will, of 13 some of the impact analysis. It not being -- 14 having not been officially internally reviewed, 15 peer review internal we call it, that's soon to 16 come by Waterways Experiment Station, mainly 17 Dr. Kim. 18 We're taking a risk by going ahead and 19 using that model now to make some impact runs, 20 and to try get a head start with some of the 21 analysis -- the impact analysis. 22 What we're waiting on right now, to get a 23 complete package from the model standpoint, is 24 a sensitivity analysis that is being prepared 25 by Chuck Watson. And we have yet to get that. 10 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 TetraTech is still working with him 3 day-to-day trying to ensure that thing is 4 completed and comes in with the model. When 5 that comes in as a complete package, we'll send 6 it down to the Waterways Experiment Station or 7 Engineering and Research Development 8 Corporation there in Vicksburg, and they will 9 do the internal peer review. 10 Once that's done, then we can let the 11 world see the results. Right now we're pretty 12 confident the model is going to work. Joe 13 Hoke, in our office, is running it. They're 14 not having any problems at all with that model, 15 so it seems to be very promising at this stage. 16 MR. DYSART: Hope. 17 MS. MOORER: Alan, where do the other 18 federal agency review -- where does that fit 19 in? 20 MR. GARRETT: Go to the schedule -- there 21 are some schedules here. This is the roll-up 22 of the detail schedule. And while the -- the 23 July 23rd, it shows for the fisheries impact 24 evaluation, that's what we're doing in advance 25 right now. 11 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 The actual date for the agency review is 3 probably not even shown on this one -- on our 4 detailed schedule. This one -- it's at least 5 45 days away. 6 MR. KEEGAN: It's 7-5-05, it's the 7 completion date for FDC and WASP, model's ready 8 for use. 9 MR. GARRETT: There it is right there, 10 ready for use. That's the date 7-5-05. 11 MS. MOORER: July 5th? 12 MR. GARRETT: Yes. 13 MS. MOORER: Okay. 14 MR. GARRETT: Any questions? 15 MR. DYSART: Any other questions on this 16 item. 17 MS. JENNINGS: Well, just to make sure 18 -- just to make sure I understand Hope, the 19 answer to Hope's question, so July the 6th, the 20 agencies will already have looked at it or it 21 will be ready for them to look at it? 22 MR. GARRETT: Ready for them. 23 MS. MOORER: Huh-uh. 24 MR. GARRETT: I'm sorry. They will have 25 reviewed it. Here it is. I lost a month, May 12 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 2nd. We should have it, hopefully, by Friday 3 or Monday or maybe even sooner, the sensitivity 4 analysis to marry up with it and to send it to 5 Dr. Kim. That will give you June, and we've 6 got the agencies doing peer review externally. 7 It will be officially ready for use by that 8 day. 9 MR. DYSART: Further comments, questions? 10 Okay. What would you like next? 11 MR. GARRETT: Let's look at the Floridan 12 Aquifer. I talked with Card Smith about this 13 yesterday, and he said that he went to the 14 conference here last week, and they had a great 15 conference. 16 Everybody was pretty much in agreement 17 with where things are looking on our model. 18 That too has to be peer reviewed. That will 19 start as soon as Card gets the report in, which 20 is next week, a draft report will be finished. 21 It will go out for peer review. Once that 22 peer review is finished, we'll let those 23 results be known entered. Right now everybody 24 seems pretty confident of what the results have 25 been, what conclusions are drawn. So it's on 13 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 -- it's on track. 3 MR. DYSART: Questions, comments that 4 concern the aquifer? Will. 5 MR. BERSON: I'm sorry. I'm sure you said 6 it, but I just -- when do you expect that will 7 be sent out -- Card's work that will be subject 8 to review? 9 MR. GARRETT: The Internal review will be 10 next week, no later than next week. 11 MR. BERSON: Okay. 12 MR. GARRETT: That will be a month's 13 review, external after that. They have got a 14 bevy of world renown scientists that are going 15 to review that for the external review, trying 16 to set that up too for contracts. 17 MR. BERSON: Okay. So basically the 18 external review will start in about a month? 19 MR. GARRETT: Yes. 20 MR. SCANLON: We're talking about the 21 model specific to the deepening, and the 22 impacts of the deepening? 23 MR. GARRETT: Correct. Chris, I saw a 24 message where you asked about the aquifer. 25 MR. SCHUBERTH: Yeah. 14 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 MR. GARRETT: That's what we're talking 3 about. Card has just about finished that draft 4 report, expect to see it about the end of the 5 week, and then the internal review process, and 6 then thereafter it will be external review, 7 three or four scientists he has lined up for 8 that. 9 MR. SCHUBERTH: So that's all on target? 10 MR. GARRETT: Card is very confident. In 11 talking with agencies, in conference last week, 12 they all seemed to be on the same sheet of 13 music, so -- 14 MR. SCHUBERTH: Okay. Good. Thank you. 15 MR. DYSART: I want to make sure that 16 Chris, as one of our historic, conscientious, 17 and thoughtful question, answer, and value 18 adders has an opportunity to speak on this. 19 I told him if he had any particular 20 specific questions about the previous two 21 topics we had discussed, I would appreciate his 22 asking any questions. We would be happy to go 23 back. Any further comments or questions on 24 that particular item? 25 MR. GARRETT: That covers the next one 15 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 too, I believe. The next one is the schedule 3 for the public. This is something the team has 4 been working diligently on for the last month 5 and a half. 6 We update the schedule probably daily or 7 more frequently. If you like -- has everybody 8 got one of these in arm's reach, one of these 9 schedules? We can go through it line item by 10 line item, if you wish. If you have had a 11 chance to scan it, you can just ask individual 12 questions. 13 Again, the model development is on track 14 except for the sensitivity analysis. We're 15 working on that, shove have that, hopefully, 16 within a couple days, the end of the week. 17 Bill, would you like to talk about the marsh 18 secession model -- go right to that one? 19 MR. BAILEY: We're still working on the 20 marsh secession model. USGS is about to start 21 some work to refine things they had done 22 before. 23 Once we get a model and the report that 24 goes with that, that will then go out to the 25 agencies for them to look at. For the 16 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 chloride, when we get the basic hydro modelling 3 report, the same consultant is also doing the 4 correlation for chloride, and we'll have that 5 tool, I think, a week or two after the report 6 comes in, the main EFDC report, so we'll have 7 that. And that's shown here as finished 4-14, 8 so that is a little bit late on that -- 9 MR. GARRETT: We got the chloride 10 information in Monday. We'll get it Monday. 11 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Any questions on those 12 two? 13 MR. GARRETT: Beach erosion study will be 14 next. Lou, you don't have any questions on 15 that? 16 MR. OFF: I'm waiting for you. 17 MR. GARRETT: The beach erosion study is 18 something that everyone is aware of. It's been 19 languishing. We've just had a conference in 20 the district this morning trying to get 21 Wilmington District's assistance on that. 22 Mobile, under the regional planning center of 23 expertise, is helping us with that one. 24 The Wilmington District is bringing on 25 board Dr. Greg Williams and Mike Witowski 17 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 (phonetic), in their coastal section, to help 3 us go through the ATM comments and figure out 4 how it's going to -- the deepening project is 5 going to impact Tybee. 6 We've reenergized this aspect. We're not 7 going to let it lay until we get something 8 resolved on this. 9 It appears, after discussions with David 10 -- between David Schmidt, who has now gone back 11 to Iraq, and ERDC they can probably agree to 12 the contents of the study. They might not 13 necessarily agree how they got there, but the 14 conclusions they can live with. 15 We've just got to figure out some way to 16 get them to officially agree with it, a 17 memorandum or some other method. But beyond 18 that, there are some other studies out there, I 19 think, that that brought up that still need to 20 be addressed as well, not just impacts of the 21 federal project on the beach, but other studies 22 in that report as well need to be talked about. 23 I think that those were -- those were Port 24 Authority studies. We've been kind of waiting 25 on the aftermath of the evaluation report for 18 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 the front beach, and trying to find out how we 3 can do the feasible study for the north beach, 4 to see what studies can be done to accomplish 5 both. 6 And that's also the subject of this 7 morning's meeting, trying to find out how we 8 can get Wilmington down here, spend two weeks 9 with us, their coastal engineers, and look at 10 information we have in the district, and agree 11 upon a scope that will address concerns on 12 Tybee and address impacts in the harbor or the 13 harbor deepening. 14 So that's where we are on that. That's 15 going to require a great deal work on 16 Wilmington's part, because at this point we 17 have no coastal engineers in the district. 18 It's going to require Wilmington getting 19 involved on that. Any questions? 20 MR. DYSART: Lou. 21 MR. OFF: I had planned on coming in here 22 and asking the question Alan already answered 23 so, having worked with Alan the last three 24 years out at Tybee, I can see he has energized 25 the program here. But congratulations to Hope 19 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 and Larry and the rest of the crew that have 3 done an amazing job in the last two months. 4 I can see that none of you are going to go 5 on vacation this summer. You have a lot of 6 stuff that is coming due in September. I would 7 like to throw out two things. 8 One thing, Eric Olsen, who is the Tybee 9 Island Beach consultant, has some 10 disagreements, not so much with the ATM study, 11 but some of the results, particularly in the 12 sand sediment and the near shore levels that 13 now exist. 14 There's a lot of information in there and 15 it all kind of comes up to the point of 16 somewhere in the neighborhood of 7, 800,000 17 cubic yards of sand are lost each year through 18 harbor maintenance, and the projected sand loss 19 to Tybee and Tybee near shore is somewhere 20 around 400,000 cubic yards. 21 It's obvious that the channel, at the 22 depth it now is, is taking as much sand as it's 23 ever going to take. You -- you dig it, we're 24 not going to lose any more sand. I think Alan, 25 who has worked with Tybee, is what we're trying 20 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 to do is combine some of the information that 3 the ATM study is doing along with our north 4 shore, which is not included in the shore 5 protection program, and also a harbor impact 6 statement. 7 One thing I want to throw out is is there 8 mitigation. I don't know whether the harbor 9 deepening is the place where the mitigation is 10 going, but over the last 60 years that's a 11 possibility that Tybee Island and its near 12 shore has lost somewhere in the neighborhood 13 of 40 or 50,000,000 cubic yards of sand. 14 This is what we're looking at. Eric Olsen 15 has made a good analysis, in fact a technical 16 review of this independent technical review. 17 And so I'm hoping that his information will be 18 reviewed. 19 MR. GARRETT: Well, in fact we talked this 20 morning about getting Intercoastal a little 21 more involved in that, actually maybe doing 22 some model runs. If there is a model required 23 to look at impacts, we'd probably engage him 24 through a contract of some sort -- 25 MR. OFF: Great. 21 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 MR. GARRETT: -- a cost share-type thing, 3 in-kind services. So, you're on the front 4 burner. 5 MR. OFF: Is that cost-share -- 6 MR. GARRETT: It's not enough. 7 MR. DYSART: Probably have an American 8 Express without a limit. 9 MS. MOORER: I just wanted to also 10 mention, Lou, that Doug and Alan are working 11 together on this to try to make sure that the 12 work isn't being duplicated on the two 13 projects, but is being evaluated for what's 14 needed for the overall picture. 15 MR. GARRETT: And that's a tough thing to 16 do because it seems to be a moving target, but 17 we're getting down to it. We're going to get 18 some expert assistance, as of this morning's 19 meeting. 20 MR. DYSART: Chris. 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: Lou made a reference to 22 technical reports, where are these reports? Is 23 anyone else -- I mean, are they available to be 24 read? 25 MR. OFF: They're all online, I believe. 22 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 MS. MOORER: They're on the website. 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: Online where? Larry 4 Keegan has put all of these on line? 5 MR. OFF: You'll have to ask him. 6 MR. GARRETT: Which one are you looking at 7 exactly? 8 MR. OFF: We got one from Eric Olsen. I 9 had one from Dr. Clark Alexander. I have one 10 that was sent to Larry from Dan Parrot. 11 MR. SCHUBERTH: So those are three 12 reports, where are they to be read? 13 MR. GARRETT: Larry, you may not have -- 14 MR. KEEGAN: I don't have any idea. 15 MS. MOORER: Those are those review 16 comments, aren't they? 17 MR. OFF: These are review comments. 18 MS. MOORER: On the beach erosion study, 19 Larry -- 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: Are those the review 21 comments that came down the pike three years 22 ago, when you were at the -- 23 MR. GARRETT: Same ones 24 MR. SCHUBERTH: -- at Armstrong? 25 MR. OFF: Yeah. These are the same ones 23 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 that are two and three years old. 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: They have been resolved? 4 MR. OFF: No. 5 MR. SCHUBERTH: But they can be read? 6 MS. MOORER: Yes. 7 MR. SCHUBERTH: Yes -- where? 8 MS. MOORER: On the website. 9 MR. SCHUBERTH: They're there now? 10 MS. MOORER: They have been there. 11 MR. SCHUBERTH: Any subsequent reports 12 will also go onto the website? 13 MR. GARRETT: Sure. 14 MR. KEEGAN: Once they are completed and 15 reviewed. 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: And what kind of 17 completion dates are we broadly talking about? 18 MR. OFF: September 27th. 19 MR. GARRETT: What was that, Lou? 20 MR. OFF: It says September 27th here. 21 MR. GARRETT: Chris, in terms of resolving 22 the comments and reaching consensus between the 23 agencies, is that -- 24 MR. SCHUBERTH: See, my -- the point of my 25 question is I'd like to see or read the 24 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 thinking that's behind the concepts and what 3 others are saying, you know, sort of like 4 monitoring the interchange between person A, 5 person B, person C, person D. 6 That may be terribly, terribly boring for 7 others, but I would find it particularly 8 interesting because I happen to have a 9 professional interest, specifically, in all of 10 this particular aspect of the process of sand 11 transfer along the open coast. 12 MR. GARRETT: I think there's a lot of 13 information out there. Clark Alexander, the 14 Skidaway Institute -- 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: Right. 16 MR. GARRETT: There are a myriad Corps 17 reports. I think the problem has been there 18 are so many different things out there that 19 haven't been pulled together, and that's why 20 we want to bring Wilmington in and show them 21 all this, say all right, look, now let's get to 22 the bottom line here. What is it going to take 23 to turn the sediment budget, find out what the 24 impacts are. 25 What you brought up is really a problem. 25 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 I've got a whole draw full of stuff I've been 3 collecting. I'll glad to share all of it with 4 you. 5 MR. SCHUBERTH: Right. So just those 6 three reports are on the -- that Lou just cited 7 off are to be read? 8 MR. GARRETT: Those are replies to the 9 comments to this report, as I understand it. 10 MR. SCHUBERTH: This report is that big 11 thick one that's there? 12 MR. GARRETT: ATM's. 13 MR. DYSART: Just for the record, would 14 you indicate the title of that report you're 15 referring to, the big report? 16 MR. OFF: The big report, the fat one, 17 it's The Savannah Harbor Beach Erosion Study 18 prepared by Applied Technology & Management, 19 Inc., ATM, prepared for Georgia Ports Authority 20 December 2002. 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: Okay. Because the last 22 one I have is 1997 -- that I have in my files, 23 and that's online? 24 MR. KEEGAN: Yes. 25 MR. OFF: You need a big machine to print 26 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 it. 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: I see that. 4 MR. OFF: A lot to cover too. 5 MR. DYSART: Judy Jennings. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah, not particularly 7 about the beach erosion study, and y'all may 8 have said this and I missed it, have you made 9 a decision about how to handle the external 10 review of the models and the aquifer? 11 Remember last time, there was some talk 12 about where that fit in the process, and I'm 13 not sure I've heard that day. 14 MR. GARRETT: Yes. That will be done by 15 the three scientists, two scientists, correct 16 me if I'm wrong on that -- 17 MR. BAILEY: She asked a pretty broad 18 question. I think in -- can't give you a 19 specific answer, a complete answer for 20 everything. 21 We have met with our people at the deep 22 draft center of expertise for the Corps' center 23 which is in Mobile, and they will be in charge 24 of the review, the whole thing -- the whole 25 report at the end. 27 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 We're figuring out what that means and 3 what pieces then would receive separate 4 reviews. Basically, we're going -- once we get 5 that on paper, we're going to take that up to 6 Washington, our Washington folks, and say do 7 you agree with this. 8 We haven't done that yet, but our -- 9 there's a different external review for 10 different pieces. Basically, the more -- let's 11 see, there were some studies that were 12 determined to be more important, significant, 13 or potential for significance when our 14 Washington folks came down a couple of years 15 ago. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Right. 17 MR. BAILEY: They were the aquifer study 18 and the hydrodynamic model. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Economics. 20 MR. BAILEY: Economics -- one more. 21 MS. JENNINGS: I think there were three of 22 them. 23 MR. BAILEY: Those are -- we're still 24 going to do external reviews for those. 25 They're going to be done different ways for 28 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 different people. For economics we want an 3 economic expert. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. I would hope so, but 5 I guess what I was asking is the last time we 6 talked you weren't sure whether those three 7 studies, like when your Washington folks we're 8 here, we said yeah we'll do that. 9 Now the process seems a little different. 10 you weren't sure, will we really do that, and 11 if we do, when will we do them, so -- 12 MR. BAILEY: We're still not sure because 13 we haven't got our Washington folks to agree. 14 we are still going to do external on those 15 three pieces, and I think what we had worked up 16 was we were going to do the external review as 17 soon as the reports became available. 18 We talked about the aquifer. We would go 19 through an internal review first and then 20 external review, and that's well before the 21 feasibility report goes out for public comment, 22 public review. 23 So we're going to do those -- those 24 reviews, as soon as the reports are available. 25 Does that help? 29 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah. You'll do them -- 3 you'll do the internal reviews as soon as 4 they're available. Are you sure you'll still 5 do external reviews, or is that a decision that 6 Washington still has to make? 7 MR. BAILEY: For those three, we're 8 proposing to do external reviews for those 9 three, as well as, I think, an external review 10 on the whole package. 11 MR. GARRETT: In progress review versus 12 the tail-end review, that's kind of a decision 13 we're waiting on headquarters and SAD and 14 Washington to make. We're waiting on that 15 still. 16 We've gone through -- this other thing 17 we've done is put together a peer review 18 matrix, and assigned individuals with Mobile 19 and Roger's help, who they would see doing the 20 reviews internally, and also looking externally 21 for us as well. We've got that. You can look 22 at this afterwards. 23 MS. JENNINGS: I wouldn't know any of 24 them. I'll look at it. 25 MR. GARRETT: It's good to look at. 30 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 MS. JENNINGS: I will do it. Thank you. 3 MR. DYSART: Hope had her card up and then 4 Chris. 5 MS. MOORER: Judy, that's the information 6 that we've been working on, as a team, to send 7 up to Washington to get the sign-off on. 8 That's where we are. What we're 9 proposing, as we had talked about at the 10 interim SEG meeting, we weren't sure, at the 11 time, whether we would have it externally 12 reviewed before the report was done or all at 13 the end. 14 We're proposing on this that we're sending 15 up, those three pieces because they're critical 16 and important to the whole report, that we go 17 ahead and have those externally reviewed now 18 when they're completed, and then it will be 19 part of the big review at the end as well. 20 MR. DYSART: Chris. 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: I apologize for coming in 22 a little bit. I know it was mentioned. When I 23 look here at the EFDC model, the WASP model and 24 EFDC plus the WASP, all of this is finished on 25 the 4th, 5th, 6th of July, and by finished it 31 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 means it's a model that, to the best of the 3 committee, the group, is going to work? 4 MR. GARRETT: Right. 5 MR. SCHUBERTH: Okay. Then it goes from 6 there out for anything further? 7 MR. GARRETT: Actually, that 6 July date 8 is -- it's already been reviewed by everyone 9 internally and externally. The agencies 10 agreed. 11 That's when we officially began using it 12 to run the impact analysis. We already had 13 started using it and are having no problems 14 with it. We're waiting on the sensitivity 15 analysis to come in to make it a complete 16 package. 17 MR. SCHUBERTH: Okay. 18 MR. GARRETT: Where are we now? We talked 19 about aquifer already, impact evaluations -- 20 Bill, do you want to talk about any of those in 21 particular? 22 MR. BAILEY: No, unless you have 23 questions. 24 MR. GARRETT: If anybody has questions 25 about the individual impact evaluations, we'll 32 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 talk about them, but we're going to rely on the 3 model to be run. 4 MR. DYSART: Any questions, comments, 5 inquires about the impact evaluations? Okay. 6 proceed, Judy. 7 MS. JENNINGS: None of them can happen 8 until the two models are ready to use though -- 9 question mark? 10 MR. GARRETT: Well, for instance on the 11 fisheries, we did start working on the 12 fisheries, but we knew the parameters. We 13 could start working on that one to kind of give 14 the model a dry run in-house, and to make sure 15 our computers worked, and we had the staff that 16 could get up and run with it. So we did start 17 with that. The other ones need information 18 before we can start plugging into that model. 19 MR. DYSART: Hope. 20 MS. MOORER: In addition Judy, you see 21 some of these start dates ahead of to date and 22 ahead of when models are being run 23 essentially -- 24 MS. JENNINGS: Right. 25 MS. MOORER: -- Bill Bailey was working on 33 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 gathering critical conditions for different 3 resources from the agencies, so work for this 4 evaluation to prepare for model runs has been 5 going on, if that helps clarify why the dates 6 start back so far. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Exactly. That was it. 8 Thanks. 9 MR. DYSART: Further questions, Judy? 10 MS. JENNINGS: No. Thank you. 11 MR. GARRETT: Air quality, Bill you can 12 address that. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Oh yeah, could we? 14 MR. BAILEY: Again, when the fleet 15 forecast comes in, which is part of economics, 16 then we will -- then we'll look at that and see 17 -- start looking at the air quality impacts. 18 We're waiting for the fleet forecast, which is, 19 I think, how the schedule is linked up. 20 MS. JENNINGS: You'll base that on the 21 prospective Savannah fleet? 22 MR. BAILEY: It is both with project and 23 without project fleets. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Savannah fleet with and 25 without? 34 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 3 MR. GARRETT: Okay. The rest of the -- go 4 down through here and find out any others -- 5 mitigation plan development, obviously, has to 6 wait for the runs. Same with the fish habitat 7 analysis -- begin to do that after we get 8 fisheries impact. 9 Actually, we've got an overlapping a 10 little bit. We'll start working on that before 11 the model runs are actually complete with all 12 the alternatives. 13 Engineering analysis, that's where we -- a 14 lot of those are complete. You see the dates 15 a lot of those have been completed already, 16 where the bank erosion analysis we talked about 17 briefly -- actually, we have haven't talked 18 about that. That's a different than beach 19 erosion -- bank erosion we utilize ERDC to 20 come up and they had set up some monitoring 21 stations down at Tybee to try to figure out -- 22 MR. BAILEY: Bank erosion is different, 23 down a little further -- 24 MR. GARRETT: I've got them mixed up. 25 what are we doing with bank erosion? 35 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 MR. BAILEY: Bank erosion was -- is 3 looking at is there -- would there be any 4 erosion of the shoreline when -- if you deepen 5 the channel. So we've already done -- our 6 geotech folks have gone out and looked at that 7 already. 8 MR. GARRETT: So we would have a report 9 August 9th, '06. 10 MR. BAILEY: I think that's probably -- 11 you have to wait until the final design is -- 12 to see if there are any tweaks in the final 13 design. That may be coming from the mitigation 14 plan, once -- 15 MR. GARRETT: Whatever the plan is. 16 MR. BAILEY: You may have to go back and 17 look at all these things after you come up with 18 your mitigation action. The things you have 19 already looked at once, like this bank erosion, 20 you just have to have something in the schedule 21 to say well, I have to check that again. 22 At this point I don't know what my 23 mitigation may be. In theory, mitigation 24 action could influence these other factors. 25 you have to run through that logic again, run 36 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 through that check. 3 MR. SCANLON: Bill, would that include 4 like the stability along the riverfront, 5 Downtown Savannah, is that part of the bank 6 erosion study or is that someplace else? 7 MR. BAILEY: That's it. There is not a -- 8 I think the analysis is on the erosion of the 9 shoreline, not necessarily of structures. Is 10 that -- so I don't think we are going in and 11 making an assessment of the structural 12 stability of existing docks. Is that -- that's 13 pretty detailed. 14 I think we are -- I think he recorded 15 their condition when he went and did his 16 analysis, recorded their -- 17 MR. SCANLON: It's just there's a bell 18 ringing, and this goes back prior to my time 19 with the city, but there was some concern that 20 was raised early on about just the stability of 21 historic structures along River Street. 22 I thought -- I don't -- it's not an area 23 I'm really conversant in, but I know that there 24 are some. Someone's going to ask me the 25 question, has that ever been addressed. It 37 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 just -- it's the type of thing, Larry -- 3 MR. KEEGAN: Maybe I can help. As part of 4 the bank erosion analysis, there already has 5 been an analysis done by Joe Houdack 6 (phonetic), as far as what was likely to occur 7 to structures at Rousakis Plaza, which is what 8 you are thinking of, Bob. 9 The ship wake analysis will do some 10 looking in the same areas, but the basic 11 analysis as far as the structures that are 12 there now and all has already been done. 13 I think the preliminary conclusion -- 14 strike out preliminary -- the conclusion we 15 have from Joe Houdack is Rousakis Plaza is not 16 because it's proximity to the navigation 17 channel is really not very close. Does that 18 help? 19 MR. SCANLON: Yeah. I've just -- I'm 20 trying to formulate, someone may ask a 21 question -- 22 MR. KEEGAN: No doubt they will. 23 MR. SCANLON: It's an area I don't know 24 a whole lot about. It's something that I just 25 recall when this came up. 38 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 MR. KEEGAN: Right. Specific comments in 3 the Tier I EIS promised to look at it in the 4 Tier II, and that is built into the work. We 5 will have definitive conclusions in Tier II 6 EIS. 7 MR. DYSART: Hope and then Judy. 8 MS. MOORER: I think what's showing up on 9 the schedule here, correct me if I'm wrong, 10 what Bill said, that this was a look see, once 11 the final design and final channel and 12 mitigation and all that was in, we have to go 13 back and relook at it to make sure the studies 14 we've already done applies to the final effort. 15 is that right, Larry? 16 MR. KEEGAN: Yeah, to confirm there's 17 nothing we've done in the final mitigation 18 actions, or something else that would negate or 19 change the conclusion, but yeah, it is on 20 there. 21 MR. DYSART: Judy. 22 MS. JENNINGS: Just along Bob's line of 23 thinking, I remember some questions were raised 24 in the Tier I EIS from private dock owners. 25 The same question, impact, effect of deepening 39 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 at the ship activity on their structures. 3 MR. GARRETT: I think down to item 101 4 which is the sedimentation analysis, this was 5 an effort to look at the existing project, and 6 where the material is falling out in the 7 harbor, and to try to figure out, after the 8 deepening project, forecast where materials 9 will fall out, in terms of OM materials, and 10 what impact on the OM program that might have. 11 It factors in the efficiency of the 12 sediment basin and that type of thing. And 13 that, again, is a task we will rely heavily on 14 the Wilmington District to do for us. They 15 have already got the information and are 16 gathering information to try to help us with 17 that. 18 DMMP update follows on the heals of that 19 because you need to know where material is 20 falling out long-term so you can plan for your 21 disposal area usage. 22 Ship simulation study has been done. 23 Channel design, for the most part has been 24 done. It hasn't been finalized yet. And then 25 we get to the ship wake erosion analysis where 40 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 we have the ERDC come in and set up some 3 monitors, video cameras, and gauge ship speed 4 at Tybee trying to figure out, in fact, wake 5 erosion down at Tybee. 6 I haven't gotten their report yet, and 7 we'll probably have some more work following 8 that too until October. 9 Dredge material use evaluation, that's 10 looking at placement of materials near shore 11 beneficially, that type of thing. Again, the 12 Wilmington District will help us with that. 13 Cost estimating, that will just fall in, that's 14 budget more than anything else, helping us 15 figure what the cost might be. Bill, what's 16 the environmental support task detail on that, 17 129? 18 MR. BAILEY: That was part of the 19 engineering design work for mitigation actions. 20 MR. GARRETT: GPA growth sediment quality 21 evaluation needs to go to HTRW. The 22 enviromental support task broke down into 23 growth sediment quality evaluation and 24 hazardous toxic remedial waste evaluation. 25 It's just quality of materials. It's called 41 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 HTRW -- Army acronym. 3 Let's see, real estate, probably not a lot 4 of real estate to be gathered on this project, 5 a couple of bend wideners, but I don't think 6 they're up in the areas where we need to worry 7 about that. 8 Economic analysis, Judy, I trust you got 9 that fax I sent you last week, the 7,000 pages 10 of it? 11 MS. JENNINGS: I did. 12 MR. GARRETT: We have phase one of the 13 economic analysis in, which was the World Trade 14 Water Board Forecast, and the U.S. Trade and 15 Water Board Forecast, the South Atlantic 16 Regional Water Board Trade Forecast and the 17 Savannah Harbor Water Board Trade Forecast. 18 That was the phase one. Phase two, which 19 we have received from GEC is the world fleet 20 existing, the world fleet prospective, Savannah 21 Harbor fleet existing, and the Savannah Harbor 22 fleet prospective. There are three more pieces 23 being reproduced right now to finish up phase 24 two, which is the world fleet projections, 25 which will be the long-term outlook, and the 42 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 savannah Harbor fleet without the project, and 3 the Savannah Harbor fleet projections with the 4 project. 5 And hopefully, we'll get that in within 6 the next week, after they have reproduced the 7 copies to submit to the Corps. They will be 8 sent to Mobile and Ken Classman, who is out 9 Mobile contact. He will actually be serving as 10 the contract officer representative to see they 11 have fulfilled the contract requirements and 12 also review it for completeness. 13 The only other thing outstanding on the 14 economics is going to take till December to 15 finish, and that is the multi-port regional 16 port analysis in development of the model, 17 which will be used to determine the benefits of 18 the project. So they're underway too, in fact 19 12 -- 6% complete on those two tasks leading to 20 development of the model. That's where we are 21 on economics. 22 GEC is turning out some information for 23 us, no doubt about it. And Judy, as soon as we 24 get those other reports, and they're internally 25 reviewed, and we're able to release them; 43 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 the Economics Working Group will probably want 3 to take a look at all 11 of those documents. 4 MS. JENNINGS: I'll pull us together and 5 encourage people to get you comments 6 beforehand. The stuff that's about towards the 7 end of the year, the multi-port and regional 8 analysis? 9 MR. GARRETT: Right. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 11 MR. GARRETT: Coastal resources is next. 12 Judy Wood assured me everything is going along 13 fine there, in the five seconds I've seen her 14 in the last two weeks. I don't have any more 15 detail. In fact, Judy says everything is on 16 track with cultural resources. We're looking 17 at CSS Georgia. Bill, do you have any other 18 details on that? 19 MR. BAILEY: She had a report that she 20 sent out for review to the SHPO and some other 21 people, the State Historic Preservation 22 Officer, so we have an internal and external 23 review going on with that -- I think mostly 24 external. 25 MR. DYSART: Chris. 44 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 MR. SCHUBERTH: Bill, when these reports 3 like Judy prepared go out, they're privileged, 4 that is to say they don't go anywhere else 5 until they come back with the commentary, and 6 those comments get integrated into the report. 7 And then what happens to that particular 8 report? Let's say I might be interested in the 9 CSS Georgia, and read as much about that -- 10 MR. BAILEY: I think then we have them 11 posting them -- give them to Larry to post on 12 the website. 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: So basically it's the same 14 kind of question that had to do with, you know, 15 sand transfer, beach erosion, all that. So all 16 these reports, I mean, the focus is now 17 shifting from what it had been to reports being 18 developed in a kind of flurry, you know, term 19 papers all coming in at the same time. 20 And I don't want to see them lost 21 somewhere. But they will ultimately -- Larry 22 will ultimately get them. So if we cruise 23 through the -- surf through the web link we can 24 find these things there. 25 MR. DYSART: Hope. 45 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 MS. MOORER: Usually, Chris, on the 3 website there's a new section, newly posted 4 items. That should give you the latest things 5 that have been posted too. 6 MR. SCHUBERTH: How long does that new 7 flag stay on the document? 8 MR. KEEGAN: Chris, I've been leaving 9 things on there. You may not have been at the 10 interim meeting, but we talked about that two 11 meetings ago, I think. 12 The suggestion was that I just leave 13 things that were posted from one SEG meeting to 14 the next, so that's what I started doing. 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: Okay. That makes sense. 16 MR. GARRETT: The last item on the 17 schedule are the preparation of the plan and 18 review of the general reevaluation study. 19 Different reviews will actually be on their way 20 to headquarters and agency review and out to 21 final approval. You can see the date back in 22 September of '08, final agency level review, 23 coordination, and decision. 24 And we were asked by our Colonel to try to 25 better the schedule, and Mobile is trying to 46 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 help us. Roger, at this point would you like 3 to say how you're going to help us -- good 4 segue. 5 MR. BURKE: Okay. I saw I was on the 6 agenda for later -- later in the session. 7 That's all right. We can jump to it now. I 8 appreciate the opportunity to meet with the 9 Stakeholders Evaluation Group. 10 I was discussing, with Morgan Rees before 11 the meeting, that the Corps has undergone a 12 number of changes over the years, and this is 13 just the most recent of them to first designate 14 centers of planning expertise for various 15 subject matter areas. 16 Mobile, together with the South Atlantic 17 Division Office has been designated as the 18 planning center of expertise for deep draft 19 navigation. So that gives us a role in large, 20 complex, controversial studies such as the 21 Savannah Harbor study. 22 I'm not saying it meets all those 23 criteria, but certainly some of them. In that 24 capacity, we'll be involved in the technical 25 review, which as we speak there's a new 47 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 regulation being developed. It's been out in 3 draft form for a couple of months now. That 4 creates the terminology that we're now using, 5 internal peer review and external peer review. 6 The deep draft navigation center will help 7 facilitate that where it is needed. We don't 8 plan to make radical changes, where you have 9 already got some process established that is 10 compliant with the regulation. 11 That's good. And things that are yet to 12 be reviewed, we'll make some recommendations 13 and work with the PTD and stakeholder group to 14 try to get that done as efficiently as 15 possible. Another role that we have, though, 16 because within the South Atlantic Division 17 certain functions amongst our districts are 18 being combined, the planning function for 19 Mobile and Savannah are being combined with the 20 responsibility being moved to Mobile. 21 The engineering function for Savannah 22 is being combined with Wilmington, and the 23 planning and engineering functions for our 24 Charleston District are being combined into 25 Wilmington. So several kinds of change are 48 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 underway. 3 So with regard to the combination of 4 planning in Savannah and Mobile, of course 5 that's further reaching than just the one study 6 on the Savannah Harbor. It affects all the 7 studies that Savannah's District has underway. 8 Again, let me state as Mobile becomes 9 involved, to some degree in the Savannah Harbor 10 deepening or expansion project, our goal is to 11 provide some fresh eyes looking at your 12 schedule, what's been done, and try to identify 13 some things that maybe can be started earlier, 14 in order to save time on the back end of the 15 study, things maybe that the schedule could be 16 shortened for their performance, such as report 17 preparation. 18 I see quite a bit of time devoted at the 19 end. I understand there was good reason for 20 that, but we'll ask some questions and see what 21 -- see if there's opportunities to shorten 22 things up there. Some things maybe as Alan 23 mentioned take a risk on starting some of these 24 model runs now, prior to the review, there's a 25 risk there. You may find that if the review 49 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 finds a problem, then you may have some done 3 model runs that will have to redo. 4 But on the other hand, if the review 5 confirms that the models are valid and are good 6 for use, then you have saved that much time. 7 Obviously, there are some risks involved, but I 8 see that as our job, to identify some 9 opportunities together with the PDT and the 10 sponsor, Georgia Ports Authority, decide what's 11 the smart thing to do. 12 Hopefully, through both the deep draft 13 center and the combination of Mobile and 14 Savannah's planning, we'll had some value to 15 the process, and we're easing into it I'd say. 16 It's a gradual transition, we don't want 17 -- we're not going to come on like 18 gangbusters. We recognize an awful lot of good 19 work has been done, and we want to help make it 20 an excellent product, when we get done, that 21 can be approved all the way up the line. 22 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Questions 23 concerning that information? Alan. 24 MR. GARRETT: I'd like to say one thing. 25 Larry has provided this colorized chart, folder 50 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 chart, which is very helpful. You can stick it 3 on the wall and see the logic, how things are 4 flowing, what's tied to what. That's just 5 something that goes along the schedule -- 6 pencil in dates if you would like. It's very 7 helpful, Larry. 8 MR. KEEGAN: I need to put out a caveat. 9 There is no formal time scale along the bottom 10 of this chart. So please, please don't start 11 to ask why these things all start at the same 12 time here, but they're at different times here. 13 It's not a time scale. It's just a 14 general flow chart. The time scale is in 15 general from now on the left to future on the 16 right, but not specific months, please. 17 MR. GARRETT: I'm glad you told me that. 18 MR. DYSART: Not to scale, okay. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: Are the colors indicative 20 of anything specific? 21 MR. KEEGAN: The colors have no 22 significance, other than to try to help you 23 keep things in a particular category, like the 24 engineering appendix is light yellow, and 25 you'll see things that contribute to it are 51 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - ALAN GARRETT 2 light yellow. 3 That's the only significance of the 4 colors. It made sense to me and it doesn't 5 necessarily have to make sense to anyone else 6 since I drew it. 7 MR. DYSART: Will, does it make sense to 8 you? 9 MR. BERSON: It does, but I strive to ask 10 one stupid question at every meeting, and this 11 is it; what is DMMT? 12 MR. KEEGAN: Dredge material management 13 plan. 14 MR. BERSON: Thank you. I've achieved 15 wisdom. 16 MR. DYSART: You don't have to leave now, 17 do you? 18 MR. BERSON: No. 19 MR. GARRETT: One other thing, Bill, the 20 results alternative, where we are now, skipped 21 over the other model and schedule. You want to 22 do that? 23 MR. BAILEY: It's up to him. 24 MR. BAILEY: You want to do the 25 committees? 52 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 MR. DYSART: Why don't if everybody is 3 okay kind of continue with these presentations 4 on into the others. We'll do the committees 5 last. 6 MR. BAILEY: This may well take a while. 7 MR. DYSART: It's going to take enough of 8 a while this would be a good time for a five 9 minute break. 10 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 11 MR. DYSART: Let's take a five minute 12 break and get on back to it. 13 (Short Break) 14 MR. BAILEY: What we're going to talk 15 about is formulation of alternatives. A 16 couple times we've said, you know, there are 17 other things going on in the study and this is 18 one of those things that has been going on. 19 We've been working on this for a couple of 20 years, and where we are in it is we have 21 produced something. We have gotten the 22 cooperating agencies, you know, they have 23 contributed to it. They agree with it. We 24 have now presented it to our folks in Atlanta 25 and Washington and they agree with it. 53 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 So now we can tell you what it is and some 3 of what we've been working on. The hand-outs 4 that I've given you, the first page has six 5 circles on it, and it's basically the six steps 6 of planning. 7 There is a process. With any government 8 thing there's a process. It's written down, I 9 think, in '83. Morgan may have worked it up. 10 I don't know. There was principles -- 11 MR. REES: It preexists me, it's been 12 around that long. 13 MR. BAILEY: Principles and guidelines 14 kind of said here's how the Corps of Engineers 15 and Bureau of Reclamation anyway, those two 16 agencies are supposed to evaluate water 17 resource projects. There are certain steps 18 that you have to follow, steps to consider, when 19 evaluating a project. 20 What I'm going to go over is kind of the 21 first three steps here. What we did is here we 22 went back and looked at problems and 23 opportunities, and then y'all helped us. This 24 group helped with an inventory forecast. You 25 said what studies needed to be conducted, 54 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 that's a part of this process, and formulate 3 alternative plans, use that information to 4 develop your plans that you're then going to 5 evaluate the impacts on. 6 The importance is if you don't identify a 7 plan, you know, of all the ways to solve a 8 problem, if you don't pick the one -- there may 9 be 100 potential ways to solve a problem, and 10 there's one best way. 11 If you don't identify that one among the 12 20 that you look at, as you screen down from 13 100 down to 1, if you don't identify that one 14 up in the beginning, it will never come out at 15 the end. You'll never recognize that was the 16 best one. 17 So developing alternatives is important. 18 It's important because that's the only way 19 you're going to get the best solution at the 20 end. You can do all the evaluation correctly, 21 the tradeoffs afterwards comparing, you do all 22 that right, but if you didn't look at the right 23 plan, the theoretically best plan, then when 24 you get to the end you won't have come up with 25 your best solution. 55 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 So looking at the first three steps, what 3 we did was we identified goals for the project, 4 the federal water resource objective, and I 5 will read that to you. What we've done is 6 we've produced a report that I'm describing 7 here today. 8 This report is what we sent up to 9 Washington and got approval for -- approval of. 10 We've taken and prepared an executive summary 11 of this document, and taken like a 100 page 12 document, and I think it came to like a 20 page 13 executive summary -- tried to make it 10 but 14 it didn't just quite work. 15 We have a 20 page executive summary that 16 we'll be sending out for public comment. I 17 think it goes out this Friday. So public 18 notice that's going out and Cathy's going to 19 give me the mailing, e-mail address of the 20 people who regularly attend SEG meetings, I'll 21 send out that public notice to all you folks, 22 just in case. 23 I'm sure somebody is not on our regulatory 24 mailing list, so we're going to send that out 25 and ask for public comment on this document, 56 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 and what I describe here is what's in the 3 document. 4 MR. SCHUBERTH: Bill, will that document 5 also be posted on the web? 6 MR. BAILEY: Yes, yes. So back to the 7 federal water resource objectives, it's a 8 pretty governmentalese document. 9 The objective of water and related land 10 resource planning is to contribute to national 11 economic development, consistent with 12 protecting the nation's environment, pursuant 13 to national environmental statutes, applicable 14 executive orders, and other federal planning 15 requirements; basically, from the federal 16 perspective, contribute to national economic 17 development, dollars, but consistent with 18 protecting the environment. So that's the 19 overall federal objective for any water 20 resource project. 21 With this project we also then went to 22 the cooperating agencies and said, what is your 23 view of a successful project? When we get to 24 the end of this expansion thing, what would 25 success look like? 57 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 So they describe that, and we combined 3 them, and that's -- that's this sheet on vision 4 of cooperating agencies. And that was passed 5 out at the NEPA scoping meeting we had a couple 6 of years ago. So we've been doing this, going 7 through this process for a while. So that 8 sheet was a part of the hand-outs at that NEPA 9 scoping meeting. 10 Okay. The next step is the identifying 11 problems and opportunities, basically so that 12 you solve the actual problem that someone says 13 they're having, so that you don't go in with a 14 preconceived idea of the end result, going back 15 to -- you know, it's like when you go to a 16 doctor and say I don't feel well. Someone from 17 the harbor says -- goes to the federal 18 government and says, I want you to make my 19 harbor better. The doctor is going to say 20 well, what is your problem. Tell me 21 specifically what's going on. So that's where 22 we went here. What is the problem that we're 23 trying to solve. 24 And then the opportunities are just ways 25 that well, if we're doing something in here is 58 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 there a way we can help something else out, 3 make something else better, if we're already 4 doing some construction work. 5 And the sheet that you've got on the 6 hand-outs lists the problems and the 7 opportunities that we came up with. So this is 8 a page out of this report. So on the 9 opportunities, the first one is beneficial 10 placement of new work sediments, Tybee Island 11 and other locations. We've been thinking about 12 Tybee Island for a while. 13 That was an opportunity. If we're 14 deepening the harbor, where do you -- you have 15 material and you have got to put it somewhere. 16 But the problems focus -- are supposed to focus 17 your efforts. 18 At the bottom of that page under planned 19 formulation, those are kind of -- those are 20 kind of ways to address the problems. 21 Objectives, some of the planning objectives are 22 decreasing costs from tidal delays, decreasing 23 costs from light loads. 24 The next step we have is this inventory 25 forecasting; what's out there that we need more 59 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 information on as we start through this 3 planning process. Y'all came up with a lot of 4 things to look at, spent a bunch of money 5 looking, went out and cut down and weighed and 6 measured all kinds of marsh grass to see what 7 was there different times of the year, counted 8 fishes, drilled holes in the ground to see what 9 kind of ground it was, and doing that several 10 times up on land, in the channel, lots of 11 things to be inventoried, going out and 12 counting the number of ships that come in every 13 year, and which ones -- which specific ship 14 came in when and what time of day it came in to 15 know how much water it had underneath the keel, 16 lots of data has been inventoried. 17 And that's still going on. Those reports 18 will be coming in. They're starting to come in 19 a little bit faster. Forecasts are then being 20 made. From that, economic things are being 21 forecasted, the future fleet without the 22 project and with project. Then we get into 23 formulating alternative plans. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Okay now or would you 25 rather us wait -- so you're actually measuring 60 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 the light load characteristics of the ships 3 that call now. 4 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 5 MS. JENNINGS: Very cool. 6 MR. BAILEY: GPA had something, I think 7 you said some percentage of the number of 8 ships that currently call that don't call at 9 their maximum draft. 10 MS. MOORER: Did just a look-see of 11 vessels that were constrained, just on the 12 maximum draft of the vessels that call here 13 now, and during the feasibility study the 14 constrained vessels that couldn't call at all 15 times with a full load was about 52%, during 16 the reconnaissance level study. 17 And we did it just like a year ago of the 18 all the vessels that called in 2004. I think 19 that number was up to 68% of the vessels that 20 called at the Garden City terminal were 21 considered constrained. 22 MR. DYSART: Chris. 23 MR. SCHUBERTH: So when a vessel is 24 constrained, 68%, that's a fairly high 25 percentage value. That means that vessel 61 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 bypasses Savannah or it waits? 3 MS. MOORER: No. It has to wait on a tide 4 or doesn't load to its max capacity. 5 MR. SCHUBERTH: But ultimately, the ships 6 in that 68 percentile group will load or 7 offload or take on, I mean that is they will 8 dock? 9 MS. MOORER: Yes. They did call on the 10 port, but they were light loaded, either if 11 they're over 38 feet essentially, because 38 12 feet is the -- with a four foot underkeel 13 clearance at any time, 42 feet, that's the kind 14 of cut-off point. 15 MS. JENNINGS: I don't want to get too 16 deep on this, but just for the record I will 17 say, I have never understood the way we apply 18 those light loaded figures, because unless a 19 boat just left Asia, chances are it is light 20 loaded. I don't care where it is going. So 21 just for the record -- 22 MS. MOORER: I'm not saying any of that 23 would have been used for the study whatsoever. 24 It was just something we did at the desktop for 25 our own purposes of knowing what our percentage 62 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 of vessels were that either were tidily 3 constrained or couldn't load to their max draft 4 and call anytime. That was just for our 5 knowledge, our purpose, and Bill asked me to 6 say it is not being used whatsoever. 7 MS. JENNINGS: So what is being used for 8 the study are actual -- a full inventory of the 9 existing fleet, and what's loaded and what's 10 not? 11 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 12 MS. JENNINGS: My specific point here, 13 just for the record, it's that cause and effect 14 thing. I mean, I can't be positive that the 15 depth of the harbor is the cause of the light 16 loading. It very well could be the harbor 17 called last, or whatever. So -- 18 MR. BAILEY: Okay. 19 MR. DYSART: Noted. 20 MR. BAILEY: The formulation process, we 21 identified the problems and the opportunities, 22 and then basically with the problems you go 23 back to all right now, how can I solve this? 24 What are possible ways of doing this? 25 And we did brainstorm, you know, threw out 63 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 an idea. It may be good, it may not be good, 3 just get it out there. So we developed a long 4 list and the list is in the report. You can 5 see the things that are there to identify the 6 specific problems. 7 Some of the potential solutions overlap. 8 One thing may apply -- may have solved two 9 different problems. Then we started that 10 screening process, all these ideas, try to 11 narrow them down. 12 This whole rest of the study then is a 13 narrowing of those things down. Evaluating the 14 effects and comparing the plans is the way to 15 narrow them down. Management measures are 16 actions that you can take, ways you can solve 17 the problem. 18 So, with the problems of -- the first 19 problem that we had listed was existing 20 shippers having increased or inflated operating 21 costs, due to light loading and tidal delays. 22 One thing you can do is reduce tidal delays, 23 not necessarily rocket science, it is a process 24 that helps go through and think through things. 25 You can improve tidal delays, you can 64 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 improve maneuverability of vessels, you can 3 reduce underkeel clearance requirements. 4 Those are all ways to solve the problems. 5 Then we looked at -- tried to get more 6 specific. All right. For reducing tidal 7 delays, how do you that? So we came up with -- 8 we grouped them non-structural and structural. 9 So it came up with a number of options that we 10 considered. You know, reducing tidal delays, 11 just tell them to get here on high tide, have 12 their timing be better. 13 In theory, that would work. It's not real 14 practical. It costs money wherever the guy is. 15 He waits out somewhere else or waits here, it 16 still costs him money. 17 So we looked at each of these, reducing 18 tidal delays, non-structural, and we had some 19 structural ways, alternate terminal locations, 20 straight in the channel, passing areas, improve 21 land site infrastructure, different ways of 22 getting a ship. 23 It may be a ship increasing efficiency 24 moving through the channel so he has a shorter 25 transit time or a faster turnaround time at the 65 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 dock, any of those things that get the ship in 3 and out faster. 4 Maneuverability of vessels, again, looked 5 at non-structural and structural. So we looked 6 at these different items. 7 MR. SCHUBERTH: Bill, can you go back a 8 minute. What do you mean by real time 9 environmental data? 10 MR. BAILEY: Okay. So that the -- giving 11 people a better understanding of what's going 12 on at the moment with this channel depth, with 13 the wind speed. 14 MR. SCHUBERTH: I see. 15 MR. BAILEY: Something like that. 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: Thank you. 17 MR. BAILEY: The thought was that, you 18 know, you may be able to -- if you have a 19 standard way of doing things, maybe you could 20 vary from your standard or change your standard 21 if you had better information. Your standard 22 covers a wide range of conditions. That's what 23 that's trying to do. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Vessel design modification, 25 what did you mean by that? 66 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Vessel design modification. 4 MR. BAILEY: That was one of the ideas if 5 a ship is having trouble maneuvering, maybe you 6 put bow thrusters on them. Some ships have bow 7 thrusters, some ships don't. 8 These are some of the ideas that we 9 considered. Light loading, these kind of 10 non-structural ideas, and now you start to 11 see some of these ideas repeat. They come up 12 again. Light loading and the need to light 13 load, reducing that and the tidal delays had 14 pretty similar lists. 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: Bill, before you go on 16 that third one intrigues me, offshore 17 trans-shipment facility. 18 MR. BAILEY: We're going to talk a little 19 more about that. 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: Okay. 21 MR. BAILEY: Okay. So after having the 22 big list of all those ideas, and then the next 23 step was this other list that we've gone 24 through. Then we did a screen of those and 25 said which ones of those could we -- do we 67 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 think we could implement? 3 The vessel design modifications was one of 4 the things that fell out. We're probably not 5 going to be able to require every ship that 6 comes in to have a bow thruster, have a certain 7 number of bow thrusters. 8 That's something we weren't going to be 9 able to require so that idea dropped out. We 10 developed a list of ideas that we thought were 11 still potentially viable that we would want to 12 look at in more detail. 13 This is the list that we have, these six 14 items. I'll go through each of those. The 15 underkeel clearance requirements was pretty 16 much as giving the pilot's association better 17 information. That was how we thought we could 18 do that. Modifying Garden City terminal, what 19 that meant to us was increasing the efficiency 20 or specialization of that facility. 21 Alternate terminal locations, we looked at 22 four of them in Georgia. We looked at, 23 basically, four of them in South Carolina. 24 And this was to address an issue that came up 25 at the end of Tier I, you know, do need to 68 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 deepen all the way to the Garden City terminal? 3 Can you deepen only halfway or something? 4 So this is address that part of that 5 concern. It may be a way to solve the 6 navigation problems. Regional port, we're kind 7 of handling that separately in the economics, 8 so we didn't really do much more with it in 9 this formulation. 10 What that is, I believe, get this right, 11 one port that handles the cargo for a number of 12 other ones -- it would go to this one port 13 first, rather than deepening four or five, you 14 deepen to one. I think that idea has come up 15 from a number of places before. 16 Should the federal government be deepening 17 every harbor? The next one offshore, 18 trans-shipment facility, and that's -- what 19 that is is building, basically, a platform 20 offshore so that the ships requiring deeper 21 water would only go that far, and then they 22 would load on to something else that required 23 less water. Then those shallower vessels would 24 come in into the harbor. 25 Then we looked at deepening what we got. 69 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 We also looked at making improvements to what 3 we have, besides deepening. What other than 4 deepening, are there things we could do to 5 address those navigation problems that are 6 identified? Is there ways we could solve those 7 problems without deepening? 8 So first one, we went to the pilot's 9 association and they basically said they didn't 10 think there was anything we could do that would 11 help them and allow them to change their rules. 12 There was no other information we could give 13 them, nothing we could do that would allow that 14 change. 15 So that was the end of that, looking at 16 that option. For the next one, modifying 17 Garden City terminal, GPA's is already doing a 18 lot, has already specialized that operation. 19 They have upgrades planned, and the report 20 talks about specific upgrades, and the timing 21 of them, and how much capacity they would 22 provide. 23 And our conclusion was that accelerating 24 that timing wouldn't likely be cost-effective. 25 What they have already got planned is enough to 70 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 handle the cargo that's projected across that 3 terminal, so there wasn't anything else that we 4 could do to make that better. 5 For alternate terminal locations, we did a 6 lot of work, and we looked at several sites, 7 and you got a map. That shows where those 8 sites are. In some of these, the letter is not 9 on the exact right spot. The one most 10 oceanward, H there, that was pointed out to me 11 this morning, the H is not exactly on the 12 refuge property. It would have to be more 13 eastward for that, but they show the general -- 14 they're pretty close. 15 So we looked at a number of locations up 16 and down the harbor, each of them being more 17 oceanward than Garden City terminal. So we 18 looked at the cost to develop a terminal. 19 And what we did was come up with a design 20 for a terminal, and essentially took the cost 21 to construct that terminal, and put that design 22 at different spots, said all right, if I have 23 this type of a terminal, what would it cost 24 over in this spot, what would it cost over in 25 this location? 71 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 And then we looked at mitigation costs for 3 that, not only the site development costs, 4 mitigation costs, other factors, safety and 5 traffic, and then we did a screening or 6 comparison on some federal planning criteria. 7 That, again, was established 20 years ago. 8 We found that there would be some traffic 9 problems with sites located in Georgia 10 oceanward of the city. If you have a big 11 terminal -- you have a terminal out on Elba 12 Island, or out that way, either all those 13 trucks have to come through the city, or all 14 the boxes get put on trains which then go 15 through the city, which right now would have to 16 be at crossings, which then stops traffic for a 17 while, or you've got to build overpasses 18 through the city, or tunnels or something, and 19 there are traffic problems with sites located 20 down there. 21 Some of the sites we looked at were too 22 small. That standard design we said we would 23 require a certain number of acres, and the 24 acreage may not have matched up quite right. 25 Some of the sites have no infrastructure to 72 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 them now. We would have to build roads to 3 them, get power to them, water and sewer to 4 them, those things. 5 The cost of that site development gets 6 added in. That infrastructure cost was 7 sometimes high. One site, that H out at the 8 Tybee refuge, that had a bridge cost going over 9 the intercoastal that the other ones didn't 10 have. It had one more factor, one more thing 11 to deal with, so we put in the cost for a 12 bridge. 13 For those sites that could be located on 14 an existing Corps sediment disposal area, we 15 said we would have to replace that, the lost 16 storage capacity as part of the alternative. 17 For the offshore trans-shipment, we looked 18 into that and found that that's still pretty 19 much at the conceptual phase, conceptual stage. 20 There were problems -- the problems we 21 identified with that, the cranes -- cranes have 22 to have -- cranes can't work when the wind 23 speed gets to a certain -- 24 MR. GARRETT: Velocity. 25 MR. BAILEY: When the wind is blowing 73 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 cranes can't work. Out in the ocean, the open 3 ocean, that got to be a pretty high percentage. 4 So it would end up being that facility would 5 have to shut down or effectively shut down a 6 fairly high percentage of time. So that got 7 included in consideration. 8 What we looked at was something the 9 military is considering, you know, when they go 10 to other countries, they will build things like 11 this to offload their equipment because they 12 can't get all of their ships into a harbor. 13 They have to offload them on to something else. 14 When you start talking about your large 15 scale effort, you may have to build like a 200 16 acre platform, and that ends up being a pretty 17 big platform, floating platform. You get into 18 some big problems when you try to do that on 19 the scale equal to building a terminal. 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: Oil companies do something 21 like this when they're in trans-shipment where 22 they produce offshore, and then they bring it 23 to a staging area before they bring it on. 24 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 25 MR. SCHUBERTH: How have offshore were you 74 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 thinking when you said high winds and all that, 3 storm-induced waves so forth; what was your 4 idea, five miles offshore, I mean 10 miles 5 offshore, two miles -- 6 MR. BAILEY: I think it was we wanted it 7 out so we wouldn't have to deepen to it. So 8 you're out there, I think the existing bar 9 channel is out there 10 miles already, so 10 you're out there 15 or 20 miles. 11 MR. SCHUBERTH: So really exposed. 12 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. We then rated or 13 ranked each site, and kind of grouped them 14 together, so some of them we judged to have low 15 potential for different reasons. The reasons 16 are described in the report. Other ones had a 17 medium potential, disposal areas, a couple of 18 disposal areas -- I guess these are all over on 19 the South Carolina side. And then the Garden 20 City terminal was the one with the high 21 potential. 22 It ended up, let's see, ended up the 23 Garden City terminal was the only one we had 24 with a high potential, those three that had 25 the next level down. 75 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 Then with the cooperating agencies, one of 3 the things they wanted was well, what happens, 4 what if questions. What if -- do some 5 sensitivity analysis. What if your mitigation 6 costs are higher than what you used? Does that 7 affect your decision? 8 So we ran through the numbers again using 9 mitigation costs five times what they were. 10 That didn't affect the ranking. We then also 11 looked at what if you haul material out in the 12 ocean rather than replacing that sediment 13 storage capacity. So we looked at that, and 14 again, that also didn't affect the decision. 15 So our conclusion, the deepening to Garden 16 City would have a lower total cost than 17 deepening to and developing a terminal at any 18 other location. So then we went to -- the last 19 item we looked at was making improvements, 20 other improvements to the existing channel. 21 MR. SCHALLER: Bill, excuse me. Will had 22 a question. 23 MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry. 24 MR. BERSON: Going back one to the amount, 25 does that mean you included the cost that would 76 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 be required to physically build the terminal? 3 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 4 MR. BERSON: Okay. But as seems likely, 5 there may be somebody else who is going to 6 build a terminal there. That would be a 7 private venture, is that anywhere sort of 8 figured into this? 9 MR. BAILEY: It is, yes. Short answer is 10 yes. Problem is always the details. In the 11 part of our process of inventorying, 12 forecasting, part of our process of planning is 13 what do we really expect to happen. It's all a 14 level of certainty for -- for endangered 15 species, for endangered fish, do we expect if 16 in five years that species is it going to be 17 extinct and there will be no more of them 18 around, then we probably wouldn't worry about 19 them. 20 If they're going to be fully recovered in 21 five years, then you may not worry about them 22 anymore. You get into a level of certainty, 23 I'm not sure what's going to happen in five 24 years, or in 15 years. 25 For the development of those -- the 77 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 development of another terminal somewhere, 3 people have been talking in South Carolina 4 about developing that for a number of years. 5 At this point, we've said that that is 6 speculative. 7 We can't say, with any degree of 8 certainty, what someone would build when. We 9 have to, in this process, we have to say what 10 would happen, what we expect to happen at a 11 given year. 12 Right now with that issue we can't say. 13 we can't make a projection with any degree of 14 certainty. 15 MR. BERSON: Yes, but in terms of a 16 sensitivity analysis, you could, you know, 17 remove the very largest chunk of this 18 expenditure which would be develop, you know, I 19 mean, if you took the private -- privately 20 funded portion out of it, you could still 21 compare the relative costs of going to Garden 22 City or using that terminal, couldn't you? 23 I mean, that would seem to me to be a 24 sensitivity analysis question. 25 MR. BAILEY: Yeah, you could do that. One 78 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 of the things we are doing in the economic 3 analysis is we are doing a sensitivity test to 4 say if we expect so many TEUs to be coming into 5 the Savannah Harbor in the year 2020, and our 6 basic analysis shows those -- has those going 7 up to Garden City terminal. 8 What if a certain number don't do that? A 9 certain number goes to a different terminal. 10 We are going to be doing those, that 11 sensitivity analysis, in the economics. That 12 will have it, basically, at the end when they 13 get done. 14 MR. BERSON: I would be the first person 15 to say that I have no clue what's being 16 projected for the other side of the river, 17 depending on what article you read on what day, 18 your perception of it may change, but I do 19 think that you're not -- by saying you can't be 20 sure what might happen over there, and 21 therefore you're not going to bring that over 22 into the comparison of costs, I think, is 23 fudging the question of what is the actual 24 cost? 25 After all, y'all are supposed to be 79 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 looking at the cost of moving goods and 3 services, not necessarily the cost of moving 4 goods and services through Georgia as opposed 5 to South Carolina. 6 MR. BAILEY: And I think the best way to 7 really address is to include all the costs. To 8 say, well, I'm going to take one set of costs 9 and leave them off the table, and now I'm going 10 to compare, we don't want to get in that spot 11 either. 12 MR. BERSON: Well, okay. I think you're 13 missing -- I think you're missing an important 14 -- no one has suggested that that port would be 15 built with public money, at least so far. To 16 say you don't know what's going to happen, 17 therefore you're not going to look at, I think, 18 is missing an important element in the overall 19 federal investment in this estuary. 20 MR. BAILEY: I guess what I'm saying, we 21 are looking at it. Part of our requirement is 22 to be able to say when things would happen. 23 If something's going to happen, we have to make 24 a projection of when that would happen. 25 MR. DYSART: Cards up, Judy, David, and 80 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 Hope -- Judy. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, I'm sorry my eyes 4 weren't fast enough to catch it, when you did 5 like your medium possibilities, remember that 6 list? There were some disposal sites. Was 7 that the Jasper site or not? 8 MR. BAILEY: One of them was, yes. 9 MS. JENNINGS: So they weren't then just 10 dropped down. You said they have some 11 potential? 12 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 13 MR. DYSART: Is that it? 14 MS. JENNINGS: Well, did you include all 15 the costs that it would require to make that 16 an operating port, all the land sites, all the 17 transportation, all the roads, rail, 18 everything? 19 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 20 MS. JENNINGS: I'm not exactly sure why 21 you eliminated that, was it a number-type 22 thing, was it a cost? 23 MR. BAILEY: Let's see. It ended up 24 because we tried to -- it ended up being a 25 cost, and there were other -- this report does 81 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 -- I think the non-cost items got figured in 3 when we grouped them into low, medium, and 4 high. 5 That's where the non-cost items mostly got 6 included. Then it was a comparison of costs 7 after that. 8 MS. JENNINGS: Did that cost include 9 replacement of the dredge spoil disposal areas? 10 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 11 MR. DYSART: David. 12 MR. SCHALLER: The Corps doesn't make a 13 value judgment, with regard to whose money is 14 spent to make an improvement -- 15 MR. BAILEY: Right. 16 MR. SCHALLER: -- is that correct? 17 MR. BAILEY: Correct. 18 MR. SCHALLER: It doesn't matter if Will 19 pays for it, I pay for it, the federal 20 government pays for it, the question of what 21 the cost is. 22 The objective here is to determine if 23 there is a viable alternative to a deepening, 24 isn't that the question being addressed? 25 MR. BAILEY: In this case the deepening 82 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 all the way up to Garden City. 3 MR. SCHALLER: Right. 4 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 5 MR. SCHALLER: The question becomes one of 6 is this a viable alternative to deepening. Is 7 the prospect of a port in South Carolina today 8 a viable alternative to deepening; is that the 9 question you're trying to answer -- 10 MR. BAILEY: It would be -- 11 MR. SCHALLER: -- and it's not. 12 MR. BAILEY: -- a lower total cost to 13 deepen there than to deepen up to Garden City, 14 figuring in the dollars to dredge it, and the 15 environmental costs, no matter who pays it. 16 MR. DYSART: Hope, did you have a further 17 comment on that? 18 MS. MOORER: That answered the question or 19 the statement. 20 MR. BERSON: I accept what you are saying 21 and from, I understand, the framework that it's 22 within, but nonetheless, you're in the position 23 of saying that something that, you know, I 24 would say is probably 50/50 chance right now, 25 just by reading the newspapers, is something 83 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 that is not viable. 3 I actually think that SSA and Jasper and 4 maybe even South Carolina Ports Authority think 5 it's far more than, you know, a long shot to 6 them, given the amount of discussion that's 7 going on. Somebody thinks this is -- so what 8 I'm saying is, it would be -- how is it that we 9 don't find ourselves in a situation where a 10 facility that this alternative plan deems 11 unviable actually gets built. 12 I mean, there's a fair chance that that 13 could happen. Whoever pays for it, the 14 question of what the federal government spends 15 on deepening a harbor channel is very relevant 16 to this, because we're asking how could that 17 cargo move across docks. 18 If that facility exists, then I think -- 19 am I being clear? What I'm saying is I don't 20 think your alternative plan should declare as 21 invalid something that may very well happen -- 22 I guess as likely as not. 23 MR. DYSART: Hope then David. 24 MS. MOORER: I don't think we said it was 25 invalid. I think that when we were looking at 84 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 comparisons of what's out there now, you're 3 talking federal costs versus private costs, we 4 were looking at total project costs. 5 Right now there's no terminal there. 6 There might be, but we have no idea that there 7 will be in the future. So if you're basing a 8 look see right now today on what's out there, 9 what the costs are, then the costs of that 10 terminal, the infrastructure for that was 11 greater, you know, along with the deepening and 12 the improvement than it was to do the project 13 to Garden City. 14 That's including improving the Garden City 15 terminal to be able to handle the amount of 16 cargo for the project as well. Didn't say it 17 wasn't -- we were looking at this project and 18 what's out there now. Didn't say it wasn't 19 viable, necessarily in the future. You don't 20 know. 21 But what's out there right now when you 22 are looking at it, those costs out there, total 23 project costs, that's what was being analyzed. 24 MR. BAILEY: I think it's not saying it's 25 not viable. It's saying it's not the lowest 85 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 total cost. 3 MR. DYSART: David. 4 MR. SCHALLER: It's not the -- it's not 5 the selected alternative is what it is not to 6 deepening. A port in South Carolina, I think 7 the footnote, what's been said, doesn't rob the 8 deepening project, as proposed, to the Garden 9 City terminal of its need or its justification. 10 In other words, are you looking at it as a 11 substitute? There's a South Carolina port on 12 the Savannah River; and therefore, there's no 13 need for a project all the way to Garden City? 14 Is that the context in which you -- 15 MR. BERSON: No. I was using the Corps' 16 context which is, we have a box. What are the 17 alternatives for moving the box across into the 18 American marketplace. And what kind of costs 19 you choose to consider are very much at issue 20 here, and I appreciate that. 21 I guess what I'm saying is I don't think 22 it's -- I don't think it shows due diligence to 23 say that a South Carolina port is not a viable 24 alternative, when again it seems as likely as 25 not that we'll have one. 86 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 Whether or not it's less costly to the 3 overall -- it seems to me a very abstract 4 question as to whether or not SSA's money, 5 invested in our economy to build that terminal, 6 is somehow measurable against all of the 7 incremental investments that GPA has made in 8 its facility since -- pick whatever time you 9 want. 10 But to say that it's not a valid 11 alternative because overall it would cost more, 12 disregarding whose money it is, I think it's 13 really giving short shrift to the idea it might 14 actually happen. I mean, there is somebody who 15 said they would consider paying the cost. This 16 isn't fantasy land. This is stuff folks have 17 been negotiating. 18 MR. DYSART: Morgan and then Larry . 19 MR. REES: Can I try again, please. 20 MR. BERSON: Sure. 21 MR. REES: As Bill and others have 22 explained, the location where people are 23 talking about a terminal in Jasper County was 24 considered in the formulation process. 25 Some processes were made and so forth, and 87 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 it got screened out because it was not as 3 economically efficient as dredging the channel 4 to Garden City. Okay. It was not as 5 economically efficient. 6 That's what the analysis says. Now, on 7 the possibility that somebody else may build a 8 site there sometime in the future, then that 9 site is looked at again, in the formulation 10 process and the economic analysis, as a 11 sensitivity analysis. 12 First we say okay, let's look at that site 13 as an alternative for deepening to Garden City. 14 When you compare that site, with deepening to 15 Garden City, it comes up as less economically 16 efficient. It makes more sense to deepen to 17 Garden City than it does to create a new site 18 at -- in Jasper County. 19 Now, if somebody else comes in and says, 20 we're going to do it anyway because we can make 21 enough money by doing it, and take some of the 22 trade away from Garden City, and they do that; 23 then what happens to the decision on deepening 24 all the way to Garden City. 25 We look at that, the plan is to look at 88 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 that in the sensitivity analysis under the 3 economic piece of the report. You say okay, 4 what if somebody comes in, whether it's Jasper 5 County or the state or somebody private, and 6 already puts a site -- a terminal there? 7 How does that affect the analysis of the 8 justification of going to Garden City. We 9 don't know what the answer to that is yet. 10 We'll deal with that in the economic analysis. 11 MR. BERSON: I understand everything that 12 you're saying. I'm just saying that to have 13 your alternative plan discount a very live 14 alternative. 15 MR. REES: Because it doesn't. That's the 16 point. We're obviously not getting across 17 what's happening in the analysis. It doesn't 18 discount it at all. It takes it into 19 consideration at two different points in the 20 analysis. 21 MR. BERSON: Okay. I stand corrected. 22 MR. DYSART: Larry, did you have anything 23 you wanted to add. 24 MR. KEEGAN: Morgan's done it. Thank you. 25 MR. DYSART: Continue, please. 89 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 MR. BAILEY: We looked at these five ways 3 to improve the existing channel for the meeting 4 and passing areas. We talked to the pilots, 5 looked at the results of the ship simulation, 6 identified a couple of potential areas and 7 sites include that one site that looked like it 8 had potential and had value near old Ft. 9 Jackson for the bend wideners, looked at our 10 design manuals, again looked at the ship 11 simulation, and they showed the need for some 12 bend wideners to address -- again, addressing 13 some of the problems that we have now and, in 14 this case, will have in the future. 15 As the ships get bigger and longer, they 16 need a wider -- it's basically a wider arced 17 turn. Aids to navigation, we talked to the 18 pilots, and then we confirmed that basically 19 there was nothing that could help them speed 20 their transit through the harbor. 21 They do it mostly by radar now. There's 22 not much that we could -- much else that we 23 could get them. Vessel traffic coordination, 24 again, they said there wasn't much that we 25 could help them with. 90 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 Straightening of the river, they said 3 there wasn't -- wasn't much that would help. 4 So on these kind of smaller scale items, 5 we identified one passing area, some bend 6 wideners that would help address some of the 7 problems. 8 So then we put some of those together. 9 Again, this was -- these are the things we 10 looked at, conclusions we had on these 11 different ways to solve the problem. 12 And it ended up with the detailed plans 13 being a no action and a deepening to Garden 14 City, some bend wideners in there, a meeting 15 area, deepening one of the turning basins, the 16 one basin that now serves the large ships. 17 That would have to be deepened some more and 18 enlarged, and then deepening at least two of 19 the GPA berths. That's all included in the 20 deepening alternative. 21 Maintain existing side slopes was 22 something that is included in the design to 23 reduce costs, and also has less effects on the 24 shoreline and properties on the shore, 25 including the docks we talked about earlier. 91 1 UPDATE BRIEFING - BILL BAILEY 2 It ends up the channel is narrower, but 3 that's one of the trade-offs, which is why it's 4 more helpful to have that passing area 5 somewhere. 6 MR. DYSART: Questions? 7 MR. BAILEY: This thing will be -- we'll 8 be sending this, a summary out for public 9 comment, and in the summary it has a web link 10 where you can download the whole report, if you 11 want the whole report. We'll be asking -- and 12 that will be out for a 30 day comment period. 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: What's the title of the 14 report? 15 MR. BAILEY: Formulation of alternatives. 16 We'll give it to Larry also so he can put it up 17 on that website. 18 MR. SCHUBERTH: That's it, formulation of 19 alternatives? 20 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 21 MR. DYSART: Is there any reason that you 22 would want to post this presentation that you 23 have made today, whether there's any additional 24 information in there, or is that possible? Was 25 there any interest in that, or is that just 92 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 redundant information? 3 MS. MOORER: The joint public notice, are 4 y'all sending that out through the JPN. 5 MR. BAILEY: It's just a public notice. 6 MR. DYSART: Larry. 7 MR. KEEGAN: What I've usually done for 8 presentations was just get a copy of the 9 presentation and post the copy. 10 MR. DYSART: Any objection to that? 11 MR. BAILEY: No, fine. 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Other 13 questions or comments? Okay. Thank you very 14 much. And I'd like to go back and, Alan, I as 15 facilitator appreciated you're going through 16 the Savannah Harbor expansion project update, 17 going through item and item, and it seemed very 18 reasonable providing an opportunity for 19 everybody to be able to have an opportunity to 20 comment or ask questions, in detail, as you 21 went through the whole thing. So thank you 22 very much. 23 Okay. Let's go back and see if we can do 24 committee reports right quick, and then we'll 25 move on. Aquifer Committee. Chris. 93 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 MR. SCHUBERTH: No report. Work's in 3 progress. 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. Lou or Bill Farmer 5 or anybody on Beach Erosion. 6 MR. OFF: Looking forward to getting the 7 ATM report. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. Fred, how about 9 Dredging and Disposal? 10 MR. BEASON: No report, but I see from the 11 schedule we'll be getting some information, 12 later in this year, to give you some. 13 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy just had to 14 leave. I think there's been discussion 15 throughout the afternoon about what's going on 16 in the Economics Working Group, and things that 17 would going be through there. I think she 18 mentioned something about it, so we sort of had 19 a little insight there. Fisheries and Aquatic 20 Resources, Will, anything there? 21 MR. BERSON: No, except just a note. I 22 spoke to Joel Fleming. We may be looking at 23 collapsing the Striped Bass Committee and the 24 Fisheries Committee together. 25 We want to get everybody else's opinion 94 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 before we do that. I think it probably would 3 be appropriate to bring it to the Operating 4 Guidelines Committee. 5 I wanted to float it as an idea. If that 6 raises any hackles, please let me know, or if 7 everybody thinks it's a good idea, please let 8 me know. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. Teri is not here from 10 the interim agenda ad hoc committee. Anybody 11 who is on that committee or at that meeting 12 have any comments or anything to share with the 13 group here? Seeing none, Operating Guidelines, 14 Striped Bass, we sort of have heard from them. 15 Chris. 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: Isn't the interim ad hoc 17 committee the a/k/a for the Operating 18 Guidelines Committee? 19 MR. DYSART: Yes. I think the Operating 20 Guidelines Committee -- I think it's a separate 21 group. It was kind of referred to -- somehow I 22 think it's separate. It is two separate 23 functions. 24 MR. SCHUBERTH: I didn't -- is that the 25 case? I thought we were -- 95 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 MR. BERSON: I think they're kind of 3 separate. It tends to be the same folks in the 4 room at the same time for those meetings, so it 5 would be easy to confuse the two. 6 I think, for example, the Operating 7 Guidelines Committee is the one that would be 8 responsible for -- I think for example getting 9 rid of the Communications Committee. 10 I don't think that the ad hoc interim 11 -- sounds sort of like a Soviet agenda -- the 12 interim agenda ad hoc committee really has the 13 authority to do that. That's Operating 14 Guidelines, so there are some different 15 functions. 16 MR. DYSART: The interim agenda has a full 17 -- has an adequate job getting agenda 18 information in. We do not want to confuse 19 things too much for them. Larry. 20 MR. KEEGAN: Actually, I think the 21 Operating Guidelines Committee sort of has 22 stewardship over the interim SEG meeting. I 23 wouldn't say that there's a separate interim 24 committee whatsoever. It's just that the 25 Operating Guidelines Committee took the 96 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 initiative for having interim meetings under 3 their wing. 4 That committee is what publishes the 5 report. If it comes to preferences, I would 6 say we don't need to call something another 7 committee. We need to recognize we have the 8 Operating Guidelines Committee, and one of the 9 things they do is have stewardship over the 10 interim SEG meetings. 11 MR. DYSART: Is that clarification 12 acceptable to everyone? Okay. Good. Okay. 13 We have a consensus on that. We've got 14 multiple consensus. Some of us can remember 15 when multiple consensus was only to be dreamed 16 of. Okay. 17 New business. What is left there? We've 18 got the Mobile roles has already been taken 19 care of. Is there anything you would like to 20 add to that, what you said earlier, in light of 21 further discussion? 22 MR. BURKE: Just to reinforce, I guess, 23 something I didn't say earlier was that there 24 are no personnel changes, when the two district 25 planning elements are combined. 97 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 There's nobody going to be forced to move 3 to Mobile. Nobody is going to be forced to 4 move to Savannah. No jobs in either location 5 will be lost. I failed to say that, but that's 6 the case. 7 And folks assigned to the Savannah Harbor 8 study will continue to be assigned to the 9 Savannah Harbor study. There may be an 10 additional person or so assigned to it, out of 11 Mobile, in some capacity or other. But again, 12 it will be to help effect a reduction in costs 13 and/or schedule. 14 MR. DYSART: I'd like to say I appreciate 15 Larry and Chris' precipitating clarification on 16 the interim meetings and so forth. It 17 continues to be my understanding that the 18 committees are still pretty much open 19 membership, and there's not any intent to 20 exclude anybody from attending all meetings of 21 the interim agenda subcommittee, or whatever we 22 want to call it. 23 It is open membership. Anyone who is 24 interested and wishes to deliberate and have 25 input, I think continues to be a characteristic 98 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 of this body. 3 Okay. Let's see, who -- apparently this 4 came from the interim group about the USGS 5 monitoring. Would anyone like to comment on 6 that on the record? 7 MR. SCHUBERTH: I kind of was surprised 8 when I learned at that interim meeting up in 9 Lockwood Greene that funding for the continued 10 monitoring of the river flow of the Savannah 11 River has been stopped. 12 Now, I just thought it was remarkable and 13 confused, because the USGS historically has 14 always been kind of a riverkeeper. And 15 considering all of the need to withdraw water, 16 as a matter of fact, commented not too long ago 17 that alternatives to the aquifer is not 18 necessarily draining out the Savannah River for 19 use. 20 They did that in the Colorado River, and 21 it's a three state battle including Mexico gets 22 little fresh water. So I just raised a 23 question, and someone said oh, that's a good 24 question to be raised. 25 Next thing we're talking about Jack 99 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 Kingston. I'm not sure. Someone who is close 3 into the loop might want to comment about this. 4 MR. DYSART: Will. 5 MR. BERSON: If you are fond of multiple 6 consensus, this is just going to put you into 7 orbit. I think this is -- Chris accurately 8 reflected the issue, but the information that 9 comes from these gauging stations is going to 10 be critical, not only to natural resource 11 management, but to addressing the impacts of 12 the project. 13 It provides some really essentially 14 information, and I would think the city as well 15 would be interested in that kind of 16 information. 17 MR. SCANLON: Actually, we are. In fact, 18 we have -- this has been going on for sometime. 19 The City of Savannah actually does fund one of 20 them already. We already are funding the one 21 by I-95. 22 I mean USGS abandoned that several years 23 ago, and the city has continued to operate it. 24 they still operate it. We just fund it. 25 MR. BERSON: So is there another station 100 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 they're going to abandon? 3 MR. SCANLON: Mill Haven, so the upriver 4 is the one being abandoned. 5 MR. BERSON: It's rare that there's an 6 issue that I think everyone can sort of rally 7 behind. This would seem to be one of them. 8 It's even rarer when you have a congressman, in 9 the Appropriations Committee, in a position to 10 actually do something about it. 11 So I think we suggested it as a topic in 12 our agenda because, individually, all of us, I 13 think, could get the congressman's attention. 14 I mean, when he sees letters coming in 15 from a disparate group of folks all asking for 16 the same thing, if I were a congressman, I 17 would jump on that idea. 18 So I think everybody in the group wanted 19 to recommend as an initiative that the 20 individual members of the SEG can take on, and 21 would probably be very effective. 22 MR. DYSART: Is this part of the 23 initiative to reduce the deficit by 50% in the 24 next 10 years or something? 25 MR. SCHUBERTH: Yes, I think so. 101 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MR. GARRETT: I'm pretty sure that we paid 3 for those USGS gauges out of the Savannah 4 Harbor O & M program. That's an annual budget 5 item that may not have made the budget because 6 the budget is being cut. 7 It might be why it was discontinued. I 8 know the Savannah Harbor paid for four or five 9 of those gauges for 10 years. At least 10 starting in 1980 -- 1987 or '88 is when we 11 started doing the salinity study. That's when 12 we started those things. 13 MR. BAILEY: There have been some and USGS 14 was doing some. Now they're backing out more. 15 MR. GARRETT: Well, a balanced budget-type 16 thing, I guess. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. A consensus is 18 declared. Thank you. How about I notice -- 19 MR. SCANLON: For the record, some of 20 those letters have already been sent. 21 MR. DYSART: Thank you. John Robinette 22 wanted to discuss meeting time, and he had to 23 duck out. He said Tom was going to be taking 24 care of that item for him. 25 MR. PRUSA: I will do that. I guess there 102 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 was some confusion, or the reason we're meeting 3 at 1:00 o'clock instead of 9:00 o'clock, and 4 some folks said that there was a need for 5 people to travel. 6 I guess there needs to be a consensus of 7 the group that if people need to travel, when 8 can they be here and what not. We talked on 9 this side a little bit, and the consensus here 10 is a 9:00 o'clock would be a lot better than a 11 1:00 o'clock meeting. 12 MR. DYSART: Any other observations, 13 reviews, or what not? 14 MR. SCHUBERTH: Let me ask then, what 15 brought us from a 9:00 o'clock meeting to the 16 1:00 o'clock. 17 MR. DYSART: As I recall, a couple of 18 meetings ago, there was that recommendation 19 made. There was brief discussion. Either 20 heads nodded, nobody objected. Without 21 objection we said we would give it a try. 22 MR. SCHALLER: I remember why. I had 23 something to do with it. It had to do with 24 transportation, lodging, taking two days of 25 Ben Dysart's time versus one day of Ben 103 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 Dysart's time. You can't get there from here 3 for a 9:00 o'clock, isn't that right? 4 MR. DYSART: No. I mentioned earlier 5 there's a problem, if there's -- the airport is 6 weathered in, like it was in February, might 7 even have trouble getting in otherwise. 8 I would say, don't worry about my 9 situation. That's not a particular factor, as 10 far as I'm concerned. If I need to be here -- 11 in February, I got put on the ground in 12 Jacksonville trying to get here on Tuesday 13 morning. I walked in right at 1:00 o'clock. 14 We got enough clearance to come in. So, 15 you know, don't worry about me. That's my 16 problem getting here, trying to make sure I'm 17 here for the meeting. 18 MR. PRUSA: Just looking at the 19 attendance, there doesn't seem to be as many 20 people here as there normally is. Three people 21 already had to leave. So, you know, it just 22 seems the morning meeting, when you start in 23 the morning you know you're going to be there. 24 And sometimes, if it starts at 1:00 25 o'clock, you might be tied up with something 104 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 else that particular morning and not make it at 3 1:00 o'clock. Allan Flock, my refuge manager 4 in Savannah, couldn't be here today because of 5 that. 6 MR. DYSART: Will. 7 MR. BERSON: So rare I get to say this, 8 anything you want to do is fine with me. 9 MR. DYSART: I guess we could declare a 10 consensus everybody is glad you feel that way, 11 Will. What is the pleasure of the group? 12 MR. BEASON: Can I ask a question? If we 13 go in the morning, it's fine with me. If we 14 are going to meet at 9:00, most everybody shows 15 up at 8:00. Some folks start at 7:00. Is it a 16 hardship to start at 8:00? 17 MR. DYSART: It isn't for me. 18 MS. VAUGHN: 8:30? 19 MR. BEASON: 6:30's great. 20 MS. VAUGHN: I'll have to check and make 21 sure they can set up for us at that time. 22 MR. BEASON: 9:00's fine. If it's not a 23 problem, it's an hour -- not enough time to get 24 anything started, so it just kills an hour. If 25 we can get going at 8:00, that doesn't hurt my 105 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 feelings, but I'll go with whatever the group 3 goes with. 4 MR. DYSART: Who here as far as your own 5 time and anybody with your agency or your group 6 or people you know believe that you would 7 prefer, say flip a coin 9:00 starting time, 8 9:00 o'clock preference? 9 MR. SCANLON: 9:00 meaning morning? 10 MR. DYSART: 9:00 a.m. Okay. Looks like 11 eight or so. How many Tom has got two hands 12 up. He's been delegated -- casting the proxy. 13 How about for 1:00? 14 MR. SCHUBERTH: Either time works for me. 15 MR. DYSART: Preference, not a will vote. 16 It appears there's a lot more vocal support 17 for 9:00 o'clock. Without serious objection -- 18 MS. VAUGHN: I don't have the room booked 19 for 9:00 o'clock. I've got to see if I can 20 change it. 21 MR. DYSART: Why don't you see if you can. 22 MS. MOORER: We'll notify everyone, for 23 this next time we'll notify everyone. 24 MR. DYSART: Let's see if it can be 25 changed to 9:00, and you will let everybody 106 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 know positively one way or another. 3 MS. VAUGHN: We need to pick the date. 4 MR. DYSART: That's the next thing here, 5 pick a date. Considering the activity of 6 what's going to be coming along, when do you 7 anticipate. 8 MR. BERSON: July 12th. 9 MR. DYSART: July 12th. Any other 10 recommendations? Okay. Without seeing any 11 objections, let's set the date for July the 12 12th for the next SEG meeting. 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: Does that mean the interim 14 committee will meet in June? 15 MR. DYSART: Hopefully. 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: Okay. 17 MR. DYSART: Just for the record, we had a 18 couple of important people who joined. I would 19 like for those two people to indicate their 20 presence, name and affiliation for the record. 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: Not important -- Chris 22 Schuberth with the Chatham Environmental Forum. 23 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller with the 24 Georgia Ports Authority. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. Did anyone else slip 107 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 in that I didn't notice? Okay. I declare the 3 meeting adjourned. Thank y'all for your 4 attendance. I appreciate the Corps 5 presentation today. 6 (Adjourned 3:55 p.m.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108 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 transcript 8 was taken down, as stated in the caption, and the 9 questions and answers thereto were reduced to 10 typewriting under my directions; that the forgoing 11 Pages 1 through 107 represent a true and correct 12 transcript of the evidence given upon said hearing, 13 and I further certify that I am not of kin or 14 counsel to the parties in the case; am not in the 15 regular employ of counsel for any of said parties 16 nor am I in anywise interested in the result of 17 said case. 18 19 This, the 18th day of June, 2005. 20 21 _______________________________ 22 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 23 Reporter, B-2041 24 25