1 2 3 4 5 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP MEETING 6 7 OF 8 9 MARCH 6, 2007 10 11 MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 12 POOLER, GEORGIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 I N D E X 4 5 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------ 3 6 7 8 MODELLING UPDATE ----------------------------- 8 9 CSS GEORGIA ---------------------------------- 32 10 UPDATE ECONOMICS ANALYSIS -------------------- 56 11 BALLAST WATER -------------------------------- 69 12 OXYGEN INJECTION ----------------------------- 72 13 SCHEDULE MILESTONES -------------------------- 90 14 COMMITTEE REPORTS ---------------------------- 91 15 NEW BUSINESS --------------------------------- 109 16 17 CERTIFICATE ---------------------------------- 120 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 9:00 a.m. at this address. 7 Pursuant to the laws of Georgia, as well 8 as at the instructions of my employer, I wish 9 to disclose that, other than accepting to serve 10 as your reporter, we have not entered into any 11 other contractual agreement with any party 12 involved in this case.) 13 MR. DYSART: Good morning. I'd like to 14 call the Stakeholders Evaluation Group meeting 15 to order. I'm Ben Dysart, the SEG 16 facilitator, and it's nice to see all of you 17 again, mostly old faces, some new faces, and we 18 like that. 19 Let's start at this end of the table with 20 Bill, and if you would introduce yourself on 21 the record, indicate what your affiliation is, 22 whatever you choose your affiliation to be. 23 Speak nice and clearly so madam court 24 reporter can hear you. Also, you will not be 25 challenged and told to speak loud and clearly. 4 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 Bill, why don't you start and set a good 3 example for us. 4 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of 5 Engineers. 6 MR. GARRETT: Alan Garrett, also with the 7 Corps of Engineers and project manager. 8 MR. OFF: Lou Off, Tybee Island. 9 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, the public. 10 MR. DYSART: Ben Dysart, facilitator 11 MS. WOOD: Judy Wood, Corps of Engineers. 12 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia Wildlife 13 Federation. 14 MR. MICHAEL: Ron Michael, Georgia DNR. 15 MR. FLEMING: Joel Fleming, Georgia DNR. 16 MS. DEVISFRUTO: June Devisfruto, National 17 Park Service, Ft. Pulaski National Monument. 18 MS. GRIESS: Jane Griess, U.S. Fish and 19 wildlife Service and Savannah Coastal Refuge. 20 MR. PARSONS: Keith Parsons, Georgia 21 Environmental Protection Division. 22 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 23 Authority. 24 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for 25 Georgia Ports. 5 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller, Georgia 3 Ports Authority. 4 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant for 5 Georgia Ports 6 MS. SCHAEFFER: Amy Schaeffer, Georgia 7 Ports Authority. 8 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 9 Authority. 10 MS. GRAINEY: Karen Grainey, Savannah 11 Riverkeepers. 12 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, the Georgia 13 Conservancy. 14 MR. WEBB: Rob Webb, Coast Guard. 15 MR. SCANLON: Bob Scanlon, City of 16 Savannah. 17 MR. WRIGHT: Tom Wright, local citizen. 18 MR. DYSART: Thank you. You have before 19 you the proposed agenda for the meeting today. 20 I hope you've had an opportunity to look at it. 21 This is based on inputs from the ad hoc 22 committee that makes recommendations as to what 23 is ready for consideration about this group. 24 And I would indicate again that anyone who 25 wishes to put anything on the agenda, simply 6 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 let me know, let the ad hoc committee know, or 3 you could put it on the agenda right here at 4 the meeting. 5 Any interested party has the privilege of 6 putting things on the agenda. Do you have any 7 changes, additions, deletions, or changes in 8 order on any of the agenda itemization? Hope. 9 MS. MOORER: The committee requested, the 10 interim SEG requested that the -- someone from 11 Georgia EPD come and present about the TMDLs. 12 I have been trying to get in touch, 13 playing phone tag back and forth between Linda 14 MacGregor, who is the chief of the Water 15 Protection Division, and Jeff Larson, who is 16 the assistant branch chief for the Savannah and 17 Ogeechee Rivers. 18 And Jeff is out of town until March 12th 19 and wasn't able to do this. Linda was not able 20 to do it this month. She will. 21 She said she was interested in coming to 22 talk to the group, but we have to arrange one 23 of the future SEG meetings, either April or 24 May, whichever one is set. 25 So I'm working with Linda. We've spoken. 7 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 we've e-mailed, we've called back and forth, 3 but we're trying to arrange a date. 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. So we will delete 5 today and roll that forward to the next meeting 6 then. 7 MS. MOORER: Yes. 8 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Bill. 9 MR. BAILEY: Final aquifer report, we're 10 not going to be able to give that today. The 11 person who would do it was not in town this 12 week. They were down -- still down in New 13 Orleans. 14 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any other additions, 15 deletions, changes? If not, then we will 16 follow the agenda as modified through the 17 meeting. 18 You've had an opportunity to look at the 19 transcript from the January -- Hope. 20 MS. MOORER: Can I make one quick note? 21 MR. DYSART: Sure. 22 MS. MOORER: Okay. We have Amy Schaeffer 23 here. Amy's a part of our Public Affairs also, 24 and she was just wanting to snap a couple of 25 photos, while we're meeting. She'll be here a 8 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 short time at the beginning of the meeting, and 3 just take a couple of photos for an article in 4 one of our publications about the SEG and the 5 work of the SEG. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Welcome. 7 MS. MOORER: So look natural. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. We'll get our natural 9 looks exercised and relaxed and ready to go. 10 Okay. Thank you, Hope. What about the January 11 2007 transcript? 12 Our procedure is if there's anything that 13 needs to be changed or modified or corrected, 14 we do it subsequently on the record. Any 15 comments on that? 16 Then we will consider the January 2007 17 transcript, of the meeting, to be accepted by 18 this body. Okay. 19 First item we have under scientific 20 briefing is modelling update. Bill Bailey, 21 Corps of Engineers. 22 MR. BAILEY: The modelling update, what 23 we want to do is kind of run through some of 24 the engineering work that's going on that leads 25 to the environmental analysis. For as far as 9 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 wetlands go, we have -- remember we had a 3 couple different ways we were looking at 4 wetlands. 5 One was using the salinity model and 6 looking at just the outputs of salinity, and 7 where those change in the estuary, where they 8 would change with an alternative or mitigation 9 plan. 10 And that, I've talked to you about before. 11 We've talked with the agencies about that. And 12 we're soon going to be releasing another 13 version of that, with a shorter -- the 14 difference is a shorter run time. 15 It's a shorter period of analysis where 16 they are only looking at the growing season, 17 what are the salinities during the growing 18 season. Before what they had done was looked 19 at a whole 12 month period. 20 So the engineering folks have gone through 21 and redone all the models, so we'll be having 22 that to release pretty soon. 23 For the second part of the wetlands, the 24 marsh secession model, those reports are under 25 external review, and we've gotten comments from 10 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 three out of the four reviewers, and we're 3 responding to those comments now. 4 One other aspect of that marsh secession 5 model, we've identified a problem with one of 6 the -- one of the models in that progression. 7 It's actually the model to marsh. It 8 takes the salinity levels and transfers them 9 across the whole marsh, the salinity levels in 10 the river and transfers them across to the 11 marsh. 12 We've identified something in that, so 13 we're going to be meeting with resource 14 agencies, the federal agencies, this Thursday 15 to talk about that. USGS has given us a 16 proposal on how to fix the model that they 17 built, so we'll be talking about that this 18 Thursday. 19 MR. PARSONS: Excuse me. Are those 20 comments available from the reviewers? 21 MR. BAILEY: External reviewers? 22 MR. PARSONS: Uh-huh. 23 MR. BAILEY: They will be. They're not 24 yet. Once we get all the way through the 25 response to the comments, we'll go back and 11 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 forth a few times with the problem, but that 3 whole external review passage will be available 4 -- will become available. 5 There's one other thing on wetlands; Fish 6 and Wildlife Service had given us another 7 proposal, a couple of months ago, for a 8 mitigation scenario they wanted us to look at. 9 We've done some screening runs on it and now 10 we're looking at the effects of tide range, how 11 that scenario may affect the tide range. 12 The preliminary results are it looks like 13 it decreased the tide range, so we're looking 14 at that to see where that effect occurs and how 15 much of an effect it has. So that's the 16 wetlands. 17 Fisheries, we're going to have a report 18 that we'll be releasing soon to the agencies 19 for both impacts and mitigation. Whenever we 20 get a CD from the engineering folks, we'll be 21 distributing it to resource agencies and start 22 to review it. 23 Water quality, similar situation. They're 24 soon going to have a report to release for 25 impacts. On mitigation runs, I think that's -- 12 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 still working on that. That's scheduled to be 3 complete, I think, at the end of March. 4 For chlorides, external review is complete 5 on that. The model has been approved by the 6 Corps. They started their impact runs, and the 7 modelling, that one also, I think, is scheduled 8 to be completed at the end of March. 9 We'll probably, at the next SEG meeting, 10 we'll probably be talking about that chloride, 11 the external review part of it describing that 12 model. That's pretty much it. Questions? 13 MR. DYSART: Will. 14 MR. BERSON: The discussions that you're 15 having with respect to the wetlands modelling, 16 is that -- are those, I'm sorry. You were 17 talking about external review. Is that on the 18 model itself or on the interpretation of the 19 results? 20 MR. BAILEY: The model itself. 21 MR. BERSON: But you are continuing to do 22 the model runs, while you are trying to resolve 23 those issues? 24 MR. BAILEY: We've done -- we've done runs 25 for impacts and provided those to the reviewers 13 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 as kind of a sample of outputs, but we aren't 3 doing any mitigation runs. 4 We started mitigation runs and saw 5 something we didn't -- didn't make sense to us, 6 so we stopped work on that. 7 MR. BERSON: Would those comments 8 conceivably have -- make you have to do -- you 9 said you did impacts? 10 MR. BAILEY: (Nods head up and down.) 11 MR. BERSON: Would they conceivably 12 require you to go back and rerun the impacts? 13 MR. BAILEY: The -- I don't think so. 14 MR. BERSON: Okay. 15 MR. DYSART: Hope. 16 MS. MOORER: Bill, as I understand it, it 17 has to do with the translating of the salinity 18 from an altered channel in mitigation runs into 19 the marsh, is that correct? Is that where the 20 problem is? It's not on the normal channel 21 configuration and impact runs, but it's when 22 the channel gets altered for mitigation 23 purposes. Is that where they think the problem 24 is? 25 MR. BAILEY: Yes, yeah, I'm sorry. The 14 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 model -- the model seems to work fine for the 3 present configuration of the rivers. Part of 4 the mitigation was to try to move water from 5 the Front River over to the Middle River and 6 Back River, and with closing, some cuts and 7 openings, some others and things like that. 8 Those things didn't fit with the way they 9 put the model together. They were taking the 10 results, salinity results, from the Front River 11 and spreading them over a wide area that 12 included Middle River. 13 So it was, let's see, it was a, I guess, a 14 general -- it wasn't as detailed an approach as 15 it could have been. So when you made a change 16 in one area, the model didn't make it up. 17 MR. BERSON: Okay. 18 MR. DYSART: Judy then Bob. 19 MS. JENNINGS: That was one of my 20 questions. Actually though, it's interesting 21 because that kind of situation could pop up 22 almost anywhere, when you -- 23 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 24 MS. JENNINGS: -- plug in mitigation, but 25 I understand the answer to that. I didn't 15 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 quite understand why you had modelling -- 3 salinity modelling for a whole year, now you go 4 back and look at the growing season, just the 5 growing season. What was the reason for that? 6 MR. BAILEY: The interagency coordination 7 team for wetlands only wants it looked at for 8 the growing season. That was the primary 9 reason. That's what they specifically asked 10 for. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Even though you already had 12 a whole full year? 13 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Just to see it again or was 15 there -- I don't know -- some biology here, 16 Bill? 17 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure the results were 18 any different, but what they asked for was they 19 wanted to know what happens during the growing 20 season, basically, and salinities -- growing 21 season is the summer. 22 That's typically when the flows are lower, 23 so if the flows are lower the salinities are 24 probably going to be higher. If you include a 25 whole year, it includes some higher flows. 16 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 That's going to be your average may be 3 lower, average salinity. I haven't seen the 4 results yet. I don't know if there's any 5 difference, but we want to make sure that if 6 there was a difference, you know, we'd see it, 7 and we were giving people the information they 8 wanted. 9 MS. JENNINGS: I understand the package, 10 the mitigation package that Fish and Wildlife 11 gave you to look at, that may affect the tidal 12 range, was that any different from material 13 that you had in your presentation last time? 14 MR. BAILEY: No. 15 MS. JENNINGS: So we've seen whatever Fish 16 and Wildlife asked them to look, that may 17 impact the tidal range, there's nothing new. 18 MR. BAILEY: Correct. I put some boards 19 off on the side that have drawings of -- 20 MS. JENNINGS: Oh cool. 21 MR. BAILEY: -- the different mitigation 22 plans, and what actions are included in those. 23 The last on there is the last Fish and Wildlife 24 proposal. 25 It ends up being a bigger drawing just 17 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 because we haven't fit it in yet, but that 3 isn't the final plan. 4 MR. DYSART: Question, are these boards 5 that you referred to that look very nice, are 6 those available to be posed, or are they 7 interim or -- 8 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure. Are they up 9 yet, Larry? They can be. 10 MR. DYSART: That, I think, would be a 11 good thing to put up in the interim. Bob 12 Scanlon, please. 13 MR. SCANLON: I was just curious if the 14 changes, the model changes, any changes to the 15 model that are impacted for the salinity in the 16 marshes, if they will be applied to other 17 parameters such as DO? 18 I still have the concern over when we 19 start replumbing, the upper stretches of the 20 river, that there is an anomalous result in the 21 work that's been done on the DO so far, may be 22 some relationship between the these two things. 23 MR. BAILEY: That's part of what makes 24 this such a big effort, part of what makes 25 every suggestion a big deal, is that for 18 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 everything, every suggestion, we have to look 3 at wetlands maybe a couple different ways, 4 because you have to look at fisheries, you have 5 to look at water quality, chlorides, all that 6 stuff, all those things for every suggestion. 7 MR. SCANLON: Good. 8 MR. DYSART: I think Dr. Odum would say 9 everything's connected. Judy. 10 MS. JENNINGS: Bob, I'm sorry, I don't 11 mean to -- can you explain anomalous result? 12 What do you mean? I'll tell you the truth, I 13 still don't have my arms around the DO story. 14 MR. SCANLON: I don't recall the exact 15 details, it's been so long since I last looked 16 at it. There was actually a flip in what you 17 would intuitively think would happen in low 18 flow conditions and into the most critical 19 conditions, 20 I don't remember the exact detail, but 21 there was an actual flip from what you would 22 think would be the most critical condition. I 23 don't recall the details right now. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Unexpected then. 25 MR. SCANLON: Yeah. 19 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any other questions? 3 Okay. We're ready for dredge material. Dredge 4 material management plan summary from the 5 Corps. Who'll be presenting that, Bill? Okay. 6 Bill Bailey will be making the presentation. 7 MR. BAILEY. Okay. The engineering folks 8 have completed another step in their design 9 work, and before I had explained to you and 10 talked about the near shore placement and what 11 they have come up with for that. 12 We talked about back in September. So 13 today we're going to talk about the inner 14 harbor and what they come up with as a design 15 for that. We still haven't really nailed down 16 where sediments will be placed for mitigation 17 plans, because we don't know yet what we're 18 going to do with them for mitigation, which 19 features will be included in the plans. 20 The near shore had all these sites in it. 21 Most of the material was going out here. There 22 will be some placed along the shoreline, a 23 little bit in this ocean disposal site and a 24 little bit way out here. So that was what we 25 had back in September. 20 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 That addressed material from the entrance 3 channel way out at the end up to zero and a 4 little bit inside of zero. 5 Zero is the inland right in between the 6 jetties. That's probably the landward end of 7 the jetties, I think, something like that. So 8 the inner harbor, we're talking from zero, zero 9 upper, up to the end of the deepening project 10 which would be about where Middle River comes 11 in. 12 So you've got these existing fine disposal 13 areas along the river here, one smaller one up 14 here that's about full, one way up here. It's 15 not used very much at all, so that's what we've 16 got right now. 17 The basic plan is to put the material in 18 those existing sites. You want a five second 19 summary, that's it. So some of those disposal 20 areas, or all those disposal areas are in a 21 three year rotation program. So depending on 22 when you want to do construction, they may -- a 23 specific site may or may not be available. 24 You pick the sites, so we have part of 25 their analysis is deciding when, or making a 21 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 determination of when they think construction 3 would start. 4 So they did that, and then it's -- then 5 they want to minimize the pumping distance. 6 The further you pump it the more it costs. 7 What they looked then was the maximize amount 8 of deepening, and that was just to make sure 9 the place had enough capacity for all the 10 material. 11 So I've got a couple slides here that show 12 some different percent sands and percent fines 13 and then volumes. This is the lower end 14 starting at zero, the inlet. You've got 15 sandier material down there, down toward the 16 mouth. 17 As you move upriver, there's a section 18 that's more fines. This section, flip back 19 again, is more sandy. So it's generally sandy 20 material, and just a summary. It's like 12 21 million cubic yards of sandy material, seven 22 million cubic yards of fine grain material. 23 For locations, they -- engineering worked 24 up, essentially, a two year construction 25 schedule in this inner harbor for the channel 22 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 part. 3 The lower -- this lower reach, they would 4 have going into Jones Oysterbed, which is the 5 first disposal area coming up the river, then 6 you've got a reach here between 20 and 40 going 7 into the next site going upriver, and then this 8 is the third site going upriver, and then -- 9 and then this is just a progression of the 10 different sites as you move up the river. 11 This is a summary over both years 12 15 million -- well, 15 to 16 million each year 13 is what they have worked out. 14 So we tried to show you where these things 15 were. The first year had a small amount going 16 up in this upper site, some more going in this 17 one. We're skipping this one, and nine million 18 going into this site, three, and then one down 19 here. The second year they have more focus 20 down in this lower end. 21 MR. DYSART: Judy, comment, and then Will. 22 MS. JENNINGS: I understand the further 23 you move stuff the more it costs, but I'm 24 wondering does the percentage of sands and 25 fines, how much of a factor is that in where 23 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 you put it, in addition to how far when you 3 don't move it more than you have to? 4 MR. BAILEY: I think it's pretty not a 5 consideration. 6 MS. JENNINGS: Not a consideration. 7 MR. BAILEY: Not on the inner harbor part, 8 that wasn't a big factor on the entrance 9 channel, but not at this part. 10 MR. DYSART: Will. 11 MR. BERSON: Two questions, one which 12 actually has to do with this project and the 13 other sort of not; the one sort of not is I 14 noticed as you went through the 15 characterizations of the mix of sand and fine, 16 I'm assuming because it came in the middle it 17 was in the middle range of the river, the 18 numbers actually flipped where there was more 19 fine than sand, just from a non-point source 20 question, I mean I was looking for things that 21 would have other impacts here. Where is that? 22 I mean, is it indicative of a construction 23 problem or, I mean, some other -- I'm not 24 asking you to characterize the source, but it 25 suggests that something's happening that 24 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 probably has nothing to do with upstream 3 downstream, but from something that is coming 4 into the river at a certain point. 5 MR. BAILEY: This is all new work material 6 and stuff that's been there a long time. It's 7 the stuff that's down at minus 40 -- minus 40, 8 minus 50. 9 MR. BERSON: Okay. So it would have been 10 input a long time ago is what you are saying? 11 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. 12 MR. BERSON: Okay. And then the other 13 question that does have to do with this 14 project, I notice in your direction to the 15 different disposal areas you're using sites on 16 the South Carolina side of the river. Have you 17 any contingencies for in case those sites are 18 not available? 19 MR. BAILEY: No. 20 MR. BERSON: Okay. 21 MR. DYSART: Carl Hall. 22 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Bill, the location 23 of the different segments or sands or fines 24 or concentrations, could that also probably be 25 related to saltwater freshwater mixing zones 25 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 years ago, or hundreds of years ago, you know, 3 because that's where fines get populated out 4 mostly? 5 MR. BAILEY: This is laying down soil 6 that's minus 40 feet below mean low water, so 7 below sea level, this is laying down dirt a 8 long time ago, thousands of years ago. 9 MR. HALL: Could it be correlated to 10 saltwater freshwater interface, you know, a 11 thousand years ago -- 12 MR. BAILEY: Yeah. The geology is 13 different. The geology is not lath down there. 14 The layers do move up and down some. I'm not a 15 geologist. I don't know why they did that. 16 MR. DYSART: Karen. 17 MS. GRAINEY: Yeah. My question has to do 18 with the disposal sites. Do they a life span, 19 I mean, is there a limit of how much you can 20 dispose? 21 At some point, are they going to reach 22 capacity, like landfills reach a certain 23 capacity? When will those be reaching their 24 capacity, if there's such a thing? Can you 25 dump there indefinitely? When will it no 26 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 longer be feasible to do so? 3 MR. BAILEY: Let's see. The short answer 4 yes, they have capacity. They have a life 5 span. For those, it is quite long. It is over 6 50 years. 7 This one, 2A is nearly capacity. Looking 8 at it, it's narrow. As you raise the dikes, 9 because they're trying to protect wetlands on 10 the outside, we always raise to the inside. So 11 the higher, the more you raise the closer the 12 dikes get. 13 So on a narrow site, then the dikes start 14 to come closer together, and you lose some of 15 your capacity which means you don't have the 16 settling time for water, so your water quality, 17 you can't guarantee good water quality coming 18 out, as the site gets smaller. But you could 19 keep raising the dikes for a long, long time. 20 MS. GRAINEY: So how high do you 21 anticipate the dikes eventually reaching, what 22 kind of height are you talking about? 23 MR. BAILEY: I don't know. I don't know. 24 12A are already fairly high. You drive by them 25 on the road, these are about a mile square, a 27 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 mile on each side, so those are pretty large 3 sites. I'm not sure what the -- do you have 4 any idea -- 5 MR. DYSART: Hope. 6 MR. GARRETT: From the geotechnical 7 standpoint, you're looking at to 100 feet. The 8 area extent, as you move inward like Bill is 9 saying, you take away some internal capacity, 10 but they're 800 acres, 900 acres apiece. 11 MR. GRIFFIN: At least. 12 MR. GARRETT: So you still have a lot of 13 use of life, probably 80 to 100 years of life. 14 The good thing about it is, with the Corps' and 15 the DOT's partnership in the rotational method 16 in the disposal areas where you dry on a three 17 year cycle, you use the internal materials to 18 actually incorporate that into the dike, so 19 you're increasing your volume both ways, 20 digging down and going up at the same time with 21 the same material. 22 MS. GRAINEY: So is your plan to use it 23 its full capacity -- 24 MR. GARRETT: Yes. 25 MS. GRAINEY: -- to its full height, so 28 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 your talking about mounds of earth that are 3 going to be 100 feet high? 4 MR. GARRETT: It could be, as high as we 5 can possibly get them, from a geotechnical 6 standpoint. There are all kinds of 7 geotech style fabrics too which aid in that 8 too. 9 The cost -- if for some reason in the 10 economic analysis it shows it's worthwhile to 11 put geotech style fabrics in, you can go with 12 no problem with that height. 13 We don't do that right now. We've got the 14 material, plus the deepening will provide 15 material, dike material, building material, 16 good sands. 17 MS. GRAINEY: And these will be stable 18 as far as -- 19 MR. GARRETT: Yes. I need to take you 20 Kings Bay Naval and let you see those dikes 21 down there. They're double these. They're 22 tremendous. 23 MR. BAILEY: We prefer to keep raising 24 them, then we don't have to look for another 25 site which is wetlands, or something that is 29 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 much more expensive, taking it out to the 3 ocean. 4 With the ocean disposal regulations, it 5 may not qualify for that anyway. So we prefer 6 to keep raising them. Hope. 7 MS. MOORER: I just had a question, 8 percent sands, percent fines, and the new 9 material; is it pretty mixed in that new 10 material, or is there big air pockets of sand 11 versus fines, or does it vary from area to 12 area? 13 MR. BAILEY: I think it's going to vary. 14 Some areas are going to be more fines. Some 15 areas -- well, some areas will be more fines. 16 MS. MOORER: Hard to separate out? 17 MR. GARRETT: As the dredge swings across 18 the channel, the way the hydraulic cutterheads 19 work, it swings across the channel, it will 20 give it some pockets of silt, some pockets of 21 sand, then mix zones. It's not homogeneous. 22 MS. MOORER: Okay. 23 MR. DYSART: Judy. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah. I realize you have 25 to have this plan, but is it sensitive at all 30 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 to various mitigation options, because as we 3 deepen, we might have differential shoaling 4 patterns and what if you end up with more to 5 move, more than you expected. 6 MR. BAILEY: This part is all the new work 7 material, so this is just to deepen the 8 channel. We are looking at the effects of a 9 deeper channel on the low end on maintenance of 10 the channel, but that's separate from that. 11 That's additional yardage. 12 MS. JENNINGS: I knew that. You just 13 needed to say it the second time. I'm sorry. 14 MR. GARRETT: But we did complete the 15 sedimentation analysis, just for that purpose, 16 to look at where the material would be the 17 redistributed, based on salinities. There 18 wasn't a marked difference. Really there's 19 not. 20 Some of the mitigation plans we're looking 21 at, Bill will be talking to you about, may 22 include letting the sediment basin fill back up 23 to its natural depth. If that happens, you 24 have more material deposited at the another 25 depth over here at the bar channel, which would 31 1 MODELLING UPDATE 2 mean pretty much no change in terms of where it 3 goes, but you will have more expense on the 4 federal government to transport the materials 5 from not dredging the sediment basin, but 6 rather taking it the channel. It's more 7 expensive from the channel, but that's one of 8 things the project may just have to do. 9 MR. DYSART: Any further questions? 10 MR. BAILEY: I think the conclusions from 11 this engineering work is that the displacement 12 wouldn't disrupt the rotation program. Much of 13 these sediments would be used later for dike 14 raising, as Alan mentioned. 15 Dike raising would occur at the end of the 16 deepening project to restore some of this 17 storage capacity, and then still have the 20 18 year useful life at the end of all this. From 19 the dike raising, they'd still have at least 20 20 years, which is what -- kind of a threshold 21 that the Corps looks at, do you have -- do you 22 have sites for 20 years. That's it. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. Further questions? 24 I'd like folks who have come in since we 25 introduced ourselves, on the record, to please 32 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 do so now. 3 MR. GRIFFIN: David Griffin with Georgia 4 DOT. 5 MR. BIRDWELL: Billy Birdwell, Corps of 6 Engineers Public Affairs. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia 8 Sierra -- sorry to be late. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. We're ready for CSS 10 Georgia. Okay. This is something, I think, 11 we've been waiting with much excitement for a 12 while, and Judy, would you like to tell us 13 about that? 14 MS. WOOD: I'm Judy Wood. I'm the 15 archeologist on the Savannah Harbor Expansion 16 project. 17 I think spoke to you about three or four 18 years ago, telling you about what kind of 19 studies we'd be doing, and telling you what the 20 CSS Georgia was. 21 Since it's been four years, there's been 22 some people changed over. I'll start with 23 basically what she was, and then tell you what 24 we've done over the last few years, and the 25 results of those studies. 33 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 The CSS Georgia was Confederate Ironclad 3 built in Savannah. She was launched in April 4 of 1862. She was based on a locally prepared 5 design that no one has ever found. 6 Her initial intent was to go to the mouth 7 of the river and take out the blockading fleet, 8 but Ft. Pulaski fell before she was launched. 9 And then they found out for some reason 10 her propulsion system was not up to the task, 11 and the current could do four knots and she 12 could do about two, two and a half knots. 13 So she wasn't going out to the mouth of 14 the river or anywhere else. So they moored her 15 as a floating battery in front of old Ft. 16 Jackson about where the sediment basin comes 17 in. 18 She stayed there from mid 1862 until 19 December of 1864 when she was sunk at her 20 moorings when Sherman was coming into town by 21 the back door. 22 Everyone, for years, thought the CSS 23 Georgia was a failure because she didn't 24 accomplish that mission of going out to sea 25 and taking on the blockade. She didn't do 34 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 anything spectacular. 3 We didn't discover until about 10, 15 4 years ago that she was actually a roaring 5 success. 6 The letters and reports from the 7 blockading fleet, from much of 1862 and 1863, 8 said they would have come and taken Savannah by 9 sea, but they could do nothing with the Georgia 10 because she was -- all the channels come down 11 to one channel in that spot, and there were 12 obstructions. 13 If you wanted to get to the city, you had 14 to get past the Georgia. You had to pick your 15 way through a navigation channel that hadn't 16 been mapped in several years, while this 17 ironclad lobbed shells at you. 18 So basically she was a roaring success, 19 because everyone thought she was a failure, no 20 saved documentation on her. 21 She was sunk at her moorings in December 22 of 1864. Apparently, they just opened up 23 various parts. She was leaking like a sieve 24 anyway. I think if you turned the engines off, 25 the pumps off, she would have gone down on her 35 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 own. 3 In 1871, there was a salvage attempt by a 4 Treasury Department contractor. We know he 5 removed some of her railroad iron. He didn't 6 get much done, and he basically said, I can't 7 do anything with this. 8 Basically, she was an iron fortress for 9 the part he was dealing with. She was sort of 10 forgotten. Like I said, because she was 11 considered a failure, nobody really kept track 12 of her over time. 13 The Corps of Engineers found her in 1968 14 with a new work widening project. They were 15 adding 100 feet width to the channel near Ft. 16 Jackson. They encountered her with a dredge. 17 She broke the dredge. 18 We sort of left her alone after that, 19 marked her with a buoy. There were a few 20 operation maintenance dredging events in the 21 main channel near the Georgia. 22 The most catastrophic and the last one 23 was in 1983, when as part of the operation 24 maintenance project they decided to do four 25 feet of advanced maintenance dredging, and to 36 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 block cut the channel side walls. 3 Now, we knew there were impacts to the 4 Georgia. The dredge spit out live ordinance, 5 and some few other things. That is the last 6 time we've come near her with dredge with the 7 Savannah Harbor operation maintenance project. 8 It was just we sort of left each other 9 alone. Because we dredge upstream and 10 downstream from there, it's a natural erosion 11 scouring area. We've needed to dredge the 12 channel. 13 The last deepening project, we looked at 14 the navigation charts, and thanks to that 15 advanced maintenance dredging, and the scouring 16 in that area, the harbor was already deep 17 enough for the last deepening project in that 18 area. 19 So we didn't really have to address her in 20 the last deepening project. We have monitored 21 her since 1983. We've done side scan sonar and 22 hydrographic studies, kind of keeping track of 23 what was going on. 24 We noticed she seemed to be settling down, 25 and there were changes in the sonar record. 37 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 When we started Savannah Harbor Expansion 3 project, we realized we really had to look at 4 the Georgia in detail. 5 We had to determine what the effects of 6 the new deepening project would be to the 7 vessel, but in order to do that you have to 8 understand the difference between the new 9 deepening and what's going on the with the 10 operation maintenance project. 11 We saw that she was sort of settling down 12 and changing over the years, even though we 13 weren't dredging next to it. We had to 14 quantify the impact past, present, and future, 15 of the operation maintenance project, and then 16 look at the expansion project, and figure out 17 how that would change the vessel. 18 So we pulled together operation and 19 maintenance funds for Savannah Harbor Expansion 20 to initiate new studies, and when we initiated 21 those studies, we had to figure out who were 22 the primary players in the planning team. 23 And by law the state historic preservation 24 officer is, under the National Historic 25 Preservation Act, their review and comment 38 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 would be involved in decision documents. 3 Well, the problem we have with the CSS 4 Georgia is while she was built in Savannah, 5 served in Savannah, sank in Savannah, when they 6 had the last border war between Georgia and 7 South Carolina a few years ago, they rewrote 8 the boundary between the states and they moved 9 her to South Carolina. 10 So you have a vessel that's primary 11 significance lies in Georgia, but 90% of its 12 mass lies in South Carolina. So when you have 13 that, you have two state historic preservation 14 officers on the same project, they usually get 15 together and designate a lead historic 16 preservation officer, who makes the heavy 17 decisions, and other one is sort of background. 18 South Carolina decided this was a Georgia 19 resource. This had very little to do with 20 South Carolina. They said, Georgia, you can be 21 lead state historic preservation officer, even 22 though you only have 10% of the vessel. 23 But South Carolina is still on the 24 signature blocks on documents. They still 25 review and comment. I personally looked at 39 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 that as asset. 3 South Carolina has an underwater 4 archaeology program and they have people, 5 conservators that are familiar with underwater 6 sites, and it brings additional technical 7 review to the project. 8 I think it's an asset to the project. As 9 long as everybody's happy, and we're all 10 talking, it's fine. So far we are. 11 Another party that was involved in this 12 was the General Services Administration. 13 Captured Confederate property, after the war, 14 went to the Treasury Department. When the 15 General Services Administration was created, 16 there was actually a law that moved all that 17 property over to General Services 18 Administration. 19 And while GSA is very good at federal 20 buildings and regular buildings, they don't 21 know anything about underwater sites, and they 22 will tell you that. They have got this huge 23 resource base of all these Confederate 24 shipwrecks and no expertise. 25 Early in the project we figured out that 40 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 was not going to work. So we went to the U.S. 3 Naval Historical Center, and they had taken 4 title of the Confederate Submarine Hundley from 5 GSA, and several other vessels. 6 They have a lot of expertise and knowledge 7 and we talked to them and they transferred 8 title from GSA to the U.S. Navy. So this 9 brought, again, additional expertise to the 10 project. 11 It also brought in expertise that had 12 nothing to do with Savannah Harbor operation 13 maintenance, nothing to do with Savannah Harbor 14 expansion. 15 So when they comment, they're commenting 16 on the vessel, what's best to do with the 17 vessel, so it's a very good, sort of outside 18 review thing going on. 19 The other people we brought in was the 20 national park service that has a crack 21 underwater archaeology team that's been around 22 for about 20 years. They work on the U.S.S. 23 Arizona, in Hawaii, with the problem with the 24 metal fatigue and the oil and diesel fuel 25 that's coming out of that thing. 41 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 They worked all over world. Also, again, 3 they have no interest in Savannah Harbor 4 operation and maintenance and expansion. 5 They're outside reviewers, with a lot of 6 expertise, who can provide independent review 7 on these projects. Well, first thing we 8 decided we had to do, if you're going to 9 determine what your operation maintenance 10 effects are, and your expansion -- future 11 expansion effects are, you have to know what 12 you had before you started affecting the 13 vessel. 14 And that was our first study was our 15 archival research study. There's been a lot of 16 people researching this wreck over the years. 17 They haven't found a whole lot, but none of it 18 was in the same place. There would be 19 somebody's article here. There would be a few 20 factoids and review over here. Nobody had 21 taken the existing research and put it in one 22 document. So that was one goal. 23 The other goal, the second goal was that 24 there were all kinds repositories. A lot of 25 these people researching the Georgia do it as 42 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 private research efforts with very little 3 money. 4 So we went to all of them and said, you 5 know, if you were really going to research the 6 Georgia, what her the repositories that you 7 think might have something, that if you had the 8 money and time you would go to and really look 9 at, because this stuff is scattered all over 10 the place. 11 We got to the list of those research 12 facilities and included them in our scope of 13 work, so we made sure that we've got the 14 highest probability of finding the things. 15 The other thing with the archival research 16 study is researching the vessel. Well, there 17 were people on that vessel. There was 18 machinery on that vessel. There were all kinds 19 of material culture on that vessel that might 20 still be on the bottom that we're going to have 21 to deal with. So we had material culture 22 studies included in the document. 23 We have that. It's now called CSS Georgia 24 Archival Research Study. Larry posted it on 25 the Savannah Harbor Expansion website, or at 43 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 least this volume of it. 3 The bad news is we still don't know really 4 what the Georgia looked like. We have a better 5 idea. We know a lot about the material culture 6 that was on the vessel. It's a really good 7 read, and I think we're going to put it on the 8 CSS Georgia website, and other places, and make 9 it widely available. 10 The problem with it, it goes to that, what 11 about the people on the vessel. The main 12 volume is the main report with all the text and 13 things. These other two fat volumes are the 14 appendices. 15 When we identified people doing research 16 on the Georgia, one of them we identified was 17 Tim Callahan, a local researcher. He's spent 18 about 10 or 15 years going through newspaper 19 indexes, libraries, facilities looking for 20 information on the people on the Georgia. 21 He would always look at me and say Judy, 22 it's not the ship, it's the people. The 23 story's the people. 24 Well, these two volumes, we had our 25 contractor basically buy this research from Tim 44 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 Callahan. It's original source material, 3 copies of enlistment papers, and pension 4 records, and newspaper articles. It's all just 5 raw documents. 6 This right now is not on the website and 7 it's because I don't know quite how to handle 8 it. We didn't pay Tim a pittance of what he 9 spent gathering this research, but he was happy 10 to get whatever small amount of money it was. 11 But still, it's like his life's work. I 12 want to make sure that when people use those 13 documents, they don't just take Tim's life work 14 and put their name on it, take all his original 15 research documents and material and act like 16 they did the research. 17 So I'm trying to come up with a way that 18 we can have this on the web that clearly says, 19 if you use this material, you have to cite such 20 and such newspaper article from the Tim 21 callahan research collection as published in -- 22 so that Tim gets some credit for this, because 23 it's just a phenomenal amount of data. 24 I mean, you could write six or eight 25 dissertations and not have to do any personal 45 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 research on your own. So that is done. 3 The second study was the field work study. 4 The National Park Services Cultural Resources 5 Unit helped us write the scope of work for 6 that. 7 The goals were to figure out the impacts 8 of past, present and future of operation 9 maintenance of the Savannah Harbor Navigation 10 Project and to figure out the impacts of the 11 future expansion project if it goes. 12 Basically, what they figured out was that 13 there isn't a whole lot left down there. 14 Apparently, what's been happening with the 15 Georgia, over the years, is she's been 16 deflating. 17 Usually what happens with a wreck, when 18 sand and silt gets blown of the top, it sort of 19 settles down deeper in the sand and silt. What 20 she did was she settled down into the miocene 21 clay layer and couldn't go any farther. 22 And because she was sitting on, for her an 23 impermeable layer, she deflated. By deflating 24 and the mud and stuff disappearing from her, it 25 made her vulnerable to ship worms, and ship 46 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 worms have basically eaten every piece of wood 3 on that vessel except for a little -- some 4 case-made areas. 5 There's a lot less of the Georgia down 6 there than we thought, and it's not in as good 7 a condition as we thought, but it's still 8 significant. It's still listed in the National 9 register at the national level for all four 10 criteria; archaeology, architecture, events and 11 people, because there are still a lot of 12 research questions she can answer that can't be 13 answered anywhere else. 14 We expected things like the boilers to be 15 in pieces, because when the guy was doing the 16 salvage in 1871, the only sticking out of the 17 water was her stovepipe. If I were going to 18 trying and get to that vessel, I would just 19 drop a charge down the pipe, in which case your 20 boilers are gone. So we expected the boilers 21 to be in pieces. We did not expect the engine 22 to be in pieces. Now the bad news is the 23 engine is in pieces. It's very, very hard to 24 exhibit something like that. The good news is 25 it's a whole lot easier and cheaper to conserve 47 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 and you can still answer your research 3 questions, where did your engine come from. 4 It's looking like it may have come from 5 the Columbus Ironworks Foundry. The problem is 6 all the paperwork, from the Columbus Ironworks 7 foundry, was burned in the Civil War. All the 8 paperwork at the Miller Iron Foundry, which was 9 the principle foundry involved in construction, 10 burned. So both ends of the paper trail 11 disappeared. 12 So there are a lot of research questions 13 down there that can still be answered. The 14 question of past operation maintenance impacts, 15 they have been pretty catastrophic. The 16 deflation of the site is mostly related to that 17 1983 dredging event where they went four feet 18 deeper and about 20 feet wired and into the 19 wreck. 20 That's what started a cycle of degradation 21 that started the silt moving off the wreck. 22 It's the equivalent of your house is sitting 23 there, and I rip the roof off, and then I come 24 back five later and say, well I won't pay for a 25 new roof, I'll just pay for all that water 48 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 damage. 3 And that's essentially what the operation 4 maintenance, prior to 1984, did to the vessel. 5 So we've identified the major past, present and 6 future impacts to the Georgia to the O and M 7 project. 8 As far as funding a mitigation project for 9 CSS Georgia, there's two ways to do that; do it 10 as an operation maintenance funding event, and 11 then after that is done, the Georgia was 12 mitigated and the expansion project could come 13 in, but they just can't come in and go in and 14 dredge. 15 That O and M mitigation project will not 16 guarantee that there isn't still live ordinance 17 down there. So expansion would need to pay for 18 some clambucketing in that area to retrieve 19 ordinance, and conservation of other artifacts 20 that might show up. 21 The other way to do it is a Savannah 22 Harbor Expansion mitigation effort. The 23 decision has not been made, and I don't know 24 when it's going to be made as to which funding 25 route will be pursued. That's a decision 49 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 that's made a lot higher up in the chain than I 3 am. But the Georgia has got to be mitigated, 4 before you put the cutterhead in there for the 5 deepening. 6 We've got, I believe, a cost estimate of 7 9.5 million dollars for that. That's in-house 8 and contract work. It spans probably seven or 9 eight years, because the conservation takes a 10 long time. It includes a lot of agencies in 11 that planning process. 12 I mean, you can't put a barge on the site 13 of the shipping channel for six months or a 14 year without talking to the Coast Guard, the 15 pilots, and other safety people, GPA. 16 With the silt that's been blown off the 17 wreck, and the fact that it's sitting exposed 18 on the miocene, we no longer have the problem 19 of dredging sediments and where to put them. 20 So that's sort of less of an impact for the 21 environment things. 22 Right now, like I said, a decision has not 23 been made as to who will pay for mitigation and 24 how it will be done, but it has to be done 25 before the expansion project. 50 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 The field work report is here. It's got a 3 lot of really good information, a lot of really 4 good graphics. It's also available on the 5 website as a downloadable report. Get your 6 color printer going use and a lot of memory. 7 Right now it's on the Savannah Harbor 8 Expansion website thanks to Larry. It will be 9 on the CSS Georgia Savannah District website 10 shortly. Any questions? 11 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Questions? Will. 12 MR. BERSON: Okay. A while ago when I had 13 hair, and I was probably in eighth grade, I was 14 so into ironclads, so indulge me for just a 15 second. 16 As I recall, southern ironclads were often 17 built on wooden ships. Was the CSS Georgia an 18 all up matter or was it -- 19 MS. WOOD: Well, that was one of the 20 things because there's so little information 21 and she was launched so fast, we thought maybe 22 they had used something like a rice flat or 23 something for the hull, and just basically 24 built something on top of it, or used something 25 like that. 51 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 There's no reference to a vessel being 3 torn apart for use. So maybe they took an 4 existing rice barge or flat, and that would 5 explain the propulsion problems. That would be 6 a really hard thing, with all that iron, like 7 500 tons of iron, ordinance, cannons. 8 No wonder she leaked like a sieve. No 9 wonder she didn't go anywhere. But when they 10 were doing the -- in the archival study they 11 review all those different possibilities. 12 When they did the field work, they looked 13 at them again. Even though we don't have the 14 hull, there are clues as to what the hull had 15 to have looked like. 16 The propellers that are down there, we 17 know she had two propellers. We found one of 18 them when we were down there, but the way the 19 propellers are set up and things, she had to 20 have a curved back-end area, otherwise 21 propellers wouldn't work at all, which means 22 that it wasn't something that was a rice boat. 23 It wasn't something slapped together totally 24 by house carpenters. 25 Somewhere in that construction project was 52 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 a naval architect, and some real shipwrights 3 that could do compound curves, because she had 4 to have them on the back of the vessel. 5 So that's all in the reports. Like I 6 said, you can download them. Just use a lot of 7 memory. Eventually, volumes two and three of 8 the archival research will be on the web with 9 some format, with some caveats on it. 10 MR. DYSART: Other questions -- Judy. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Just help me understand, 12 Judy. There are two major sources of funding, 13 either O and M or the expansion project. 14 MS. WOOD: It would be either all 15 expansion, or O and M with a small expansion 16 kicker to it, where expansion would go in and 17 guarantee, before they sent a cutterhead in 18 there, they weren't going to suck up live 19 ordinance again. When they're down there with 20 a clambucket pulling it up, there might be 21 artifacts missed, during the original O and M 22 mitigation project, that we have to decide 23 whether we're going to conserve and display. 24 MS. JENNINGS: O and M is not equipped to 25 look for old ordinance. 53 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 MS. WOOD: When you do mitigation on an 3 archeological site, you reach the point of 4 where you're not getting the return for the 5 buck, where you're just going down there and do 6 you need every single piece of the pick-up 7 sticks of railroad iron, are you answering 8 questions. 9 Considering you only have really about a 10 four hour workday on that site, and you've got 11 the currents and things, it's amazingly 12 expensive to put divers down there to recover 13 the stuff. If the stuff you're recovering 14 isn't really answering your research questions, 15 it becomes a point of no return. 16 They're not going to go down there on O 17 and M and pull up every single thing. They're 18 in the dark groping. So there will be things 19 left behind. There may be a piece of ordinance 20 left behind. The stuff they have pulled up in 21 the past has had fuses, has had charges in it, 22 with the exception, possibly, of one nine inch 23 Dahlgren round, all of it was ready to go. 24 The nine inch Dahlgren round was actually 25 -- had a dry interior. The other ones had wet 54 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 interiors. So that's one of the big things 3 about the mitigation project. There's going to 4 be a EOD plan up front for how we deal with the 5 ordinance. 6 MR. DYSART: What is an EOD? 7 MS. WOOD: Sometimes it's called UXO, 8 unexploded ordinance. It will be a plan on how 9 it's treated when encountered by the 10 archeologists who'll pull it up off the bottom, 11 whether it will be inerted or not, whether it 12 can be conserved or not, based on the hazards 13 involved, identifying all the players in that. 14 It's a really complex project. 15 MR. BAILEY: Are you asking for 16 volunteers? 17 MS. WOOD: Yeah. When you pull the 18 ordinance of the bottom, the pressure change 19 from being at minus 42 to being at the surface 20 makes a fizz, which makes people really happy. 21 It's when you find out who your friends are in 22 the boat. 23 MR. DYSART: Any other questions? That 24 was fascinating. 25 MS. WOOD: Download the reports and read 55 1 CSS GEORGIA 2 them, people. 3 MR. DYSART: Hope. 4 MS. MOORER: I've read the report -- 5 drafts of the report, not the final, but they 6 are very easy reading. I'm not an 7 archeologist, and they're written, really, in a 8 manner that anyone in the public could read 9 them, and more like an historical novel, in 10 some places, than even an archaeology report. 11 So it is fascinating. If you have got a 12 chance, go read them. 13 MS. WOOD: The fascinating thing are Tim 14 Callahan's appendices. He's got all the 15 records of people making donations that 16 appeared in newspapers. There's actually one 17 where a little boy had died, and he left a 18 dollar behind to go to the construction, I 19 think, of the Washington Monument. His parents 20 decided the CSS Georgia was a better deal for 21 him to give it, so little John Doe Smith, five 22 years old, donated a dollar to the CSS Georgia 23 -- wonderful, historical vignettes in that 24 thing. 25 MR. DYSART: Judy. 56 1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UPDATE 2 MS. JENNINGS: Just one last. Judy, you 3 said that the Georgia's mitigated before any 4 digging. Is that a commitment from the Corps, 5 is there a law that says that -- 6 MS. WOOD: National Historic Preservation 7 Act says you have take into account your 8 effects on National Register properties and 9 take steps to mitigate or avoid those adverse 10 effects. That's basically what we're trying to 11 do. 12 MR. DYSART: Further comments or 13 questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Old 14 business. How about the update on the economic 15 analysis? 16 MR. GARRETT: I've got that, Ben. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. 18 MR. GARRETT: I've got some information 19 from the Mobile District working on the update. 20 USACE, I say USACE, U.S. Army Corps of 21 Engineers, U-S-A-C-E. That's the nomenclature 22 that's being used. I'll read what they gave 23 me. 24 As mentioned in previous status reports, 25 input provided by the previous contractor, GDC, 57 1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UPDATE 2 Incorporated, that economic analysis served as 3 an excellent foundation for the basic economic 4 report to address uncertainties in fleet 5 forecasts for port operations, as required by 6 the Corps of Engineers' guidance, and that 7 guidance is entitled Risk and Uncertainty, ER 8 1105-2-100. 9 In addition, the changes in container ship 10 and container port operations are occurring at 11 a rapid pace, possibly superseding previous 12 estimates and making recently completed work 13 outdated. 14 For example, in the first half of this 15 calendar year, 36 post-Panamex vessels called 16 at the Savannah Harbor. The GEC report -- 17 project report totaled six annual which 18 calendared through year 2012. It was a good 19 behind this forecast. Additionally this GEC 20 reports does not take into account the impacts 21 that expansion of the Panama Canal could have 22 on the East Coast ports, and finally potential 23 benefits associated with planned expansion of 24 the LNG terminal were evaluated by USACE, U.S. 25 Army Corps of Engineers Mobile. 58 1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UPDATE 2 Accordingly, additional analysis of the 3 vessels in fleet scenarios and port operations 4 is needed to meet guidance requirements and 5 issue a proper estimation of economic impacts, 6 and that's what they're in the middle of doing 7 now. 8 A little more detail on the uncertainties, 9 with respect to the Panama Canal, there was no 10 GEC efforts -- they assume no expansion of the 11 Panama Canal. So the vessel fleet forecasts 12 and resulting benefits are constrained by that 13 assumption. 14 In November of last year, the Panamanians 15 passed a national referendum to expand the 16 canal, and the expansion plan included a third 17 lane that would be able to accommodate 1,400 18 foot long ships that are 180 foot wide and 19 drafting 50 feet. 20 The proposed plan's construction is being 21 completed in 2014. I've got some hand-outs I 22 found in a magazine which are a pretty 23 interesting that show the schematics of the 24 Panama Canal, if anybody wants a copy of them. 25 The other they're looking at is changes in 59 1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UPDATE 2 port rotations, possible shipper reactions to a 3 deeper channel in Savannah. The shippers will 4 react to a deeper channel, in Savannah, by 5 making changes in port rotations and adjusting 6 existing container services. 7 Savannah was the first port of call and 8 the last port of call on certain services. 9 With the project, this would allow additional 10 cargo to be loaded given the channel deepening. 11 So they're looking at that as well. 12 As far as where they are right now in 13 updating the data and operational updates, the 14 data inputs, that was completed, but upon 15 further review of information in the model, the 16 benefits calculation, it was discovered the 17 data pertaining to the without project cargo 18 tons inbound and outbound, for each of the 19 benefitting services, was inaccurate. 20 Information provided on one carrier for 21 one service was used for all services. I'm 22 sure that means something to economics and port 23 folks. That's what our economics folks are 24 telling me. 25 After completing efforts to update the 60 1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UPDATE 2 2006 vessel call database, this information 3 will be determined for each service. Hope, I 4 know that you and Cathy have been going through 5 ship cards, going through all the data 6 providing all the economic data -- the vessel 7 data. 8 MS. MOORER: I sent her the last e-mail 9 correcting the data we sent her last week this 10 morning at 6:00 o'clock. 11 MR. GARRETT: You and Cathy need to be 12 knighted for the work effort. The operational 13 update, they continue to gather benefit from 14 model operation data for years 2004, 2006, and 15 that means vessels, and services, TEUs, draft 16 of the vessels. 17 The 2006 database is almost complete. 18 That information will be used to update the 19 baseline from which the future vessel fleet and 20 commerce will be projected for the period of 21 analysis. 22 Another model update is the inclusion of 23 additional benefitting services. Previous 24 efforts identified three benefitting services, 25 new services that have been calling on the 61 1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UPDATE 2 port, given these additions, plus the recently 3 passed referendum on the Panama Canal, these 4 project changes must be incorporated into the 5 benefits model. 6 So they're doing a lot of work to build 7 upon what was done the last three years, and 8 doing a great job -- topnotch people working on 9 it. We expect to see something, the final 10 report, the end of May. We'll be seeing some 11 reports coming out, for instance, the final 12 regional port analysis will be here by the end 13 of this month. That's the update. Thank you. 14 MR. DYSART: Hope. 15 MS. MOORER: How I kind of explain it to 16 people back at GPA, it's like an update of the 17 information that was done by GEC, which 18 concluded in 2003. This is the incorporation 19 of like '04, '05 and '06 data and changes to 20 the industry, like the Panama Canal vote action 21 taken, things like that. 22 So it's a lot of data collection right now 23 is what she is into to update the model. So 24 it's the most recent information they will be 25 using for economics. 62 1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UPDATE 2 MR. DYSART: Comments? 3 MS. JENNINGS: Alan -- 4 MR. GARRETT: Yes -- 5 MS. JENNINGS: -- really sorry about the 6 phone call. I missed some of it. Is that 7 available to the point I could reread it 8 sometime. 9 MR. GARRETT: What? 10 MS. JENNINGS: What you just read. 11 MR. GARRETT: I'll give you this whole 12 thing. 13 MS. JENNINGS: You know, one of the things 14 that I'm not sure I understand is about ports 15 of call, first in, first out, and the depth of 16 the harbor. I guess I'm still lost at, you 17 know, how much does the depth of the harbor 18 matter in terms of first port of call. 19 How important is that compared to the 20 commodities that are being moved, and where 21 they're being moved to, and where they need to 22 get? 23 MR. GARRETT: That's such an easy question 24 I'm going to let Hope answer that. 25 MS. MOORER: I would defer until we get -- 63 1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UPDATE 2 I would let Morgan answer it here, but I would 3 also defer and let Kim, Kim Otto at Mobile is 4 actually doing the analysis. When they get 5 further along in this update, she, Roger or Kim 6 are going to come and present it. 7 I would let them talk about it, because it 8 does have an impact in how it's incorporated 9 into the studies. I think it would be 10 important to let them talk about. The 11 rotations are significant, the types of cargo 12 are significant, the size of the canal impact, 13 the port rotation, first in and first out, what 14 depths they can travel. They have to look at 15 all of that in economics. She can tell you how 16 it's addressed. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. 18 MR. REES: If I may -- 19 MR. DYSART: Morgan, please. 20 MR. REES: Hope characterized it quite 21 well. From a NED benefit calculation 22 perspective, the most significant costs 23 involved are from the port of origin or 24 destination, and in most of the cases we're 25 dealing with, the Far East. 64 1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UPDATE 2 So that leg of the trip, the Far East to 3 the East Coast is -- has the biggest economic 4 impact. So the port that's called at first, 5 theoretically in the way the economic analysis 6 is done, generates the most benefits on that 7 trip. 8 And the port that they call at last, 9 before they take that long leg of the trip, 10 generates the most benefits. So if you assume 11 that the product is coming into some other port 12 first, you have more benefits that can be 13 attributed to that particular harbor where it 14 goes, and fewer benefits to the other harbors 15 down the line. 16 It's essentially a mathematical/economic 17 calculation that as Hope said. It depends on 18 the rotations, the kinds of vessels being used, 19 and the origin destination of the particular 20 boxes. 21 MS. JENNINGS: This is something I've 22 grappled with the whole time about I do 23 understand that ports like to be the first port 24 of call, but I don't understand the intuitive 25 logic behind more benefits being assigned to 65 1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UPDATE 2 the first port of call. I just don't 3 understand why. 4 MS. MOORER: A lot of the in the industry 5 how they make those decisions, from what I 6 understand, is not only the depth of the 7 harbor, but whether it's coming Suez or Panama, 8 because if it's limited by depth, they can call 9 more of the harbors on the East Coast on the 10 first call, but if it's coming from the Suez, 11 it can load heavier and go to a heavier port, 12 a deeper port first. 13 So this made a significant change, the 14 deepening of the Panama Canal made a 15 significant change in how the economics are 16 being done, because that first port status 17 through the Panama, if it's a deeper 18 possibility then it had to be looked at as part 19 of the economics too. 20 MS. JENNINGS: I thoroughly agree. I'm 21 sure I'm on the record, at some point, 22 complaining about the GEC analysis because they 23 didn't include changes in the Panama. So 24 that's not new to me. 25 I still am kind of lost in the thought 66 1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UPDATE 2 that so you can get there, so your boat can be 3 full, but what if all the distribution centers 4 in our area, you know, volume of trade -- 5 volume of trade through a geographical region. 6 I guess that's getting what I'm getting 7 at. The fact that you have the capacity to 8 move the trade into that geographical region 9 doesn't, to me, immediately say that there is 10 demand for the trade in that geographical 11 region. 12 And then what do you start talking about, 13 the cost and benefits, you know, you come in to 14 the East Coast, you're trying to get to all 15 those population centers, I'm just not sure how 16 do we know that even, if you build it they will 17 come. 18 We've gone back and forth about this all 19 the time. When you start putting numbers to 20 it, I know our distribution centers have grown, 21 but -- in number and in business. I guess I'm 22 just -- am I being clear with what I don't 23 understand? 24 MR. REES: The volume of trade really 25 drives the analysis then you figure out what's 67 1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UPDATE 2 the most economic way to transport that volume 3 of trade. 4 In other words, it's not a build it and 5 they will come. That's not the way the process 6 works. It's what's coming and what do we have 7 to build to accommodate it. Hope's suggestion 8 of -- 9 MR. DYSART: That almost sounded profound, 10 didn't it? 11 MR. REES: Hope's suggestion of talking to 12 the economists who are doing the work is a very 13 helpful one, and maybe, you know, you can call 14 a meeting of the Economic Working Group and 15 deal with this issue on a very technical basis. 16 I mean, the Corps, for those of you who 17 don't follow this kind of stuff, the Corps has 18 established the Mobile District as their 19 navigation center of expertise, and they have 20 their top navigation experts there. 21 They really are good, and those are the 22 people that Hope was mentioning that would be 23 here at some future date. We can spend how 24 ever much time you need to and walk through the 25 process and understand it. 68 1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UPDATE 2 MS. MOORER: Okay. I think since they're 3 still completing the research, that's why 4 they're just e-mailing the updates right now, 5 they're not even at the point yet they could 6 even talk about the, you know, what's going 7 into the model yet. 8 The data is still being collected and the 9 research is still being collected for it, but 10 they are open for coming once they reach that 11 point -- to be scheduled. 12 MR. DYSART: Will. 13 MR. BERSON: This has always struck me as 14 one of the questions on the SATs that I hated 15 the most which is two people get on the train, 16 and there are 12 people on the train, and two 17 get off and four get on and how many got off at 18 Scarsdale and you're like let's see. But 19 having said that, it does seem to me that 20 there's a certain regional component to this as 21 well. 22 I mean, whether or not Savannah would be 23 first call is sort interrelated with other 24 ports and their capabilities as well. The two 25 do mix in this, don't they? 69 1 BALLAST WATER 2 MR. REES: Right. 3 MR. BERSON: We were talking about the 4 regional multiport analysis before, and I just 5 -- they're sort of discrete tasks. I was 6 wondering actually are they, they can tell me 7 how they did it, I just wondering if they're 8 doing it. 9 MR. REES: Yes. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Further questions? 11 How about introduce yourself, you came in a 12 little bit late. 13 MR. BOWERS: Gail Bowers, League of Women 14 Voters. 15 MR. DYSART: How would you like to take a 16 five minute break? 17 (Short Break) 18 MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's call the meeting 19 back to order, please. I don't believe anyone 20 has joined the meeting, so let's -- let's move 21 onto the ballast water presentation. Hope, are 22 you ready? 23 MS. MOORER: Sure. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. 25 MS. MOORER: We found something in the 70 1 BALLAST WATER 2 Federal Register, and anytime we've brought it 3 to the SEG before, at prior meetings, 4 information about ballast water when we've seen 5 it, and the regulations surrounding it. 6 And the final rule was issued on 7 wednesday, July 28, 2004, in the Federal 8 Register, and it was for mandatory ballast 9 water management practices for all vessels. 10 We posted this on the website too, the 11 2004 final rules for ballast water management. 12 The recent activity that we found is the 13 Friday, January 19th, 2007 notice in the 14 Federal Register about the potential revision 15 of mandatory ballast water management reporting 16 requirements, and they're having a series of 17 public meetings, and a request for public 18 comment on these, and so -- on ballast water 19 management reporting and record keeping 20 requirements. 21 So we posted that latest Federal Register 22 notice on the website as well. So you have -- 23 there's something we wanted to mention. There 24 is a deadline for comments, and I think it's 25 March 15th, I believe. 71 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 It's very soon, but usually they allow 3 comments to be submitted by e-mail as well. So 4 I think that's when -- March 16th, sorry not 5 15th, March 16th. 6 The meetings, there are two meetings and 7 they're not local. One's in Chicago, one's in 8 New Orleans, but the comments will be accepted 9 until March 16th. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Comments, questions? 11 Thank you. Next item oxygen injection, Hope. 12 MS. MOORER: Yes. The Georgia Ports 13 Authority was approached by a contractor who 14 had been -- who had done some of the work on 15 the study about what method would be best for 16 mitigation for DO impacts, with an idea for us 17 to consider. 18 And basically a lot of agencies, people, 19 public, everyone has questions about how these 20 oxygen injection systems might work in a system 21 that is as dynamic as the Savannah Harbor. 22 They are in use in other locations, other 23 types of water bodies, at dams, in Brunswick 24 actually they have some of the oxygen injection 25 systems working. But the Savannah system 72 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 estuary is unique. 3 And so -- so they proposed maybe we 4 consider a demonstration project of the oxygen 5 injection system, and the board voted on it on 6 March 1st -- last month. They voted on it 7 earlier prior and approved that we'd be able to 8 do this. 9 So the details of the contract are still 10 being worked out, still being finalized, as to 11 the scope of what will be done, but the 12 proposal is to have two of these speis cone 13 units built and mounted to a barge for 14 temporary use. 15 The proposal for the harbor project, if 16 it's used as mitigation, which it is proposed 17 to be used as mitigation, would be a land-based 18 system. But this, for the demonstration 19 project, will be the mounted to a barge, and 20 will be located near the critical area of low 21 DO in the harbor and in the channel. And 22 location is what we're working on too. 23 There will be some testing prior to the 24 running, and testing during monitoring, and 25 testing during the use of the system that is 73 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 through a lunar cycle, and the critical time 3 period say August to September is what we're 4 shooting for for the demonstration project. 5 MR. DYSART: Who was the contractor? 6 MS. MOORER: It's MacTech Engineering and 7 Construction, and they're the ones who did the 8 first phase of study for the Corps of Engineers 9 on what would be the best option for mitigation 10 for low DO in the harbor caused by the project. 11 So the board approved it, and we're 12 working with them on the final scope and 13 contracts, and we'll be able to tell you more 14 once all those details have been worked out. 15 MR. DYSART: Will. 16 MR. BERSON: I'm sure that you're doing 17 this, I'm just going to ask anyway. Are you 18 working with EPD, and other resource agencies, 19 to see if they're concerns are being met and 20 what they'd like to see come out of the 21 demonstration project? 22 MS. MOORER: Yes. In fact, some of the 23 testing, for the few weeks prior to monitoring, 24 few weeks prior to was one of their 25 suggestions. 74 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 One of the changes we're negotiating, as 3 part of the scope, is not only half hour 4 testing, with the unit, out in the channel 5 that's recorded, but also vertical and 6 horizontal profiles through the channel, so -- 7 at weekly intervals. So all that's being 8 talked about it, and those were suggestions 9 from the agencies. 10 MR. DYSART: Keith. 11 MR. PARSONS: You're right. You have been 12 talking with EPD, and it ties into the TMDL for 13 the Savannah Harbor. And while this is a 14 demonstration project, on a fairly small 15 area of the harbor, it's uncertain as to 16 whether a larger project, which would expand to 17 the whole harbor, would be part of this 18 proposal or not, which would require probably 19 several more than just two units, and the cost, 20 and who would responsible for the long-term O 21 and M of those additional units. 22 MS. MOORER: This is just a demonstration 23 of the equipment and how it operates. One of 24 the questions NOAA has is what is the 25 temperature of the discharge. 75 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 That's a question that's going to be 3 answered with the demonstration project. It's 4 not scoped to take care of the whole impact 5 yet. 6 That would be scoped by the Corps for the 7 harbor project or the overall ecosystem 8 restoration project. This is just a 9 demonstration to see how the equipment works, 10 really. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy and then Will 12 again. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Yes. Since Keith mentioned 14 two things I meant to come back to it, did I 15 miss the first item, because I was late, on the 16 TMDLs? 17 MR. DYSART: It's been rescheduled. 18 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 19 MR. DYSART: You didn't miss it. 20 MS. JENNINGS: And somebody help me here, 21 this has got to be biology. It just seems 22 intuitive that we need to increase dissolved 23 oxygen in river that has low DO, but do we have 24 any projection of what the biological impacts 25 would be? 76 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 I mean, if we really did raise the 3 dissolved oxygen to the extent that if all the 4 speis cones were put in there, why would I be 5 happy about the river? I guess I'm just 6 wanting to see some biological benefits for the 7 effort. 8 MS. MOORER: I would defer that to someone 9 else. 10 MR. DYSART: What biologist would like to 11 volunteer? 12 MS. JENNINGS: I mean, there was CR versus 13 EPA, that's one thing, but what I would get out 14 of it, here in the Savannah Harbor, with speis 15 cones? 16 MR. BAILEY: With the expansion, we are -- 17 the agencies, working with the agencies, we've 18 identified fish species to look at and defined 19 habitat, what makes good habitat for them or 20 acceptable habitat. Oxygen is a factor in 21 three out of four of those. 22 So if the oxygen level is increased, it 23 makes better habitat for those fish. So you're 24 probably going to have a larger population of 25 those fish. They're not going to be as 77 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 stressed by temperature and will continue 3 growing through the summer rather than 4 stopping. 5 MS. JENNINGS: Those are just my 6 assumptions, but I'm a great believer in life 7 finds a way. What would happen, maybe this 8 population in the river -- I just didn't know. 9 And do you -- I mean, like when do the marsh 10 secession, any of the wetlands studies, how -- 11 can you think ahead and think well, if we raise 12 the DO of the main channel, what impacts that 13 that would have on the surrounding wetlands? 14 MR. BAILEY: In our analyses, we're only 15 looking at the DO as it effects on fish. We 16 don't think DO affects the wetlands, but it 17 limits the growth of plants. 18 MR. DYSART: Will and then Carl. 19 MR. BERSON: I -- 20 MR. DYSART: Thank you for that biological 21 fitting, Bill. 22 MR. BERSON: There are a lot of elements 23 to this demonstration project that I won't 24 pretend to understand, but as long as you guys 25 are working with folks who I have every 78 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 confidence do understand this, it makes a lot 3 of sense. 4 I really think the GPA board and the GPA 5 staff should be commended. I think it makes a 6 lot of sense and will help people understand, 7 and hopefully learn more about what Judy was 8 asking, which is a wider application of this 9 concept, in terms of either the harbor 10 deepening or the DO problem in the river. I 11 think it's a good thing, and I just wanted to 12 say that. 13 MR. DYSART: We, I think my sense of the 14 whole body shares your views, is appreciative 15 of this study, and I was not being facetious in 16 talking about underlining the importance of 17 dissolved oxygen for biota. 18 I think that is intuitive, but it's also 19 very significant. This is a key parameter. 20 It's a key question, and it is good a pilot 21 scale operation can enhance the level of 22 specific knowledge in this particular 23 situation. I appreciate you're bringing that 24 up Will, thank you. Do you have anything else 25 to say? 79 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 MR. BERSON: No. I just want to make sure 3 you saw Carl's -- 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. Carl's next, Carl. 5 MR. HALL: Just a comment on Judy's 6 question. Basically, dissolved oxygen 7 requirements for not only different species, 8 but merely species of fish, but also different 9 life history stages, and reproductive 10 requirements have been studied for years and 11 years and years, and continue to be refined as 12 new technology comes on to study requirements. 13 But all the standards, water quality 14 standards, of course, are based on all those 15 studies and requirements. But, you know, 16 everything is critical to adult fish even, in 17 terms of fish health. Fish health is a big 18 issue now. 19 But the most critical aspect comes from a 20 reproductive standpoint, or early life history 21 forms. That's where the rubber meets the road, 22 so to speak, in terms of sufficient DO 23 requirements. 24 And of course, all what's reported on 25 here, years and years, even though the harbor 80 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 proper is, I reckon, been characterized as -- 3 could be characterized as a populate zone of 4 fauna and flora because of the freshwater 5 saltwater interface, it's where everything -- 6 the tides mix and a very unstable area. 7 There are critical species that utilize 8 and spawn, striped bass, shortnose sturgeon, 9 different life history stages, in some cases 10 reproductive activities, and just certain 11 things that you would have to protect. 12 And of course, the depth as we know is a 13 factor with the salinity, and then I think 14 Keith could help me with this, I think the 15 bottom line is that -- maybe Bob over here -- 16 we're dealing with kind of the law, and what 17 the requirements are, and what happens to the 18 -- what the City of Savannah has to do if you 19 don't. It's not just fish. Certainly, we can 20 have great benefits for at least making sure 21 that we maintain suitable DO. 22 And sometimes that doesn't -- probably 23 will never -- may not will seldom be the ideal 24 which is put in the law, as far as the water 25 quality standards goes. 81 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 But we've got to do what we can to protect 3 that. And I don't know how the standards are 4 going come out, how they're going to be 5 rewritten, not rewritten, what we're going to 6 get by with, what we're not going to get by 7 with. 8 But it's primarily -- the critical issue 9 deals with reproduction, you know, DO 10 requirements and early life history forms, and 11 adult fish can move out of critical pockets of 12 low DO in other areas, until they're inhibited 13 by temperature issues, or have like shortnose 14 sturgeon, deep holes. 15 We all know that Savannah Harbor was the 16 lowest dissolved oxygen point in the river 100 17 years ago, because it's the -- we call it the 18 Big Dipper Effect out there. The tide stream 19 in this area drops and then it comes back up, 20 but -- which is -- I don't know what else to 21 say. We're really dealing with the law. 22 MR. DYSART: Any further comments? Judy. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Just to clarify, there 24 won't be any biological data collected, during 25 the demonstration project? 82 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 MS. MOORER: Not biological data. There 3 will be parameters of ph, salinity, 4 temperature, all of those things will be 5 collected during the time, but not testing on 6 species of fish, or sampling, or what have you. 7 MR. HALL: Pretty much you have to rely on 8 the available literature which has been updated 9 and new literature put out throughout time on 10 requirements. That's pretty much what you'll 11 have to go by and try to the maximum extent 12 possible, you know, meet the requirements of 13 the literature. It's pretty good data, and 14 it's more refined than it was 20 years ago. 15 MR. DYSART: Will. 16 MR. BERSON: Another part that I've heard 17 people express concern about with this idea is 18 you also get a good energy required to actually 19 do this, and you can extrapolate from that what 20 a wider application would require, which is 21 going to be an interesting component of the 22 overall mitigation project. 23 MS. MOORER: Well, actually, that won't 24 help it. 25 MR. BERSON: It won't? 83 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 MS. MOORER: No. The reason why is 3 because the most efficient that these units 4 work is if they are at the level of the 5 channel, so where it will be a discharge. 6 If you are looking at a land-based system, 7 the ideal way to design it would be kind of 8 construct a box and situate it down so that the 9 requirements for discharging would be back up 10 and then out. So the energy used wouldn't be 11 as high. 12 These sitting on a barge will require more 13 energy than a normal operating unit. Those -- 14 that data can be acquired very easily from 15 Dr. Speis, and the cones that are already in 16 operation all over. That data is available, 17 and I'm sure will be reported out, but it won't 18 be a part, really, of the study. 19 MR. BERSON: Never mind. 20 MS. MOORER: But it's a good thing to 21 raise because it is available. 22 MR. DYSART: Carl and then Joel. 23 MR. HALL: One more comment, the law 24 requires these measures be taken below 25 hydroelectric dams, and these same critical 84 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 issues seem to the same thing here in the 3 harbor. 4 MR. DYSART: Joel. 5 MR. FLEMING: Do you have a target time 6 frame, is it this year? 7 MS. MOORER: Yes, this year, and the 8 August/September time frame. We'll coordinate 9 with all the agencies -- MacTech will actually, 10 I'm sorry -- to come take a look at the system, 11 answer questions about the system. And prior 12 to the study being done, we want to get 13 questions from the agencies to make sure that 14 everything we're doing will answer as well as 15 the demonstration project can. 16 We're not looking to solve the problem 17 with the harbor with this demonstration 18 project, but just in the operation of how these 19 units operate, kind of questions about that. 20 MR. FLEMING: Just one additional comment, 21 there is -- currently there is a study going on 22 right now with shortnose sturgeon, which is one 23 of the species of concern where there's some 24 acoustic telemetry methodologies being used. 25 One of -- I would encourage any kind of 85 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 collaboration that can be made with Mark 3 Collins, and those guys in South Carolina -- 4 MS. MOORER: Sure. 5 MR. FLEMING: -- during the study. You 6 may want to look to see if there actually 7 sturgeon in the area during this time, how they 8 may -- 9 MS. MOORER: React. 10 MR. FLEMING: -- react, yeah. 11 MR. DYSART: Gail. 12 MS. BOWERS: When you say that you're 13 looking at August/September, are you looking 14 at one month that these speis cones are going 15 to be demonstrated, or over a two month period? 16 MS. MOORER: Six weeks, it's through the 17 lunar cycle for the various tidal ranges within 18 that lunar cycle, and for a couple weeks prior 19 they would running to collect data just as -- 20 there would be monitoring prior to running of 21 the speis cones to see what the conditions were 22 in the river without the speis cones. 23 MS. BOWERS: And if it were decided that 24 speis cones would be the way to go, are we 25 looking at speis cones on both sides of the 86 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 river or just the one side of the river? 3 MS. MOORER: That's not a part of the 4 demonstration project. That is part of the 5 design of mitigation by the Corps. 6 MS. BOWERS: Okay. 7 MR. DYSART: Will. 8 MR. BERSON: At the risk of sounding like 9 a GPA plant today, y'all are -- the board has 10 decided to expend to pay for this, outside of 11 the project? 12 MS. MOORER: Yes, up to 3.2 million 13 dollars. 14 MR. BERSON: I think that's very 15 commendable. 16 MS. MOORER: Now, the units -- well, a 17 bulk of that cost, almost half of the cost is 18 for the two units themselves, and this was 19 where it was essentially the units could be 20 utilized later by the project, or the units 21 could be sold, if it's not deemed feasible. 22 But those -- that's where a bulk of that 23 cost, like half of that cost, comes from is for 24 the construction of the two speis cones. Other 25 costs are in there, of course, for the study, 87 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 for the reporting, for the barge lease, the 3 dock lease, the power for it too. 4 It's a lot of other variables in that 5 cost, but about half of it is for the units 6 themselves. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. Will. 8 MR. BERSON: Any -- I would encourage you, 9 if it's safe and possible, if you could allow 10 folks to see it, the more people that can sort 11 understand it the better. 12 I don't want to interfere with the 13 operations or the safety factor, but I for one 14 would love to see the thing up close and 15 personal -- just don't push me in. 16 MS. MOORER: I think everybody will able 17 to see it from a distance. It's in a very 18 visible area, but the -- 19 MR. DYSART: I think Will wants to put on 20 a scuba tank -- 21 MS. MOORER: We'll work with the 22 contractor. I'm not sure what property, where 23 it would be placed yet, so I'm not sure just 24 from logistics and insurance and safety 25 requirements we'll have to work out within the 88 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 contract. But yes, also it's open that if 3 anyone has any questions about the system 4 itself, just e-mail them to me and I can pass 5 them on to the contractor. 6 If it's part of what can be shown, through 7 the demonstration, you know we'll get back to 8 you. 9 MR. DYSART: Well we hope you will carry 10 the sense of the interest and excitement of the 11 body back to GPA, and at least provide a bit of 12 positive feedback to the board that their 13 effort has been noted. We very much appreciate 14 it. Anymore comments? Judy. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Well, not to Hope. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. 17 MS. JENNINGS: But the Corps has made, you 18 know, we've had a presentation, and going back 19 to the question of did we have any idea about 20 how many will be needed? 21 MR. BAILEY: I think there's -- 22 MR. GARRETT: How many speis cones will be 23 needed? 24 MR. BAILEY: The number of cones I'm not 25 sure, probably in the report that's been 89 1 OXYGEN INJECTION 2 posted. Locations, it's at least two 3 locations, maybe three. It's basically up at 4 houlihan Bridge was one, Talmadge Bridge was 5 the other one. I'm not sure if there was a 6 third one for the incremental effects of 7 expansion. 8 MR. DYSART: Hope. 9 MS. MOORER: And these units can be sized 10 according to the need of how much oxygen is 11 needed for the project. So it's -- the unit 12 will be sized such that it can produce so much 13 of the oxygen that's needed, according to 14 what's been studied thus far and modelled thus 15 far. 16 MR. DYSART: Further questions or 17 comments? 18 MR. HALL: I have one stupid question. 19 MR. DYSART: Yes, please. 20 MR. HALL: Say you have the units just go 21 to the upper end. I, for the life of me, 22 cannot remember the egg flow time studies we've 23 done, or how far down -- has anybody looked? 24 You may be able to recover some of the 25 oxygenated water back through the flood tide. 90 1 MILESTONES UPDATE 2 I mean, say from a certain distance upstream, 3 you impact the DO, the water column downstream, 4 ebb tide movement, depending on river flow. It 5 depends on a lot of things, but it's not just 6 all out in the ocean. 7 MR. BAILEY: Yes, they have a model. 8 MR. HALL: You can recover some back in to 9 benefit. 10 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 11 MR. HALL: Okay. 12 MR. DYSART: More resonance time than just 13 a flow -- 14 MR. HALL: Well, put resonance time. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. Further questions? 16 Okay. Schedule milestones update, Hope. 17 MS. MOORER: That's me again. 18 MR. DYSART: Yes. 19 MS. MOORER: These milestones, Larry has 20 updated them on the website. And I think one 21 of the questions last time was about when the 22 public information meeting would be, between 23 kind of the draft of the impact, the draft of 24 the mitigation plan, prior to the final 25 documents being put out for draft. 91 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 And it looks like that's going to fall 3 about the October time frame. So that's on the 4 update, and that would be the public meeting 5 just to go through the mitigation plan that's 6 kind of in the final draft, before it goes to 7 the GRS and EIS draft that's put out for public 8 comment. 9 So one more kind of look see before it's 10 put into the document. It looks the draft GRR 11 and EIS, in the schedule, will be out for 12 public comment in January '08. And those are 13 kind of the major items right now in front of 14 us. 15 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any comments or 16 questions about the milestone's schedule? 17 Okay. How about some committee reports. 18 Anything from the Aquifer Committee, Bob? 19 MR. SCANLON: No. I was hoping to listen 20 and hear Card today. 21 MR. GARRETT: You'll find him on the 22 levees in New Orleans. 23 MR. SCANLON: Defer to levees. 24 MR. DYSART: Bill Farmer said that the 25 Beach Erosion Committee had not met. Dredging 92 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 and Disposal, nothing to report. Judy, 3 Economics Working Group -- excuse me, Lou Off. 4 MR. OFF: As chairman of the Beach Task 5 Force, we have -- we enjoyed the presentation 6 that Bill Bailey gave us, which was similar to 7 what he gave y'all back in September. 8 We're real disappointed that it's been 9 difficult trying to get a Beach Erosion 10 Committee going. We have concerns, obviously 11 having lost 100 million cubic yards of material 12 due to the channel over the last 100 years, we 13 have concerns of getting this material back. 14 We feel what Bill Bailey has done is an 15 excellent way of getting about 10% of that 16 material back on this deepening; however, our 17 concerns at the Task Force are what is the 18 warranty of making sure that we are going get 19 this. 20 This is not really mitigation. It's more 21 of an operation of the dredging process, 22 similar to what was presented today, except the 23 difference being that the delta in front of 24 Tybee has not been vetted as a disposal area, 25 through environmental, fisheries, and all those 93 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 other things we don't like to mention when we 3 are trying to get this done. 4 But we feel this committee, the SEG in 5 general, the Erosion Committee specifically, 6 needs to vet this process. Because what we 7 don't to have happen is that Tybee, whether 8 we're in line for approving or disapproving the 9 channel deepening, all of sudden know that 10 we're going to be getting 5 to 10 million cubic 11 yards of material, and then all of a sudden due 12 to not being properly vetted that at the last 13 minute the material does the same thing as it 14 does every December and goes five miles out to 15 sea. 16 So I don't know who to address the 17 question to, but I guess the main question is 18 how can we be guaranteed of getting the 19 material, which is on Bill's drawing board 20 here, out of this process? 21 MR. DYSART: Who -- would anyone like to 22 comment on that? 23 MR. BAILEY: The presentation that I gave 24 is our current design. At the moment, that's 25 the plan that we intend to put in the draft 94 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 GRR, draft EIS. 3 So anything can change until that report 4 -- until you read that report. So I think I'll 5 say that that piece we don't think will change, 6 but I think if you want to assurances you have 7 to wait until you read the document and see 8 what the Corps proposing, and then comment on 9 that. 10 Then the Corps will take those comments 11 and make a decision and issue a final report. 12 They will make decisions based on that final 13 report. 14 MR. OFF: If I may, I think maybe I have 15 to make my point clear that we have so many 16 others, as we see by conversations in here, 17 including DNR that have yes and no 18 decision-making on this. 19 And what Bill says is fine. We brought 20 our consultant in. He feels that this is a 21 pretty good way of getting material in our 22 area, but that area has not been vetted 23 through, just like you're doing for the river 24 itself. The area has not been vetted for the 25 environment and fisheries and different 95 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 processes such as that. 3 Our concern is that we're going to go 4 along fat, dumb, and happy, and we're going to 5 be getting this material, and then at the last 6 minute due, to a processing through DNR which 7 also has to permit that area, that we're going 8 to be cut out. 9 It's just something that we would like to 10 have answered, prior to the time comes of 11 saying that this is way it's going to happen. 12 Some of those things are beyond what Bill 13 Bailey can provide for us. 14 MR. BAILEY: Well, I think the Corps 15 doesn't like surprises either. Nobody likes 16 surprises. 17 We have tried to find out peoples' views, 18 as we've gone along. Much of this process is 19 to get peoples' views as we go along, rather 20 than at the end, so we can try to incorporate 21 all those views. 22 We did talk with DNR, when we developed 23 that plan, and developed it kind of side by 24 side with them. So we think that Coastal 25 Resources -- from what I think -- the Coastal 96 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 Resources is happy with that plan. 3 Part of the vetting that -- part of what 4 we hope in talking to this group is that other 5 people will say, you know, when they hear it if 6 don't like it they will say, wait a minute, I 7 don't like that. Part of this is supposed to 8 be a two-way street here. 9 MR. OFF: That's my point. 10 MR. BAILEY: So we have, you know, we've 11 presented what we're doing so far. We haven't 12 gotten, as far as I remember, we haven't gotten 13 any concerns about that proposed design. But 14 the way the process is, we're always open to it 15 up until the final decision. 16 If people have comments on different 17 things that are presented like the inner harbor 18 sediment placement, part of the purpose is two 19 ways. If you don't -- if there's something 20 there you think is wrong, or would impact, have 21 some hazardous impact, let us know. 22 MR. DYSART: Keith -- Keith, Bill and 23 Judy. 24 MR. PARSONS: I assume that this sand 25 that's being proposed to renourish Tybee 97 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 beaches, during this whole process, is coming 3 from offshore channel maintenance from the 4 deepening, is that correct? 5 MR. OFF: No, it's not correct. 6 MR. BAILEY: It comes from deepening the 7 channel. 8 MR. OFF: We get no maintenance. 9 MR. PARSONS: With that said, there are 10 mechanisms we can put in the permits, that we 11 write at the State, that will essentially 12 guarantee Tybee will have source made available 13 to it in perpetuity. 14 The Corps would have abide by those 15 conditions, so there's a way -- there is a way 16 to get to that guarantee. 17 MR. DYSART: Lou's thinking about that. 18 Will. 19 MR. BERSON: I was going to ask really a 20 basic question. In terms of responsibility for 21 getting approval from DNR, CRD for placement on 22 the beaches, is it the Corps' responsibility or 23 is it the City of Tybee's responsibility? 24 MR. BAILEY: It's the Corps' and that 25 would come through their comments on the draft 98 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 EIS. 3 MR. DYSART: Judy. 4 MS. JENNINGS: Well, a couple of 5 questions. Lou, you said that the plan you've 6 been shown would get you about 10% of what you 7 lost or 10% of what you want, which way is 8 that? 9 MR. OFF: Over the years there's been 10 about 10 million or 100 million cubic yards of 11 material that's been dredged out of the harbor 12 channel -- actually the bar channel. 13 Some of that has been material which would 14 have fed the delta near shore in front of 15 Tybee. I think it's immaterial as comparing, 16 it's almost apples to oranges, but depending on 17 the depth we're going to go, there's different 18 quantities that will end up in front of Tybee, 19 as much as seven or eight million cubic yards. 20 So that's not the material part of the 21 question. The material part of the question is 22 to ensure that that material gets placed in 23 that area. 24 MS. JENNINGS: Which is really the real 25 point of my comment; is -- Bill and Alan, I 99 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 know you're here looking for feedback, Lou, the 3 report from the Beach Erosion Committee was 4 that it had not met. It didn't have a report. 5 Would it be helpful for Bill and Alan to 6 have more specific questions, feedback, or 7 whatever from that committee? Bill Farmer 8 left, but I'm asking, you know, is that an 9 active committee? 10 Is there some way y'all can get together? 11 Maybe you can have a committee meeting and be 12 more specific about what your concerns are 13 before the draft hits the street? 14 MR. OFF: I requested a committee meeting 15 back in November, so maybe this is a further 16 request. 17 MS. JENNINGS: Is there something this 18 body can do to help you make that a reality, 19 and Bill and Alan, you say you want to hear it 20 sooner than later; so wouldn't it be helpful 21 to all of us, if Lou -- if you could somehow -- 22 do you need more committee members, do you need 23 to relook at your chair, or, you know, what is 24 keeping the Beach Erosion Committee from being 25 more specific in their comments, questions and 100 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 concerns to the Corps, at this point, so you 3 can make sure you're not caught off guard. At 4 least, you know you told them -- 5 MR. DYSART: Why don't we -- 6 MR. OFF: I am not a member of the Beach 7 Erosion Committee, so -- 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. It's my understanding 9 that committees are made up by people who are 10 interested in the topic. That's an open 11 process. 12 And this is something that this body would 13 like to have a report from the Beach Erosion 14 Committee next time, I presume that word will 15 be conveyed. And people who on the committee, 16 or who would like to be on deliberations of the 17 committee, request to convene a committee 18 meeting. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Lou, do you feel empowered, 20 as a SEG member, to try and arrange that 21 committee meeting? 22 MR. OFF: No. I feel it's a conflict of 23 interest since I'm the chairman of the Beach 24 task Force of Tybee to. I'll be glad to 25 participate in Erosion. I want to participate 101 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 in an Erosion Committee meeting, but there 3 hasn't been a meeting, I think, for about two 4 years. 5 Since we now have these -- the work done 6 by Bill, I think it's time. You know, the old 7 saying is put up or shut up, because we want to 8 be planning on what we want to be doing with 9 our beach area. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Hope then Will. 11 MS. MOORER: This is not addressing that, 12 but I think to follow-up with Judy, I think the 13 SEG could request the Beach Erosion Committee 14 have a meeting, prior to the next meeting, and 15 bring a report back. 16 What I was going to ask, kind of from a 17 technical standpoint of how the projects are 18 approved, is it that incorporated into the 19 project with the DNR saying we need coastal 20 zone, that meets coastal zone management 21 program, or fits within it in the final 22 document; is that how it's approved? 23 What constitutes approval, in other 24 words for Lou in the end? It can't be done 25 prior to the project being finalized and 102 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 approved. It has to be a part of the final 3 approval of the entire project, is that how it 4 works? 5 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 6 MS. MOORER: Okay. 7 MR. BAILEY: It's approved as part of the 8 final project. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. Will and then Keith. 10 MR. BERSON: We had a very interesting 11 presentation, I guess, at the last meeting 12 about the litoral system and sand sharing. I 13 was just wondering if -- there seemed to be 14 some relationship between the bar area and some 15 manmade structures there and the effect on 16 Tybee. 17 I was wondering if that's being factored 18 in? What Lou is talking about is what do you 19 do with stuff you've dug up in basic, but the 20 other part was talking about manmade 21 alterations to the natural system. I was 22 wondering if that is factored into the project, 23 in any way, as a mitigation measure or -- 24 MR. BAILEY: Another of the studies that 25 is part of this is looking at the effects of 103 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 further deepening, what effects that has on the 3 adjacent shoreline, and it's 10 miles each 4 direction. 5 Done that, presented that, I think Alan 6 talked about it. That's where he gave you the 7 calculus up there. So that was I believe -- I 8 think -- what you're looking for. So that 9 presented kind of how the system is out there 10 now, where stuff is going, and how you would 11 change that, if you deepen the harbor. 12 MR. BERSON: Okay. I guess I was asking 13 is there a feedback clip to that, which is to 14 say to make up for a way to mitigate the 15 additional changes to the system, from the 16 proposed deepening, I guess is the way you 17 would construct that sentence? 18 MR. BAILEY: I think if this deepening 19 does not cause adverse impacts, then there is 20 no need to mitigate. 21 MR. BERSON: I understand. 22 MR. BAILEY: Going into the early phases 23 of this project, the Corps' Washington level 24 folks had said this project could not mitigate 25 for all past impacts, so -- 104 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 MR. BERSON: I understand. I think you 3 answered my question. 4 MR. DYSART: Keith. 5 MR. PARSONS: Again, there's a number of 6 mechanisms the State can use through the 7 Coastal Resources Division, the Coastal 8 Consistency Program, and the 401 Water Quality 9 Certification, where we could put conditions, 10 on the federal permit, the Corps would be 11 responsible to ensure are implemented which 12 would, again, require that the material that's 13 dredged out of the bar harbor channel is made 14 available for the beach nourishment program. 15 So, you know, we do have mechanisms. We 16 probably will need to talk about that, if 17 y'all want the assurance that this material 18 will be made available for the Tybee Island 19 beach nourishment. So there are definitely 20 ways to nail this down. 21 MR. DYSART: Okay. Further comments? 22 MS. JENNINGS: Is the Corps aware of 23 those, obviously interagency meetings y'all 24 talk about those things? 25 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 105 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 MS. JENNINGS: Maybe the only people that 3 we weren't communicating to is the Beach 4 Erosion Committee. 5 MR. BAILEY: Could be. 6 MS. JENNINGS: To help the SEG work a 7 little better, would it be appropriate for one 8 of us -- this is my thing about this Beach 9 Erosion Committee, in the early days of the SEG 10 that was the one committee I never went to 11 because I didn't feel like they needed another 12 -- they didn't need me in the sense they had so 13 many people involved in it. They all seemed 14 much more knowledgeable than I was. 15 I'm just wondering what happened to that 16 committee, and would it be helpful if perhaps 17 Ben contacted Bill and asked him to call a 18 meeting, and come up with some real specific 19 questions and concerns? 20 MR. DYSART: If that's necessary, I would 21 be happy to, but I presume there are local 22 people -- I'll be happy to communicate that 23 there is a sense that there is substantive 24 material that SEG would like to have the 25 committee's feedback and views on, and that we 106 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 would like to have that scheduled so that it 3 could be presented at the next meeting. I'll 4 be happy to do that. 5 Further comments and questions on that? 6 Okay. Economics Working Group, what did you 7 say about your committee, Judy? 8 MS. JENNINGS: I -- I have no report 9 except to say that given Alan's report, I need 10 to reread that, because that was a lot of 11 stuff. 12 I didn't catch it all, especially with my 13 phone call. I've been waiting on the -- 14 actually it's my responsibility, I feel, to ask 15 the Corps when is a good time for y'all to talk 16 to the economics analysis working group and 17 interested parties. And so I don't feel it's 18 your job and call tell me. I'm sorry I haven't 19 gotten around to asking you when is a good time 20 to do that. I wrote down a few of the things 21 you said. I'm sorry I was distracted. 22 MR. DYSART: Hope. 23 MS. MOORER: Judy, on the schedule right 24 now, I've got the economics analysis report 25 complete about the May time frame. Depending 107 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 on how long it takes Cathy and I to finish the 3 rest of the data collection, that could fall 4 back a little bit. 5 It looks like around the May time frame, 6 but most of that work will be done, to give you 7 some sense of when you might be looking at a 8 meeting. 9 MS. JENNINGS: My vision for it is just to 10 take all they can share at that point in time, 11 and I'll take the responsibility for trying to 12 ask people that have indicated interest to me 13 to please do their homework, so that we could 14 have time with Bill and Alan that could be 15 cogent and coherent -- 16 MR. GARRETT: And Mobile. 17 MS. JENNINGS: -- and Mobile. What we're 18 asking is what we don't understand. In fact, 19 just times have been changing so much. I 20 remember when we were talking about the Panama 21 Canal change. That was almost well maybe one 22 day. 23 I read something the other day that said 24 some of the guys that didn't vote for the 25 Panama Canal didn't vote for because they're 108 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 waiting on global warming to make the Northwest 3 Passage more viable. So just another item for 4 y'all to study. I say that in about 5% of 5 jest. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy has indeed put on 7 the record new requirements for SEG 8 deliberations. They must be cogent and 9 coherent. We have raised the bar just a little 10 bit as we move on into the future here. 11 MS. JENNINGS: But I'll talk with Alan and 12 Bill, depending on when we schedule our next 13 SEG meeting, and try to get their coordination 14 with Mobile. I'll try to have something to 15 offer. 16 MR. DYSART: Will, Fisheries and Aquatic 17 Resources. 18 MR. BERSON: No report. 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. The Interim Ad Hoc 20 Committee, I think there's an action item under 21 new business. I think we'll come back to that. 22 Do we have anything from the Striped Bass 23 Committee? 24 MR. FLEMING: We have not met. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. That leaves us one 109 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 item, and that is we've been informed of the 3 resignation of the committee chair of Operating 4 Guidelines Ad Hoc Committee or one and the 5 same. 6 Do we have a recommendation, from that 7 committee, or anyone else about how we would 8 like to proceed with that? Teri has been the 9 chair of that for a good while, and has been 10 very actively involved with SEG, since -- since 11 way back at the beginning, as I recall. 12 She's indicated that she would like to 13 free that up and let somebody else handle that. 14 Is there a recommendation, or a suggestion, 15 about a new chair? 16 MR. DYSART: Hope. 17 MS. MOORER: Having been in attendance at 18 the meeting, we didn't know whether to bring a 19 recommendation or let the SEG kind of discuss 20 it and recommend someone. That was kind of my 21 take on what happened there, or if there were 22 any volunteers for the chair of that committee. 23 MR. DYSART: Let's hold the committee in 24 abeyance just a moment. Has anyone who has not 25 been on that committee have any thoughts, 110 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 suggestions, what not, and then we'll see what 3 the people who have been actively involved in 4 that committee, what their thoughts are. Judy. 5 MS. JENNINGS: Well, I just hope that 6 those of us who have been actively involved 7 will maybe put the word out it is a really 8 important job, and that committee has become 9 really important to the SEG process. 10 It's not even one of those jobs where you 11 have to go home and read a stack stuff like 12 judy has got laying over there. 13 You still have to be consistent and 14 dedicated to it. I think there are those among 15 us who could do that. 16 MR. DYSART: Is there a sense that we need 17 to take action at this meeting, or is this 18 something you would like to think about? 19 Anybody have any thoughts on that? Hope. 20 MS. MOORER: I don't have any thoughts on 21 that. I'll leave that to the group. 22 Essentially, the chair provides Ben -- attends 23 the meetings, which are on the off months from 24 the SEG, and provides Ben a summary of the 25 recommendations out of the committee for what 111 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 we will talk about at the next SEG meeting. 3 And it's just taken from the discussion. 4 It doesn't require a lot of outside committee 5 work, except for compiling the summary and 6 passing it on to Ben. 7 MR. DYSART: Larry. 8 MR. KEEGAN: I think there may be two 9 things to consider here. One is who runs and 10 reports on the interim SEG meeting results. 11 That has been conveniently combined with the 12 chair of the Operating Guidelines Committee, 13 but it doesn't have to be that person. 14 MR. DYSART: Yes, that's correct. 15 MR. KEEGAN: The second thing to consider 16 then is replacement for the chair for the 17 Operating Guidelines Committee. So there may 18 be two things to consider, not one. 19 MR. DYSART: Morgan, you have been 20 involved in these committees a great deal for a 21 long time. Do you have any wise advice? 22 MR. REES: I was just saying to Larry as 23 an aside, this may not be a GPA position, why 24 not combined the committees because they do 25 essentially the same thing and they are 112 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 essentially the same people, but that still 3 leaves open the committee chair position. 4 And, you know, we have -- this is the way 5 we've been operating; the GPA affiliated people 6 do not act as committee chairs. 7 That leaves the questions if we want to 8 combine the committees, I personally think that 9 probably makes sense. Really, the Operating 10 Guidelines Committee, per se, really hasn't 11 done anything in a long, long time. 12 MR. DYSART: From a historic point, yeah. 13 MR. REES: We may even chose to dissolve 14 the Operating Guidelines Committee. I don't 15 feel strongly about it, but we do need a 16 volunteer, non-GPA affiliated, to chair it. 17 MS. MOORER: One thing that the Operating 18 Guidelines Committee was working on, though, 19 that we took advantage of discussing at the 20 interim meetings was a draft of a final report, 21 a final letter out of the SEG. 22 If that's where the SEG wants to keep it, 23 that task, in the Operating Guidelines 24 Committee, that's why it is very important to 25 fill that chair of that committee role, 113 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 essentially. 3 MR. DYSART: What if we look for someone 4 willing to convene the Ad Hoc Committee the 5 next time, and then either confirm that or what 6 not. We need somebody to convene the meeting. 7 Will. 8 MR. BERSON: Just one thing about the Ad 9 Hoc Committee, everyone is welcome to attend. 10 MR. DYSART: Yes. 11 MR. BERSON: It doesn't have to be the 12 usual suspects, as we refer to ourselves. It's 13 a very interesting meeting, in as much as we 14 discuss the current state of affairs with the 15 various reports coming up. That's sort of the 16 basis for the input we give Ben on the agenda. 17 Everyone is welcome. Please -- Cathy is 18 very good about announcing when they are, and 19 it's usually on the website I think too. In 20 that respect it's a very open committee. 21 I have a couple ideas about folks that 22 might be appropriate, but they're not here. 23 I would never -- 24 MR. DYSART: Good, good, that will 25 expedite the process. 114 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MR. BERSON: -- I wouldn't do that. I 3 would propose that we did pretty well this 4 time. If Hope doesn't mind, or we can 5 collaboratively put together what we submit to 6 you, Ben -- 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. 8 MR. BERSON: -- and we can continue in 9 that vein for the next time we meet. 10 Hopefully, the next time we come back, we'll 11 have some ideas of folks willing to serve. 12 I think that's kind of a conversation you 13 don't want to have in front of everybody 14 anyway. It's nice to ask someone on the side 15 what they think of it, so they don't have to 16 say no in public if they don't want to. 17 MR. DYSART: I do acknowledge what Larry 18 said, I think it brought up, you know, this has 19 been two positions. There is some separate 20 work task assigned to the Operating Guidelines 21 Committee. 22 And why don't let's think about that and 23 consider that, take action next time, and 24 people who are regularly involved with the Ad 25 Hoc Committee, somebody just convene the 115 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 meeting and work with Cathy or what not and 3 Hope. Gail. 4 MS. BOWERS: I was going to concur with 5 Will, because we do have -- there is someone 6 we've approached about it that has expressed 7 an interest, however they are out of the 8 country at the moment. 9 He's been unable to attend this meeting or 10 the last one, but I do go along with what Will 11 said. 12 MR. BERSON: I was going to say I think 13 it's a very good -- one of the wonderful things 14 Teri has brought to this process is that she's 15 in but not of this process. She's involved. 16 She doesn't work for an environmental 17 group, for example, she doesn't work GPA, for 18 example. I think that's a very good thing. So 19 I would formally like to take myself out of any 20 consideration, just on that basis. 21 So that's something I would sort look for 22 in somebody for either Operating Guidelines or 23 the Ad Hoc chair. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. Morgan. 25 MR. REES: One last comment. 116 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MR. DYSART: Yes, sir. 3 MR. REES: I want the record to show how 4 much we appreciate all Teri did with these 5 committees, and with her general participation 6 in the SEG. 7 It helped tremendously get through a lot 8 of issues that would have probably been much 9 more difficult to get through without her 10 leadership. I just want the record to show 11 that. 12 MR. DYSART: She was a smooth, calming 13 influence at times when that was the helpful, 14 for those of us who have been around a long 15 time. I think all of us would echo Morgan's 16 views, and I think several people have 17 expressed her efforts have been appreciated. 18 The record will so show. Will. 19 MR. BERSON: In fact, I don't think we 20 should let her go. I don't know a better vote 21 of confidence than that. We won't allow her to 22 resign. 23 MS. JENNINGS: I had lunch with her last 24 week. She's gone. 25 MR. DYSART: Teri has left the building. 117 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 Hope. 3 MS. MOORER: Okay. If we're done with 4 that, I have one other item of new business 5 real quick. This was passed to Bill Bailey. 6 He passed it on to me. 7 We talked about it and thought it would be 8 a good thing to bring up. It actually comes 9 from somebody else contracted to do work on the 10 project. 11 The Council on Environmental Quality has 12 out a draft, A Citizen's Guide to the National 13 Environmental Policy Act. It's a draft out 14 right now for public comment. The Federal 15 Register notice has a deadline on comments on 16 this draft. 17 It's a good draft too. It explains the 18 process where you have input and things like 19 that. That's on March 30th. I'll get Larry to 20 post the register notice, which has a 21 connection to the guide. 22 And if I can find the guide, we might post 23 that too. It's about 30 pages or I would have 24 brought copies. So that's out for comment 25 right now. March 30th is the deadline. 118 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Further 3 comments or questions? Seeing none, we'll move 4 to the last item, and get a recommendation for 5 a tentative next meeting date. 6 MS. MOORER: Ben, I haven't finalized the 7 availability of EPD to come speak. I don't 8 know if April 3rd is a better time than May 9 1st. I'd like to recommend that we tentatively 10 schedule an interim SEG meeting on April 3rd, 11 with the SEG on May 1st. 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. 13 MS. MOORER: If, for some reason EPD, the 14 April 3rd date is better, we send out a notice. 15 MR. DYSART: That can be determined 16 promptly? 17 MS. MOORER: Yes, if I can just catch up 18 with them. 19 MR. DYSART: Okay. In other words, we 20 will be informed. 21 MS. MOORER: But I'd like to go ahead, if 22 possible, propose that to everyone. We go 23 ahead and have something scheduled, like the 24 interim on the 3rd and SEG on May 1st -- have 25 that -- go ahead and scheduled that. 119 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 And then if something -- if I talk to 3 Linda MacGregor and she's available, then we'll 4 send out notices. 5 MR. DYSART: Hearing no objections, we 6 will do that. Okay. Anything else? Thank you 7 very much for being here. The meeting is 8 adjourned. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 1 2 3 4 C E R T I F I C A T E 5 G E O R G I A 6 CHATHAM COUNTY 7 8 I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript 9 was taken down, as stated in the caption, and the 10 questions and answers thereto were reduced to 11 typewriting under my directions; that the forgoing 12 Pages 1 through 119 represent a true and correct 13 transcript of the evidence given upon said hearing, 14 and I further certify that I am not of kin or 15 counsel to the parties in the case; am not in the 16 regular employ of counsel for any of said parties 17 nor am I in anywise interested in the result of 18 said case. 19 20 This, the 18th day of March, 2007. 21 22 _______________________________ 23 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 24 Reporter, B-2041 25