1 2 3 4 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP MEETING 5 6 OF 7 8 JUNE 6, 2006 9 10 MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 11 POOLER, GEORGIA 12 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 AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL --------------------- 8 9 UPDATE ECONOMICS ANALYSIS -------------------- 42 10 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS -------------- 81 11 12 13 COMMITTEE REPORTS ---------------------------- 99 14 15 16 CERTIFICATE ---------------------------------- 107 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. DYSART: Let's go ahead and get the 3 meeting started. I'm Ben Dysart, the SEG 4 facilitator. I'd like to welcome you, and it's 5 nice to see a lot of old faces. It's also 6 extremely nice to see some fresh faces. 7 Y'all have a copy of the draft proposed 8 agenda in front of you. What I would propose 9 to do is let's first have introductions, going 10 around the table, and if you would state 11 clearly what your name is and what your 12 affiliation or capacity is. 13 And as I think all of you know, by virtue 14 of you're walking in the door as an interested 15 person, you have standing in simply saying, you 16 know, I'm an interested citizen or I represent 17 this particular issue or what not. Anything is 18 fine. 19 And we welcome all viewpoints of all 20 persons and parties who have a sincere interest 21 in the issues relating to the harbor 22 improvement project. So let's see, Bill, why 23 don't you start off over there. 24 MR. FARMER: I'm Bill Farmer representing 25 myself. 4 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. And the nice court 3 reporter here will say if you don't speak up 4 clearly, she will remind you, so feel free to 5 speak out clearly. 6 MR. BAILEY: Bill Bailey, Corps of 7 Engineers. 8 MR. BURKE: Roger Burke, Corps of 9 Engineers. 10 MR. BROWNELL: Prescott Brownell, 11 with NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 12 Administration, Charleston office. 13 MR. HALL: Carl Hall, Georgia Wildlife 14 Federation. 15 MR. BERSON: Will Berson, the Georgia 16 Conservancy. 17 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 18 Service. 19 MR. ROBINETTE: John Robinette, Fish and 20 Wildlife Service, Savannah Coastal Refuge. 21 MS. GREISS: Jane Greiss, Savannah Coastal 22 Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 23 MR. GADDIS: Gabe Gaddis, Georgia DNR. 24 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 25 Authority. 5 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 3 Authority. 4 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant for 5 Georgia Ports. 6 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant for 7 Georgia Ports Authority. 8 MS. RADA: Melissa Rada, South Carolina 9 DHEC, Coastal Resources. 10 MR. JOYNER: Curtis Joyner, South Carolina 11 Coastal Resources, Manager of Permitting. 12 MS. GRAINEY: Karen Grainey, Savannah 13 Riverkeepper. 14 MR. WILLIS: Steve Willis, Georgia Sierra. 15 MR. GRIFFIN: David Griffin, Georgia 16 Department of Transportation. 17 MR. WRIGHT: Tom Wright, citizen. 18 MR. BEASON: Fred Beason, Bottom Line 19 Echo. 20 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. And we 21 will repeat that a time as or two, as necessary 22 as the morning goes on, as additional people 23 join us. 24 Let's move on to item three, the proposed 25 agenda for today. One of the reasons we have 6 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 introductions first is so everybody can look 3 over the agenda. This agenda comes from a 4 group that meets and proposes items. Members 5 of the SEG also can propose things to get put 6 on here as well. 7 So my job as facilitator is to put this 8 together, bring it to you and ask you how do 9 you like this, or are there things that need to 10 be added, is this acceptable to you. 11 And we've had a request to move an item to 12 a little bit later for the convenience of some 13 parties, and we will do that. Is there 14 anything anyone would like to add or clarify on 15 the proposed agenda for this morning? 16 To be specific, it was requested under 17 item five, the update on project milestones, 18 the first real bullet under Roman V be moved 19 until after committee reports. 20 MS. MOORER: Or either after break, one of 21 the two. We just need to do some computer 22 switching out or technical switching out. 23 MR. DYSART: Right. No slight of hand. 24 Anything anybody else would like to put on the 25 agenda. Seeing no hands, we will assume that 7 1 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 2 this is acceptable, and we will operate from 3 this agenda then, since it has been accepted by 4 you. 5 Just as a matter of information, we go 6 until we run out of time or complete all of our 7 business, and I think y'all aware that there 8 will be another session after this group, this 9 meeting is finished approximately 1:00 o'clock 10 or so, a working group looking at drafting the 11 SEG's final report or getting started on that. 12 That will be a committee of any interested 13 parties. There are no closed doors, only 14 opened doors involved here, so I'll just 15 mention that. 16 So, you've had an opportunity to examine 17 the record of the February 2006 SEG meeting. 18 Are there any corrections or clarifications 19 that anyone would like to make on the record 20 here, pertaining to the February meeting. 21 There being no suggestions, we will assume 22 that we can conclude that the body finds that 23 acceptable and a reasonable and accurate record 24 of the meeting. 25 Okay. Roman IV A, briefings. How about 8 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 the Corps of Engineers, y'all ready to start on 3 item one, the update on agency comments 4 regarding the model? 5 MR. BAILEY: Sure. 6 MR. DYSART: Bill or somebody, if y'all 7 will simply indicate who'll be doing the 8 briefing and so forth and introduce it further, 9 I would appreciate it. 10 MR. BAILEY: Okay. I want to talk a 11 little bit about the hydrodynamic and water 12 quality models, and where they are, and our 13 process with them. 14 We have gotten agency approval to use them 15 for to look at -- to evaluate the impacts of 16 the project. We sent out a report at the end 17 of January, and it's been a while going through 18 a process to get comments from everyone. 19 We got comments. I think all these 20 comments are posted on the website -- comments 21 first from the Fish and Wildlife Service on 22 March 1st, and then from EPA on the 8th, South 23 Carolina DHEC on March 10th, Georgia DNR 24 Environmental Protection Division on March 25 14th. 9 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 And let's see, I think -- that was a first 3 round EPA -- no, Fish and Wildlife Service's 4 letter had some questions in there, some 5 concerns. So we went back and looked at what 6 they -- what they were asking for and provided 7 some more information. 8 April 26th we sent out another letter to 9 them. And May 3rd they responded by saying the 10 model was okay for use for impact evaluation. 11 There's still some -- several of the agencies 12 said they wanted to make sure people were -- 13 remember models have limitations, and when you 14 go to apply them you should remember their 15 limitations. 16 We are now working -- working through that 17 phase. Also, we got something from National 18 Marine Fisheries Service concurring, basically 19 saying that they were going to continue to 20 follow the lead of Fish and Wildlife Service 21 in their detailed review of the model. 22 So we believe we have all the agencies 23 saying that this tool is acceptable to use, and 24 now we're starting to use it. Does anyone have 25 any questions on that? 10 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 MR. DYSART: For the record, we will note 3 that there were no questions raised. 4 MS. MOORER: I have one question. Larry, 5 are those letters -- they're all posted on the 6 Extra Net site or the SEG site? 7 MR. KEEGAN: The website. 8 MS. MOORER: The website. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. Is that the end of 10 that item? 11 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 12 MR. DYSART: Is there any discussion, 13 comments, anything? That seemed to be a 14 significant achievement of something. Okay. 15 Seeing no -- yes, Will Berson. 16 MR. BERSON: I know while you were seeking 17 these sign-offs, you were continuing to do the 18 impact analysis. Where does that stand? I 19 mean, I don't know percentage of completion or 20 just a ball park -- is that later? 21 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 22 MR. BERSON: Beg pardon, I didn't mean to 23 jump ahead. I can wait. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy Jennings. 25 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, you're starting to 11 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 use it, does that mean you're starting to do 3 the model runs? 4 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. Press Brownell. 6 MR. BROWNELL: Just a comment, hopefully, 7 for the benefit of those not directly involved 8 on a daily basis with the impact assessment of 9 the project that the agencies such as us, Fish 10 and Wildlife Service, the states of Georgia and 11 South Carolina are involved in, that model, 12 how's that going to be used, what does it do 13 for us, to us, the hydrodynamic model is giving 14 us a way of being able to anticipate potential 15 changes in the distribution of salinity in that 16 system, how salty the water is, how fresh the 17 water is in different areas of the whole lower 18 Savannah River. 19 We still have a task, in addition to 20 looking at that model information that the 21 agencies will be looking at, once we have a 22 good feel for how salinity may be changing with 23 the project alternatives. 24 And we're going to take a look how best we 25 can predict what are the likely effects of the 12 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 wetland communities and estuarine marsh 3 communities including the fish and any other 4 animal species that could potentially be 5 affected by the saline distribution in that 6 whole estuary system. 7 So the model is a very important tool for 8 us. It by no means is the whole picture. It's 9 going to give us a good state of the art way of 10 getting a handle on the salinity changes, but 11 there's a lot more involved than just solely 12 looking at the salinity itself. 13 It is pretty complicated when you start 14 looking at communities of animals and plants 15 and things like shrimp, crabs, waterfowl and 16 everything else. It's a pretty complicated 17 picture, but the model is going to make it 18 possible for us to look at something we 19 wouldn't otherwise be able to do, and that is 20 get a good handle on the salinity, dissolved 21 oxygen, and those kind of things. 22 MR. DYSART: I would invite any person 23 here, who does not have a long history of 24 involvement with this group, if you have any 25 questions, or something seems kind of obvious, 13 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 everybody else seems like they know what's 3 going on, you don't know what the heck they're 4 talking about, please feel free. 5 We have a little custom here of turning 6 your card up, and my job is to note that, and 7 you can ask your question. I have found that 8 there is rarely a dumb question. Frequently, 9 some of the better discussion we have comes 10 from somebody asking a question that seems 11 obvious to a lot of people. 12 So I would invite people who have not been 13 here a lot, if something is curious, or you 14 want to know what that means, what not, please 15 speak up. Ed Eudaly, please. 16 MR. EUDALY: I was just going to encourage 17 people to visit the website and look at the 18 letters, if they're interested, to get a full 19 picture of the comments on the model. 20 There is a degree of uncertainty with any 21 model, and that applies to both salinity and 22 dissolved oxygen, but especially in this case 23 the dissolved oxygen predictions are going to 24 have a great deal of uncertainty. 25 So again, if you want to see some of the 14 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 comments on the model, those are at the 3 website. But also, now that we're applying the 4 model, there will be a number of additional 5 questions, in terms of how to use the output, 6 what output is needed. 7 We're dealing with some of that already, 8 some of the preliminary output of the model. 9 We want to make sure we get all the information 10 we need. There has been a lot of time and 11 money put into developing this model. 12 As we apply it, we want to make sure 13 there's sufficient time and consideration given 14 to looking at the results, making sure we get 15 all the results we need to get the full picture 16 of what the impacts are, and the mitigation 17 alternatives, how well they are likely to work 18 and how effective they will be. 19 MR. DYSART: Thank you. David. 20 MR. KYLER: At the risk of being obvious, 21 maybe Bill would like to comment on this, 22 sensitivity analysis is done to some extent, 23 right, in all this stuff. So I don't mean to 24 be in any way defending a model I don't 25 understand or haven't seen the results of yet, 15 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 but to some extent what Ed just referred to 3 would be attested to by a sensitivity analysis, 4 in the event the model were off to varying 5 degrees in predicting these things, right? 6 Say there's a 20% error in predicting DO, 7 would you test for the affects of that error, 8 in terms of its implications on various things 9 the model is meant to predict? 10 MR. BAILEY: Yeah, we can do that. What 11 we have -- right now the sensitivity analyses, 12 our use of that word, are to look at the 13 impacts under different -- slightly different 14 conditions. 15 Instead of average river flows, one 16 sensitivity analysis we're doing is drought 17 flows. Another one on some things is looking 18 at the affects of sea level rise. That's a 19 sensitivity. 20 Somethings -- we're looking at spring 21 flows. Those are a little different than what 22 you were talking about. 23 MR. KYLER: Yeah, but to some extent it 24 overlaps the point I was making. I mean, 25 changes in -- conditions would change changes 16 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 in the outcome the model would represent. 3 MR. BAILEY: Right. 4 MR. KYLER: Is -- are you prepared now to 5 respond to the proposition that the model being 6 tested in the way suggested would reveal 7 something different than the sensitivity 8 analysis as commonly interpreted by the Corps? 9 If you did a sensitivity analysis of the 10 model, would that possibly reveal information 11 that conventional sensitivity analysis would 12 not? 13 MR. BAILEY: I'm still not sure of your 14 question. When the model was developed, they 15 did sensitivity analyses as part of that normal 16 process, how sensitive are results to this 17 given parameter, whether it's windspeed, air 18 temperature, temperature, something like that. 19 They looked at a lot of those different 20 things for all different knobs that they have 21 on the model. What happens if you turn this 22 all the way to the right, and what does that do 23 to the results, to see how sensitive the 24 results are to that parameter. They did that 25 information. I think that's some of what you 17 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 are talking about. 3 MR. KYLER: It sounds to me like the 4 question I'm asking maybe hasn't been asked 5 before, but there's no conclusive answer. To 6 make a distinction between the answer to the 7 question I'm asking and the sensitivity 8 analysis, as conventionally applied and used in 9 the development of the model, so it seems to me 10 like, to some extent, it's an open question 11 whether there is a distinction worth pursuing 12 in testing the model, in the way I'm suggesting 13 as opposed to the conventional sensitivity 14 analysis. 15 So if we can agree that there's some 16 unanswered questions about that distinction 17 that deserve further exploration, I think that 18 would be helpful, as opposed to just assume 19 it's covered because other sensitivity analysis 20 was done in building the model. You see what 21 I'm saying? 22 MR. BAILEY: I'm not sure still I 23 completely see it. We know that the model, 24 for any given prediction, that that model it 25 produces a number, but that number has some 18 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 variability around it. 3 MR. KYLER: Yeah. 4 MR. BAILEY: We know that with any 5 prediction it makes, or any river flow you put 6 into it, it may say the answer is fine. Well, 7 it maybe four and a half to five and a half. I 8 think that's what you are talking about. I'm 9 not -- 10 MR. KYLER: I'm just trying to respond in 11 terms of conventional and analytical techniques 12 to what Ed just said. It seems to me, to some 13 extent, sensitivity analysis does that. Where 14 it is applied and how it is applied, in the 15 process of model development and application 16 and testing of the model, is kind of vague in 17 my mind. 18 Therefore, it's vague in my mind as to 19 distinction between conventional sensitivity 20 analysis, as you have described it, and 21 sensitivity analysis of the model once it is 22 developed and applied. I'm just spitballing 23 here, as they say. 24 MR. DYSART: We may be at a point where 25 views have been expressed, and that's been done 19 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 on the record. I don't know that there's going 3 to be -- a repeating is going to get us -- is 4 there anything new that needs to be said? 5 David has expressed his views. Bill has 6 articulated his response. Okay. Judy, 7 question. 8 MS. JENNINGS: I did have a question 9 unrelated to sensitivity analysis, but to 10 finish that in my thought, anybody could help 11 me with this; with any given number, how do you 12 get that confidence interval or do you bother? 13 I mean, is it necessary, and is it the same 14 confidence interval, and maybe that's what was 15 missing from their interchanges, confidence 16 interval or statistical confidence interval; is 17 it the same for every prediction? 18 MR. BAILEY: The answer is no to that. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 20 MR. DYSART: Ed. 21 MR. EUDALY: Well, one way to deal with 22 the uncertainty, and I don't think -- we 23 haven't had too many discussions on this that I 24 recall, we do have an idea of kind of 25 potential error level. 20 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 It's not strictly a confidence limit, I 3 don't think, but an idea of how much 4 variability is explained by the data -- by the 5 model comparing it to actual data. 6 One way, you know, you can do that maybe, 7 kind of what you are getting at is to look at 8 the range of potential impacts. In other 9 words, if it predicts sort of like Bill got 10 out, if it predicts DO of five, it could be 11 between two or seven and eight. 12 So you could look at that range of 13 impacts. In other words, this is the mid-range 14 prediction. This is the worst case and this is 15 the best case. 16 So then you can plan for the worst case, 17 if that's appropriate, or you might -- that's 18 the decision that has to be made, how do you 19 deal with that from a policy standpoint. 20 But that's one way to look at kind of the 21 range. 22 It could be -- you could impact five river 23 miles of reduced DO at a certain point or it 24 could be eight miles, so looking at the range 25 would be one way to do it. 21 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 MR. DYSART: Larry and then David, please. 3 MR. KEEGAN: I have a question. Is there 4 an expectation that you are trying to 5 articulate, David, when you see a predicted 6 result of some parameter, at some point in the 7 river, that you'll see an error ban, you'll see 8 five plus minus two or something in what the 9 prediction is, is that what your expectation 10 is? 11 MR. KYLER: I'm just trying to -- I can't 12 answer that, Larry. I wish I could. I'm 13 trying to respond to the notion that Ed 14 underscored that we've all -- we're all aware 15 of and have discussed before, and that is the 16 degree of complexity of the system we're trying 17 to model understand, predict and protect. 18 So I'm wondering if there's a difference 19 between the accuracy of the model, in terms of 20 all the testing to develop it, and the 21 understanding of the complexity of the range of 22 possibilities and error of the model. 23 I get the impression, both here and in 24 many other instances in evaluating 25 environmental implications of proposed actions, 22 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 that the complexity is such the best science 3 available doesn't fully understand it. 4 And therefore, the implications of a given 5 range of error aren't fully understood, in 6 terms of how they will actually affect the 7 environment. 8 I think we need to distinguish between the 9 complexity that's not understood, because of 10 the environment itself, and the complexity and 11 accuracy of the model in predicting those 12 things that we can measure and to some extent 13 understand within the environment. 14 I guess, given the level of the state of 15 the art and the science, if state of art is 16 applicable to science, I'm not sure we will 17 have definitive answers no matter how accurate 18 the model is. 19 MR. DYSART: Judy. 20 MS. JENNINGS: I'll defer to anybody else 21 who is still talking about sensitivity. 22 MR. DYSART: Ed. 23 MR. EUDALY: Not specifically sensitivity, 24 but the degree with uncertainty, one way to 25 deal with that is first of all you've got to 23 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 recognize there are going to be -- there's 3 going to be error in any prediction. 4 You have to keep that in mind as you 5 evaluate the project. This may be the best 6 estimate we get, but we know it's going to be 7 wrong to some degree. 8 One way to deal with that is a very good 9 monitoring post-project, which we've talked 10 about some. It would be very important. 11 And adaptive management, somethings you 12 can change, implement certain mitigation 13 measures, you monitor and they're not as 14 effective as you thought they would be, you 15 have provisions to go back and correct that in 16 the future. That's one way to deal with 17 uncertainty. 18 MR. DYSART: Further comment -- Judy. 19 MS. JENNINGS: Not on sensitivity. 20 MR. DYSART: Okay. 21 MS. JENNINGS: The question I have is 22 Bill, I understand when you say, okay, we have 23 fully bedded the model through the agencies, 24 and it's good enough to do the work, run the 25 models, so that was a benchmark that I expected 24 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 from the Corps. 3 Then the next thing, the big thing I 4 expect is an explanation of the impacts, but Ed 5 and Press, y'all might help me understand, 6 what's in between that from the agency 7 perspective? 8 I mean, I expected the Corps to finish up 9 the model. I think that's what they have done 10 and now they're moving on with their work. 11 The next thing I expect to see, okay, here 12 are the impacts. I realize there's a lot of 13 interagency work, coordination and work in 14 there. 15 I'm not sure that I understand what all 16 that is. Both Press and Ed made the point it 17 is really complex. We've got a lot of work to 18 do. Are there milestones, you know, that folks 19 like me and Dave can follow to understand how 20 y'all are working towards the big here's the 21 impact presentation? 22 MR. EUDALY: Well, we had -- 23 MS. JENNINGS: And the Corps too since 24 y'all are here. 25 MR. EUDALY: I'll make a few comments and 25 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 then defer to others. We had a couple of 3 meetings last week. We're having exchanges of 4 information already. We've gotten information 5 from the Corps on the model output. 6 We had a couple of meetings last week and 7 we went over some of that. So that's ongoing. 8 And just to let you know that's happening, I'll 9 let Bill or anybody else who wishes to come in 10 on that and elaborate. 11 MR. BROWNELL: I'd like to make a 12 clarifying comment. I hope to respond to your 13 question, Judy, and perhaps to the interests of 14 those who haven't spoken out. 15 What we're doing now, this model as it 16 presently exists -- add a little bit of minor 17 adjustment into it -- is giving us a good idea 18 of the distribution of the saltiness of the 19 water in the estuarine system in the lower 20 river, and as it would be affected by different 21 alternatives. 22 It also gives us the ability to take a 23 look at if we want to try to do some changes in 24 the system, in the way the water moves 25 throughout that system, to try to avoid or 26 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 reduce impacts. 3 It gives us an ability to get a handle on 4 how that salinity or the saltiness of the 5 water, how it is distributed throughout the 6 year and the dissolved oxygen. 7 It gives us a handle to see that. What we 8 next have to do, all the natural resource 9 agencies have to take a look at, okay. Here's 10 in this zone of the river that we know is an 11 essentially fish habitat let's say, for a group 12 of species or an important habitat historically 13 for striped bass spawning, we can get an idea 14 of how the potential project alternative would 15 affect the distribution of salinity in those 16 areas. 17 That gives us the ability then to use our 18 best biological judgment to determine what the 19 potential effects are going to be on our 20 prospects for being able to maintain, and 21 perhaps restore, habitat quality and value for 22 certain species that we're interested in; 23 everything from shrimp to flounder to striped 24 bass to endangered shortnose sturgeon to 25 American Shad that are migrating through 27 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 different times of the year. 3 So we can see finally on a map, if you 4 live, how the salinity picture is going to be 5 changing. That gives us an ability to take a 6 look at making our best judgment. This is 7 going to be just based on biological knowledge 8 and the best scientific literature we have 9 about habitat characteristics for these 10 species. 11 We'll be able to take a look and say 12 here's how this alternative is going to affect 13 this particularly are that is particularly 14 important, if you run this particular 15 alternative, this is going to be the worst, and 16 this one over here is going to be best. 17 It gives us that ability to kind of 18 visualize what we couldn't visual before. That 19 was the big problem we had, initially, trying 20 to assess the potential effects of the project; 21 how is salinity going to change? We can't see 22 it out there standing in our boat. You know, 23 we can't see it. 24 A model allows us to graphically present 25 some information that will allow us to say this 28 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 area is going to be affected and this area is 3 not. Okay. This area is going to be affected. 4 It has shortnose sturgeon that utilizes it in 5 the winter months. What can we do, is there 6 anything we can do to possibly change the 7 Rifle Cut or how the water flow goes through 8 this system? 9 Is there something we can do to reduce or 10 eliminate potential adverse effects on that 11 species in this area particular area? That's 12 sort of thing we've got to do. 13 We've got a lot of different areas 14 important for different species. John 15 Robinette, I'm sure Ed can speak more or DNR 16 about the waterfowl areas. Waterfowl wintering 17 areas, those have their own particular 18 characteristics that need to be maintained on 19 into the future and the habitat that's used for 20 over winter for shortnose sturgeon. 21 There are certain areas of habitat that 22 are more important than others, and then 23 there's habitat that's important for heron 24 spawning or for American Shad, young of the 25 year they're moving down the river and coming 29 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 through the estuary at certain times of the 3 year. 4 We need to know how the salinity is going 5 to affect these. We've got a lot of biological 6 judgment calls to be done, based on the 7 information we get from the model. 8 I do want to emphasize that the model is 9 not anything but a tool. The model does not 10 tell us what to do or tell us what the impacts 11 going to be. 12 The model and models only tell us 13 reasonable projections of what might happen to 14 dissolved oxygen distribution in the system or 15 in response to alternatives or what might 16 happen to salinity. The rest of it is all 17 biological judgment, getting together the 18 agencies in a collaborative way to try to 19 assess the impacts. 20 And then, more importantly, perhaps to try 21 to figure out what to do about that, once we 22 have figured what the out probable or likely 23 impacts are going to be for certain species and 24 what can we do about it. 25 That's where the interesting thing comes 30 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 up, and that is clear to some of us in the 3 agency community anyway, to operate a 4 navigation project or port project over a long 5 period of time involves some incremental 6 effects and changes that probably do, over a 7 long-term, have a tendency to have an adverse 8 effect on fishery resource values, waterfowl, 9 et cetera. 10 That's likely to continue on into the 11 future, so what we are going to need to be 12 doing is develop our best picture of cumulative 13 impacts of project activities, how they have 14 affected things, and what can we do to try to 15 maintain into the future a reasonable habitat 16 quality for the public interests and species 17 we're charged to protect. 18 It's going to involve, as Ed was saying, I 19 think we probably are going to have think about 20 monitoring, some monitoring of these 21 populations. We're going to have to take a 22 look at potential mitigation actions that we 23 can do, restoration enhancement and habitat 24 enhancement actions that can be done. 25 Over a period of time, we'll need to 31 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 implement a plan to try to, hopefully, offset 3 the adverse impacts of the project, or helping 4 the design of the project, and even looking at 5 future project increments, how can we design 6 these things to reduce the impact, and how can 7 we compensate. 8 It's going to be a long-term thing because 9 of the complexity of the system. It's not a 10 one-shot deal. We are having to look ahead to 11 some adaptive management and monitoring that's 12 likely to be a part of the picture. 13 We're not going to have a final answer and 14 say okay, here's exactly what the impacts are 15 right now. Okay. Here's a mitigation plan. 16 Then we all pack up our briefcases and go off. 17 It's not going to be quite that easy. 18 It's going to be a long-term plan. I hope I 19 haven't rambled too much here and perhaps 20 answered the questions. 21 MR. DYSART: Hope and Steve have their 22 cards up. 23 MS. MOORER: Judy, was your question 24 directed at are there milestones on the 25 schedule throughout impact evaluation, is that 32 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 what you're looking for? 3 MS. JENNINGS: Yes. 4 MS. MOORER: Okay. That isn't on there. 5 I think, because of the give and take that the 6 agencies have to, can you do these runs, there 7 are no meetings scheduled. And that was 8 something that the Corps, I think, because 9 we've been trying to figure out how do we 10 reflect this on the schedule. 11 It's not easy because of that coordination 12 that goes back and forth between the agencies, 13 whether it's via e-mail, and I'll let Bill 14 talk about it, but I thought that's what you 15 were asking, was there something -- 16 MS. JENNINGS: It was. 17 MR. BAILEY: Judy, although this is -- the 18 model approval is an important milestone, there 19 are other things going on parallel. 20 We had been talking with the agencies, 21 when the model was starting to be developed, 22 saying here's what -- here's kind of a 23 framework of we're trying to develop. How 24 would you like it if we can develop it, how 25 would you like to use it? 33 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 So on that separate channel, we've already 3 worked as agencies to define the inputs to the 4 runs, and the outputs that people want to see. 5 So when the model was ready to run, we already 6 knew what we wanted to do with it. 7 We already knew what low flow conditions, 8 high flow conditions, whatever, and what type 9 of outputs people wanted. So we already had 10 that going on. 11 What we're doing now is -- meetings last 12 week was showing them the results and saying, 13 is this really what you want? Did you get what 14 you thought you were going to get? I'll talk a 15 little more about that later, I guess. 16 MR. DYSART: Steve. 17 MR. WILLIS: I just had a question. I 18 hope I'm not going over an area that's been 19 beaten to death already, but I just was 20 wondering, are these models strictly 21 hydrological models, based upon science and 22 expert knowledge, or have they been kind of 23 tested against other experiences in other 24 places where similar harbor deepening 25 activities have taken place? 34 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 MR. BAILEY: The one -- the model that 3 we're using, is a standard model that EPA has 4 available for anyone to use. They had applied 5 it to this harbor for their TMDL purposes. 6 They have used that model -- it's in a 7 toolbox of models that they have on the web for 8 anyone to use. They have used it in other 9 harbors, in other estuaries up along the coast. 10 I'm not sure of all the applications of 11 it. I think it was used in Charleston and 12 somewhere up in North Carolina recently -- they 13 had something up there. 14 MR. WILLIS: So the models has been 15 successful in predicting things in those areas? 16 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. 18 MS. JENNINGS: If I could before we leave 19 this topic. 20 MR. DYSART: Okay. 21 MS. JENNINGS: Press, you mentioned 22 monitoring and adaptive management techniques, 23 we've asked about monitoring lots of times. 24 Everytime I do I think the answer is five 25 years. And I'm wondering -- I mean, have the 35 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 agencies said that that's an acceptable plan, 3 or when will you get around to saying this is 4 how we'll be monitoring it, and these are the 5 adaptive management principles we will apply? 6 MR. BAILEY: We haven't put together a 7 monitoring plan. First we want to see what the 8 predictions are for impacts, what we think 9 we'll affect. Then we'll know what it is to 10 monitor. 11 In that sense, it is a stepped process. 12 we're waiting to see what we think the impacts 13 will be. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Then is it fair to say that 15 the plan for monitoring has yet to be defined? 16 MR. BAILEY: Yes, but I will say the Corps 17 policy is up to five years of monitoring. 18 After that, it's not a federal expense. 19 MR. BROWNELL: I would like to add briefly 20 that we'll be doing the impact assessment. 21 We're involved in that right now trying to 22 assess what are the effects. Some species 23 that we're interested in may not be affected 24 by any of the alternatives. We anticipate some 25 species will. 36 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 Once we have completed our impact 3 assessment process, we'll know which problem 4 species need to look out for. Then we'll be 5 able to have a reasonable idea how the species 6 or species groups will be affected. 7 Then we're going to have to try to develop 8 what we call a mitigation strategy. Some 9 people are not familiar with the use of that 10 word, mitigation. 11 All it is is trying to come up some means 12 or ways to reduce or minimize effects, 13 compensate for them somehow. That will be for 14 certain species that will be affected. Then, 15 in order to implement a mitigation plan for 16 restoration of habitat, for example, you need 17 to monitor that. 18 These are pretty standard techniques, for 19 example, on sturgeon. Once we've figured out 20 the alternative that will meet the project 21 needs as well reduce impacts on the sturgeon, 22 as much as possible, then we're going to need 23 to monitor that situation with typical fishery 24 biologist's techniques to see what's happening 25 with the sturgeon, monitor the movements, and 37 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 monitor actual changes in the habitat to see if 3 what we predicted was correct, and then make 4 some adjustments, perhaps, to make sure over 5 the long-term we reduce or eliminate the 6 effects, possibly even make it better for some 7 of the species, like sturgeon for example. 8 I just picked the sturgeon because it was 9 a convenient example. The same principles will 10 apply, the same kind of steps for any species 11 we might be dealing with. So a lot of that is 12 yet to be developed. 13 It's pretty standard approaches we've 14 done, as far as monitoring programs, and also 15 some pretty standard approaches for mitigation 16 of project impacts. 17 MR. DYSART: Did I hear you taking a deep 18 breath, Judy? 19 MS. JENNINGS: So that there might be 20 long-term monitoring by National Marine 21 Fisheries for certain species -- 22 MR. BROWNELL: There might be -- 23 MS. JENNINGS: -- or maybe Fish and 24 Wildlife for certain things, beyond the five 25 year frame the Corps is responsible for on the 38 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 federal budget. 3 MR. BROWNELL: We have to decide what 4 species are affected and put together a plan 5 to ensure that gets done. It may involve 6 university people, potentially, maybe Georgia 7 Port Authority people, DNR from South Carolina 8 or Georgia. It just depends on the species and 9 what we're monitoring for. 10 That's a key issue. I've been harping on 11 this some throughout the process. In order to 12 ensure the long-term viability of the port, it 13 involves a lot of actions over time. 14 Over the next 50 years, we need to do a 15 similar thing with our environment to ensure 16 we keep developing our port as we need to do 17 and keep our environment in reasonably good 18 shape too, because of all the public benefits 19 associated with fishery resources, water 20 resources, waterfowl resources, et cetera. 21 MR. DYSART: I think that this has 22 typified some of the good discussions we've had 23 over the years. It's not just rehashing, but 24 it's kind of bringing things back into focus, 25 kind of plowing things trying to make sure that 39 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 there is this understanding. 3 There have been several words used about 4 something successful, something proven, 5 something accurate, so forth. Like beauty, 6 it's in the eye of beholder. 7 I think we're dealing with stochastic 8 processes. There is error in measurement. 9 There's noise in any kind of natural systems. 10 There's great complexity -- there's huge 11 complexity. 12 So the notion is that there's going to be 13 some kind of number that will fall out and 14 everyone will say, that's the gold standard, so 15 forth, that is simply not going to happen. 16 I think in my being an engineer, we have 17 the notion of something good enough for dirt 18 work. Some of you have probably heard that. 19 Real scientists -- I've never been confused 20 with a real scientist, the notion is you 21 exanthematically approach perfection, or you're 22 driving down the level of these things, the 23 uncertainty, the error, so forth, but you never 24 get there. 25 There's always a question of trade-offs. 40 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 Life is a series of trade-offs; how good is 3 good enough, how clean is clean, if you are 4 in the hazard waste business. 5 I think this is what we're hearing here. 6 we do have, in this body, a very diverse group 7 of people, a wide range of stakeholders, and 8 there's a lot of pushing and pulling. 9 There are budgetary realities. There are 10 scientific realities. There are time 11 realities, all kind of things, and trying to 12 get to the point where people can say that -- 13 that hangs together. 14 We can live with that. We know enough 15 where we can, with adequate confidence, make 16 major public policy decisions. 17 And so I think that at a good SEG meeting, 18 in my opinion, there's always some time where 19 there's a discussion like this, where things 20 kind of get tweaked kind of jiggered, 21 clarified. 22 There's the give and take. I think this 23 has been very nice and I appreciate that. So 24 this has been a good discussion. It probably 25 could have come up at anyone of several places 41 1 UPDATE - AGENCY COMMENTS ON MODEL 2 in the agenda. 3 This is something where every so often 4 this needs to take place. I think some of 5 issues here are just applicable in other items 6 that will coming up on the agenda. 7 So I appreciate that. And there is a -- 8 to me, there's always a freshness in the 9 discussions. It's not just plowing old ground. 10 It's giving a sense of the state of play among 11 some of key stakeholders, and this is good for, 12 I think, everyone to hear. 13 I think someone has mentioned the letters 14 are on the website. There is a desire for this 15 process to be transparent. So there's 16 documentation on the website that Larry takes 17 care of. 18 There's also the nuanced discussions that 19 take place around the table. So I'm very 20 appreciate I've of that. Ready for your next 21 item? Bill or who'll be handling the update of 22 the economics analysis? 23 MR. BURKE: I will. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. 25 MS. MOORER: While they're moving to the 42 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 front -- while they're moving up to the front, 3 there are a lot of new faces, and we keep 4 talking about the website. The website address 5 is sav-harbor.com. 6 MR. DYSART: sav-harbor.com. Thank you 7 for saying that, while they're moving up there. 8 There has been at least three new people or 9 additional people that have come in since we 10 did our introductions, and it's important to 11 know who is here. Judy start off saying who 12 you are, who you choose to say you represent 13 today. 14 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia 15 Sierra. 16 MR. DYSART: Okay. There were a couple of 17 others -- David. 18 MR. KYLER: Dave Kyler, Center for a 19 Sustainable Coast. 20 MS. BOWERS: Gail Bowers, League of Women 21 Voters. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Economics. 23 MR. BURKE: I appreciate, again, the 24 opportunity to again talk to you about the 25 economics. I've been, I believe, one or two 43 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 SEG meetings ago I presented sort of an 3 overview of how the Corps of Engineers goes 4 about conducting economic analysis. 5 This time we'll get a little more specific 6 about what's being done to evaluate the 7 economics associated with the proposed 8 deepening for Savannah Harbor. 9 And it's simply a status report. It won't 10 be getting into detailed numbers at this point. 11 Perhaps that would be appropriate at a later -- 12 at a later date. 13 The way these studies are being conducted 14 is a combination of some work being done by a 15 contractor and some work being done with our 16 in-house staff in Mobile. 17 As I mentioned in my overview comments, an 18 SEG meeting or so ago, is that the 19 responsibility in conducting these studies is 20 to determine the most likely future without 21 project future conditions, and also the most 22 likely with project future conditions. 23 Well, that applies not only in economics 24 but in the environmental arena. You heard some 25 of that discussion in the last few minutes. 44 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 Also, I want to point out that the economic 3 analysis could be likened to a snapshot in 4 time. 5 Whereas, traffic and commerce continues to 6 happen and changes happening over time, the 7 economic analysis sort of takes a snapshot and 8 makes the best interpretation of the facts, as 9 they're gathered at that point in time. 10 And what is kind of a common problem in 11 studies that are conducted over a period of 12 years, such as this one is, you conduct the 13 major part of your economic analysis based on 14 events happening in one time frame. 15 By the time you get ready to complete your 16 study, you need to make some adjustments along 17 the way to account for changes that have 18 occurred in the interim. I just wanted to have 19 that as sort of an introductory comment before 20 we get started. 21 Now, the purpose of my presentation will 22 be simply to update on the progress of the 23 economic analysis. And to do that I'll 24 discuss, obviously, the status of certain 25 efforts that have been described, some 45 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 additional evaluations that we're doing, and 3 then I'll touch on the reviews of both 4 contractor work as well as our own work that 5 will be done, and see if there are any 6 questions and answers. 7 The work for Savannah Harbor has been 8 divided into these five categories of work. 9 They have been contracted out. The Gulf 10 Engineers and Consultants were contracted to 11 provide a commodity forecast. 12 This was accomplished in April '04 through 13 March '05 time frame. And I'll get into a 14 little bit more detail on each one of those in 15 just a moment. 16 The fleet forecast was conducted, 17 generally, between May '04 and August of '05. 18 Then the contractor was also tasked with 19 developing a methodology and model for 20 computing the benefits. We've not actually 21 applied the model as yet, but developed the 22 framework and the methodology. 23 The contractor also has conducted a 24 multi-port analysis, and did that between 25 May '05 and May '06. And the multi-port 46 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 analysis that is still underway began in July 3 of '05, and the regional port analysis that is 4 still underway began last -- last June. 5 Final reports have been received from Gulf 6 Engineers and Consultants regarding a commodity 7 forecast. And this report took sort of a 8 step-wise approach to forecasting commodities, 9 looking first at world waterborne trade 10 forecasts, then looking out of that at what 11 portion the United States is involved in, and 12 then stepping that down to determine what the 13 waterborne trade is in the South Atlantic 14 region, and finally, more specifically, it 15 targeted and set a forecast for Savannah 16 Harbor. 17 They looked at the time period extending 18 out to 2050, and the world trade was compiled 19 and based on seven trade regions and 10 20 commodity groupings. 21 U. S. trade was presented in the report 22 for nine domestic regions, one of which was the 23 South Atlantic, again 10 commodity groupings, 24 and the same could be said for the Savannah 25 Harbor forecasts. 47 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 The fleet forecast used a similar 3 step-down process, forecasting the distribution 4 of sizes of ships, focusing primarily on the 5 container ships that move that containerized 6 cargo around the world, and stepping that down 7 to develop finally a set of forecasts, over the 8 same time frame out to 2050, for both with 9 project and without project conditions. 10 To do that, there were certain assumptions 11 that the contractor made; one of which, for 12 example, was that Panama Canal would remain in 13 the future as it is -- as it is today. 14 You also assume that the rotation, the 15 schedule of port stops for container ships as 16 they service the United States ports along the 17 South Atlantic coast or the East Coast rather, 18 would remain the same in the future as they are 19 today. 20 So there are certain key assumptions that 21 the contractor made that need to have a 22 sensitivity analysis performed, and that's some 23 of the work we're now beginning to engage in. 24 The benefit methodology, that report was 25 completed in May of '06, and the model is based 48 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 on the use of an Excel Workbook comprised of 32 3 worksheets. If you are familiar with Excel, 4 many of those worksheets are -- involve data 5 input. And then, obviously, the nucleus of the 6 model that puts those numbers together and 7 computes for alternative conditions, the 8 difference between transportation costs with 9 the existing channel, and what transportation 10 costs would be if you deepen to various 11 increments of the depth up to 48 feet. 12 We're in the process of learning to use 13 that model and to verify all of the data inputs 14 that go into it. 15 The multi-port analysis and the regional 16 port analysis, as I indicated, are both still 17 underway. As with the other products that the 18 contractor has produced for us, there have been 19 interim reports along the way. 20 For the multi-port analysis, we received 21 an interim report in March of '06, which in 22 essence was a draft report, documenting all of 23 their work for the multi-port analysis and 24 independent, technical review is underway by an 25 individual in our South Pacific division. 49 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 The multi-port analysis is a systematic 3 assessment of the effects of looking at what 4 happens to other ports in the South Atlantic 5 region, if you deepen the Savannah Harbor. 6 Then it looks at the converse question of 7 what happens to the Savannah Harbor traffic if 8 you should deepen, if there should be an 9 authorized project implemented at some other 10 port such as Charleston, Jacksonville or 11 Norfolk. 12 The regional port analysis goes a bit 13 further and looks at port capacities and the 14 possibilities for further expansion of 15 alternative ports, to see if makes any sense to 16 only have one port, in the South Atlantic 17 region, deepened to handle larger cargo -- 18 larger container ships. That work is scheduled 19 to be completed in September '06. 20 Now, as I indicated, we have to come up 21 with the most likely future conditions both 22 without a project at Savannah Harbor and with a 23 project at Savannah Harbor, and that work has 24 begun to look at what the contractor has done. 25 And then there's some additional work, to 50 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 comply with our regulation regarding risk and 3 uncertainty, to look at the various parameters 4 and update that, based on new information that 5 has come about during the course of the conduct 6 of those investigations. 7 For example, the contractor assumed that 8 the Panama Canal would remain in the future as 9 it is today. Well, at -- the plans that the 10 Panama Canal Authority have for expanding the 11 canal continue to evolve. And they have -- are 12 considering an expansion of the Panama Canal 13 that would allow larger container vessels and 14 other larger vessels too, for that matter, to 15 transit the canal. 16 And there's a referendum scheduled for 17 later this year. So we think it is prudent 18 that we evaluate the effects of an expanded 19 Panama Canal to see what effects that has on 20 trade patterns and on Savannah Harbor, both 21 with a deepening and without a deepening. 22 There are some other parameters also, 23 assumptions that the contractor made that we 24 will be testing the sensitivity of our future 25 conditions to varying those assumptions. 51 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 And then, there's also been an additional 3 benefitting user, potentially benefitting user 4 that has recently been identified, and that's 5 the LNG facility, and I'll talk to that a 6 little more specifically here in just a minute. 7 So our additional economic evaluations 8 that are currently underway involve a review 9 and update of operational changes, in other 10 words, how the vessel operate. 11 We're revisiting the assumptions about 12 whether a deepening in Savannah would result in 13 a change of the ship rotation schedules for 14 vessels. 15 Some of the carrier interviews that 16 we've conducted indicate that a deepened 17 channel, at Savannah, could result in a change 18 in the rotation, which might mean then they 19 specifically make Savannah the first port of 20 call for imports, because they're loaded 21 deeper, and then make subsequent East Coast 22 ports of call at ports that might have a 23 shallower channel, or with regard to export 24 cargo, Savannah might be last port of stop 25 because of the ability to load deeper, prior to 52 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 going to foreign destinations. 3 We're going to review and update all the 4 data input that may be required because of the 5 lapse of time since the beginning of the 6 conduct of the studies, and we're going to 7 evaluate whether the deepening effects the 8 proposed expansion of the LNG facility down on 9 Elba Island. 10 A little more specifically, the kinds of 11 things we're reviewing and updating have to do 12 with future uncertainties, what happens if the 13 canal remains in the same configuration as it 14 is today, what happens if the canal is 15 expanded. 16 Vessels could change their route. Rather 17 than using the Panama Canal, if it continues to 18 be a constraint, they could use the Suez Canal. 19 That's a variation that the contractor did not 20 consider that we think is important to take a 21 look at and see whether that's confirmed by 22 shipper input. 23 There's a bridge in New York that is 24 generally thought to be a constraint to the 25 maximum size of a ship that calls on the East 53 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 Coast. We have some information that would 3 lead us to believe that the industry is making 4 adjustments to accommodate that. 5 We're also contacting local officials to 6 determine whether or not there are plans for 7 modifying that bridge, so that it is no longer 8 a constraint to larger vessels. 9 As I indicated, we'll also look at the 10 effect of varying the assumption regarding port 11 rotations on the project. Various data inputs 12 will also be reviewed and updated, if we have 13 more recent and/or better information. 14 Kinds of data sources that we're using are 15 similar to what the contractor has already 16 used, except it's -- it reflects changes that 17 may have occurred in the interim period. 18 We've contacted the Panama Canal Authority 19 to determine the status of their plans, and we 20 are continuing to contact the top carriers, 21 that service the East Coast, to validate the 22 assumptions made with regard to vessel routings 23 and changes in port rotation. 24 In all of this, there's always the problem 25 of proprietary data, so we may not be able to 54 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 disclose 100% of what we find because it is 3 proprietary. 4 It might be that we have to summarize the 5 data in such a way to protect confidentiality 6 and not give away a particular company's data. 7 We're also looking at other, more specific 8 kinds of data that go into the benefits 9 model's dimension to be sure it reflects the 10 most current set of conditions. 11 Updating the commodity forecasts takes 12 into account increases in traffic that may have 13 occurred in the pre-project years, based on 14 actual observed data. 15 Now, just a word or two about the LNG 16 facility, located on Elba Island downstream of 17 the City of Savannah, they recently announced a 18 proposed expansion to add two tanks which would 19 essentially double their capacity, and also add 20 two distribution pipe lines. 21 This could lead to a doubling of the 22 number of LNG vessels calling on that facility. 23 The effect that that has is there's a buffer 24 area, a two mile buffer area around each vessel 25 as it transits to and from that LNG facility. 55 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 So it has an interaction, with other 3 vessel traffic, using the same channel. We 4 need to conduct some additional investigations 5 to determine first what impact that increased 6 expansion, of the facility, will have on the 7 other traffic using the channel, but also to 8 look to see if there's a potential for that 9 facility benefitting from deepening the 10 channel, which in turn might reduce the number 11 of vessel calls, and therefore the degree, of 12 interaction between the LNG vessel and the 13 other vesselS using the channel, in the with 14 project condition. 15 As with the contractor's work and all the 16 work, for that matter being accomplished for 17 the Savannah Harbor Project, our additional 18 work will be subject to an independent 19 technical review. And then the totality of all 20 the economic work will be subjected to external 21 peer review. 22 The members of that peer review panel have 23 not been identified at this point in time. We 24 expect our additional analyses to be complete 25 in the September '06 time frame. 56 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 MS. MOORER: I'm sorry, when was that? I 3 couldn't hear it. 4 MR. BURKE: September '06. I'll be glad 5 to take any questions anybody might have at 6 this point. I won't promise a lot of answers, 7 I'll do what I can. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you, Roger. We 9 appreciate the wisdom from Mobile, and some 10 nice rundown. Comments, David. 11 MR. KYLER: Yeah. Among your assumptions, 12 do you consider anything having to do with 13 climate change? 14 MR. REES: What was that, David? 15 MR. KYLER: Climate change. 16 MR. BURKE: Not that I recall, and it's 17 effect on which aspects? 18 MR. KYLER: Well, among other things, sea 19 level rise, which would affect all kinds of 20 things related to ocean commerce, not the least 21 of which is clearance between bridges and 22 vessels at a given tide cycle. 23 MR. BURKE: Well, other aspects of the 24 study are looking at sea level rise. We're 25 always exchanging information. So we find 57 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 something in that part of study, that needs to 3 be factored into economic analysis, we can. We 4 haven't to this point. 5 MR. KYLER: Because that's one of the 6 issues with the 50 year or now 44 year horizon, 7 at 2050, that has some potential to be a 8 significant factor from what I understand. 9 I do a lot of reading and have attended 10 a workshop on it. So I think it would be 11 highly puzzling, for a study of this type, to 12 not include such a conspicuous issue of 13 relevance to projects like this. 14 MR. BURKE: Well, as I said, sea level 15 rise is being considered in other aspects of 16 the study. If it has important findings, it 17 will be considered in the economic analysis. 18 MR. KYLER: So, from that segment, could 19 we conclude if there is, you know, all this is 20 probabilistic, of course, if there is a 21 probable increase in sea level, that could be 22 significant for economic factors, that would be 23 brought to your attention by these other people 24 analyzing it? 25 MR. BURKE: Yes, it would. 58 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 MR. KYLER: Another factor we've discussed 3 around the table, I'm not sure to what extent 4 you've been aware of this, is the -- are 5 questions of energy, as related to the project, 6 both -- I can think of two things. 7 One is -- I think Judy has been a big 8 factor in raising this -- that's the 9 implications for air quality and the economic 10 implications of that, in the Savannah area, 11 because of the emissions from shipping. 12 And another factor which may kind of be 13 out of the realm of what you are being asked to 14 do under this study, but I would like to 15 reintroduce it while we're all thinking about 16 it, or we're potentially aware of it, is the 17 effects of energy in mitigation actions, such 18 as oxygenation, because those have all kinds 19 of both dollar costs and environmental costs 20 which are -- really complicate the project 21 further. 22 MR. BURKE: Okay. I'll see what I can do 23 to answer that. The air quality, of course 24 there's an environmental component to that. It 25 is being addressed. 59 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 And I've not spoken to socio-economic 3 effects, which will also be considered. I'm 4 looking -- in this presentation, I focused on 5 the direct economic benefits, and how we go 6 about estimating those direct economic 7 benefits. 8 There's also a socio-economic or effects 9 assessment that's accomplished in air quality 10 effects. And any social and economic 11 ramifications of that would be included in that 12 aspect of the study. Now, you were talking 13 about energy, energy costs, and I was not sure 14 I was following. 15 MR. KYLER: This has to do with a 16 mitigation option that's being proposed. 17 MR. BURKE: Costs associated with 18 operation of that? 19 MR. KYLER: Yeah. Well, in addition to 20 the dollar cost and conventional pricing costs 21 related to energy, I just made comments to this 22 effect, in relation to a desalination. There 23 are many environmental implications of energy 24 production, which are not fully reflected in 25 the costs itself, such as contributing to 60 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 greenhouse gases, respiratory illness, those 3 kind of things. 4 Assuming we're using conventional form for 5 energy production, and I think in this time we 6 may begin to see others, but the dominant forms 7 of energy production will have these other 8 adverse effects. 9 So, it just seems to me, to the extent we 10 use energy-related with the project, those 11 kinds of consequences need to brought into the 12 analysis. 13 MR. DYSART: Judy. Excuse me, Roger, did 14 you have any comment on that? 15 MR. BURKE: No, I'm not sure I do. Thank 16 you. 17 MR. DYSART: I didn't mean to cut you off. 18 MS. JENNINGS: A couple of things if 19 you'll indulge me, I guess I'm a little lost 20 with the benefits analysis methodology. You 21 finished that in May of this year? 22 MR. BURKE: The contractor completed the 23 model in May, and we have received some 24 training. And we are now trying -- we're 25 populating the model with various data, data 61 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 elements, and are learning to use the model. 3 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. Is that out of the 4 Corps loop, to the point where it can be put on 5 -- I mean to the point where I could see it, 6 any of it? 7 MR. BURKE: No. I think it's still a work 8 in progress at this point, because of the 9 additional investigations we're doing regarding 10 some of the input data. 11 I think, you know, after September, it 12 should be at a point where we could do that. I 13 don't think it is at the moment. 14 MS. JENNINGS: After December? 15 MR. BURKE: September. 16 MR. DYSART: September. 17 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. When you do the 18 Savannah Harbor fleet and commodity forecast, 19 do you do those at incremental depths? 20 When you say with project, without 21 project, when you do with project are you doing 22 incremental depths? 23 MR. BURKE: When I use the term with 24 project, I mean to include alternatives. We 25 are looking at various depths increments up to 62 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 and including 48 feet. 3 MS. JENNINGS: You said -- you mentioned 4 two assumptions that I caught. One was Panama 5 Canal would remain unchanged -- I'm a little 6 surprised at that. 7 At any rate, you also said that rotation 8 would remain the same. You've got lots -- I 9 mean, there's lots of experiences to draw on 10 from the East Coast. 11 I mean, can -- is that a fairly valid 12 assumption, that rotation would remain the 13 same, and then you went on to say in interviews 14 with carriers they said, well maybe the first 15 port of call for imports, and last, but that's 16 a maybe? What's the experience; can't you draw 17 and say this is what we've seen happen? 18 MR. BURKE: That's some of the questions 19 we're asking in our carrier interviews. We're 20 presently doing the top carriers, on the East 21 Coast, to see what their experience is and to 22 get their best judgment. 23 Of course, each case is a little 24 different, depending on which port and its 25 relative location in a port rotation, but those 63 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 two assumptions are fairly key assumptions. 3 And we think it's prudent to look at a 4 variety of alternative assumptions, with regard 5 to those two parameters, and to pick what seems 6 to be the most likely future scenario. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Most likely. That confuses 8 me a little bit, but I'm assuming you can do 9 sensitivity analysis on the rotation question. 10 MR. BURKE: Sure, sure. 11 MS. JENNINGS: I mean, does it matter if 12 you are first -- 13 MR. BURKE: Right. That's included in the 14 additional analysis, correct. 15 MS. JENNINGS: And about the LNG, you 16 talked about benefits to the LNG vessels, but I 17 have a couple of questions about that. 18 I continue to remember that guys tell me 19 you are benefits. You don't do costs. I'm 20 wondering when we get around to that, but at 21 any rate getting to that, how -- what if you 22 find that -- how do you deal with the fact that 23 there might be a negative impact on benefits of 24 cargo, container cargo, from the LNG -- from 25 increased LNG movement. 64 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 MR. BURKE: Well, that gets factored into 3 the vessel operating cost, and the time it 4 takes to transit that channel segment, and 5 whether or not it results in delays by 6 container ships awaiting transit by an LNG 7 vessel. 8 Those kinds of interactions are what we're 9 defining now. And it will be reflected through 10 increased transit time, and therefore increased 11 costs, for cargo moving on those container 12 ships, as they enter and exit Savannah Harbor. 13 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 14 MR. BURKE: Our benefits in this case are 15 difference in two costs, transportation costs 16 under existing and future conditions without a 17 deepening, and existing and -- well, future 18 conditions with a deepening. 19 MS. JENNINGS: When you deal with the LNG 20 situation, I know you have Coast Guard 21 regulations to go by, but are you doing 22 interviews with harbor pilots to say, are these 23 -- of course they would be -- at least they 24 would follow the regulations. Do you ask 25 are more conservative than the regulations? 65 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 MR. BURKE: We would want to factor in the 3 existing or the practices that the harbor 4 pilots actually use. 5 MS. JENNINGS: Right. Okay. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Karen then Will and 7 Hope. Karen. 8 MS. GRAINEY: I just wanted to ask what is 9 the status of the socio-economic analysis that 10 you just alluded to when you were answering 11 Davis question -- 12 MR. BURKE: It really -- 13 MS. GRAINEY: -- and what you are looking 14 at in that? 15 MR. BURKE: It really has not started yet. 16 Much of the information needed for that is 17 still not available. 18 MR. DYSART: Any follow-up thoughts on 19 that or is that -- 20 MS. GRAINEY: No. They haven't done 21 anything on that. 22 MR. DYSART: Will. 23 MR. BERSON: I think Steve is ahead of me. 24 MR. WILLIS: I want to be clear about one 25 thing. I was talking to a representative of a 66 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 midsize carrier recently, and he was very 3 concerned. 4 He said that if the traffic significantly 5 increased, and there was more delays, there 6 would be a good chance he and lot of other 7 carriers would start preferring other places to 8 load and unload. 9 And they have got the choice because they 10 have got smaller ships. And you did say that 11 you were looking at delays as a cost. 12 I was just wondering if you were putting 13 any focus on the possibility of significant 14 displacement of traffic? 15 MR. BURKE: Well, in developing the fleet 16 forecast, what the contractor has done has 17 shown a distribution of different sizes of 18 vessels. 19 With a proposed deepening, allowing larger 20 vessels to come in or leave more deeply loaded, 21 results in fewer vessel transits in the 22 aggregate -- maybe not much but some -- because 23 cargo, which increases over time too, would be 24 moved some in large vessels. 25 So we just have to see what the numbers 67 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 look like, when we start the benefits model, 3 see -- I don't know that we've -- to the extent 4 that we start to use large vessels, again over 5 time I think your conversation sort of 6 represents a snapshot in time, and maybe not 7 anticipating what kinds of response the company 8 might make five, 10 years down the road. 9 And we are looking at generic responses, 10 not company-specific responses. So, you know, 11 there's a lot of averaging going on in the 12 numbers. And the individual company response 13 might be different than what the industry, as a 14 whole, is telling us. 15 MR. DYSART: Will. 16 MR. BERSON: Speaking of things that 17 didn't seem likely when we started but now 18 may be, where does the potential Jasper port 19 come into this analysis? 20 MR. BURKE: We have an analysis that has 21 already been prepared that looks at that. 22 MR. BAILEY: We've done the one analysis. 23 MR. BERSON: But it doesn't actually -- 24 MR. BAILEY: That looks -- I guess there's 25 nothing that's going on right now that would 68 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 change that part. 3 The other -- there was another aspect that 4 in the economics we were going to look at the 5 sensitivity analysis at the end of a what if, 6 saying if certain -- if that terminal is 7 developed, and handled a certain amount of 8 cargo, how would that affect the economics of 9 the project. So, that's still in the economics 10 of the plan. It hasn't been completed yet. 11 MR. DYSART: Hope. 12 MS. MOORER: Judy, follow-up on your LNG 13 question on the analysis. I've been -- they 14 have just contracted, the Corps has just 15 contracted a group that will be doing the LNG 16 analysis of it. 17 I'm getting the contact names of the 18 pilots and of the Coast Guard and all the 19 different players, the LNG folks for them to 20 interview. 21 One question that I raised is I was told 22 that the vessels can only -- the LNG vessels 23 can only move on high slack tide, whatever that 24 means. 25 So they can only move at a certain period 69 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 of time. If that's the case, and if there's a 3 deeper harbor, does that impact when they can 4 move. 5 Questions like that are the ones I think 6 should be raised through this analysis too, 7 because that could impact vessel operations and 8 interactions, as he was talking about. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. I appreciate that. 10 MR. DYSART: Judy. 11 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah. I have to say, 12 Roger, from the very beginning the assumptions, 13 in the economic analysis and clearly in the 14 model, here have puzzled me, because part of 15 what you have just said is, we're really 16 concerned whether there would be a change in 17 rotation schedule, and would it affect other 18 ports if Savannah is or isn't, how would it 19 affect other ports. 20 And then we're assuming that there might 21 be change in that, and then the assumption 22 that the Panama Canal would not change? 23 I mean, for instance whether there's a 24 Jasper port or not, I don't know. It looks 25 like North Carolina will have another port, but 70 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 I'm not sure. 3 But, of all the things I'd really bet on 4 is that the Panama Canal is not going to stay 5 the same. I mean, I'd bet that more than any 6 other bet in all the other ports. So I'm just 7 -- that's perplexing to me. It seems totally 8 counter-intuitive. 9 MR. BURKE: So we are going -- as part of 10 the sensitivity analysis, in trying to 11 determine what the most likely combination of 12 assumptions that we ought to take, whether the 13 Panama Canal remains the same or is expanded, 14 as currently proposed, we'll be computing, 15 working that into the analyses to see what the 16 effects of that assumption are, and also trying 17 to determine, based on interviews with 18 carriers and review of publications, so forth, 19 through our contact with the Panama Canal 20 Authority, what's the most reasonable 21 assumption to make about the Panama Canal. 22 MS. JENNINGS: And another thing about 23 the interviews with the carriers, I think it's 24 interesting that you use that as an input. 25 I realize you've got to ask, but how do 71 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 you boil that down to what might -- and you 3 admit some of it is proprietary. 4 One of the things that I've learned about 5 this business is it is extremely competitive. 6 How can you tell -- how can you sort out what 7 they're telling you? 8 I mean god bless them, but is it one of 9 those things if they're lips are moving? I 10 mean, we know what kind of business it is. I 11 mean, we depend on it. 12 Still, it's very competitive, and you 13 certainly don't sit there and say something 14 that is a trade, you know, a company secret. 15 MR. BURKE: Well, you do have to be 16 careful. You have to balance that with what 17 you read through trade journals and other 18 professionals, what they say about the industry 19 in general. 20 It's just sort of a common sense test that 21 the person, conducting the interview and doing 22 the analysis, has to decide. 23 You know, is this person telling it to me 24 straight, is he tending to slant it in his 25 view? 72 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 It's a balance with what others tell you. 3 It's a balance with what you can read in trade 4 publications, and what seems to make sense in 5 that context. It's not easy. 6 MS. JENNINGS: No, I can bet not, but I 7 bet it's interesting. The other thing you 8 said, 32 worksheets. I wasn't quite sure what 9 that meant. 10 MR. BURKE: In Excel you have individual 11 worksheets with columns and rows. 12 MS. JENNINGS: Okay. 13 MR. BURKE: There's a number of those that 14 you can interrelate, and the totality is called 15 a work program. 16 MS. JENNINGS: I missed the Excel part. 17 All right. 18 MR. DYSART: You're looking there. I 19 thought I saw -- Fred, did you have your card 20 up at the far end down there a little while 21 ago? I apologize for not catching you sooner. 22 MR. BEASON: I was just going to share 23 some information, if people around this table 24 have not been involved in the committee 25 involved in looking at the LNG traffic, I can't 73 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 speak for LNG, but as a member of that 3 committee, I will tell you that the Coast Guard 4 is involved. 5 The bar pilots are involved. The LNG 6 facility is involved. Georgia Port Authority 7 and several other operators are there. 8 There is a study right now that would, 9 potentially, allow those vessels that have 10 already discharged to exit the port, the 11 harbor, and not have a safety zone around it, 12 because confidence in the operation of those 13 vessels has now been tested. 14 And the technology in the new-build 15 vessels has improved. And there's a trend that 16 would indicate that those vessels are as safe 17 and as maneuverable as any other vessel in the 18 waterway. 19 The safety and risk may not be there, 20 which relates to improving other traffic, in 21 the harbor, as opposed to eliminating or 22 impeding that traffic. There's also a 23 confidence level, that's been arrived at, 24 whereby those vessels could move on any of four 25 slack tides, not just the two high tides. 74 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 In fact the vessel left out this morning 3 at 4:45 in the dark. You know, they weren't 4 doing that a year ago. 5 Confidence has been improved. The 6 characteristics of the vessels have been 7 improved because of new-builds. 8 And the future-builds that are coming out 9 are really not going to be a whole lot deeper 10 than the vessels that are coming now. They're 11 just going to a little beamier -- wider. 12 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Curtis. 13 MR. JOYNER: I'm going to take my first 14 stab at a question. In this regional and 15 multi-port analysis, is that a -- is your 16 consultant, I take it, they do that by 17 themselves, they coordinate with other port 18 facilities like the proposed Jasper County 19 port, do they talk to the people in Florida, 20 and it sounds like they have talked to 21 carriers? 22 MR. BURKE: Yes. 23 MR. JOYNER: How much collaborative effort 24 is this? 25 MR. BURKE: I wouldn't describe it as 75 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 collaborative, but there is information based 3 on -- information in contacts with the most of 4 the other ports from Norfolk through 5 Jacksonville, so Norfolk, Charleston, 6 Wilmington, Jacksonville. 7 So they have -- the contractor contacted 8 representatives, you know, through carriers as 9 well to get information about those other 10 ports, and what effects, authorized projects at 11 those other ports, might have on Savannah and 12 vice versa. It's not done in a vacuum. 13 MR. JOYNER: Okay. Good. 14 MR. DYSART: Judy. 15 MS. JENNINGS: Yeah. Going back to 16 socio-economic analysis, you said you haven't 17 started it yet because you don't have a lot of 18 what's needed. 19 What is that, other than, I mean, you're 20 calculating benefits this whole time? What is 21 it we haven't talked about -- 22 MR. BURKE: Well -- 23 MS. JENNINGS: -- and is it a net 24 calculation? Do you try to determine 25 socio-economic benefits -- 76 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 MR. BURKE: It's relative -- it's more 3 of a subjective kind of assessment, and it's 4 looking at a host of socio-economic and 5 demographic factors. 6 Let me give you a totally different 7 example, perhaps more on point, where 8 socio-economic effects were important in the 9 decision-making process. 10 I don't know whether that's going to be 11 the case here or not, but over in New Orleans, 12 considering whether or not to enlarge the inner 13 harbor navigation canal with a lot which 14 connects to the Mississippi River with the 15 Intercoastal Waterway to the east, it's right 16 in the heart of New Orleans. 17 All those shots of the Lower Ninth Ward, 18 unfortunately, was one of the levees along that 19 industrial inner harbor navigation canal that 20 failed. There's a lot connecting that body of 21 water to the Mississippi River. 22 So construction activity, associated with 23 that lot, bringing in cement, bringing in, you 24 know, excavation, there was noise. 25 There was transportation of construction 77 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 materials, some of which has to come on the 3 surface streets. There was increased traffic 4 and noise and destruction of business, 5 destruction of peoples' lives. 6 It's those kind of effects that we're 7 trying to qualitatively assess associated with 8 any project. 9 In the case of Savannah, most of the work 10 would be limited, in the river or nearby areas, 11 and doesn't have the same -- probably would not 12 have anywhere the same magnitude of effects as 13 the one I described over in New Orleans. 14 It's those kind of things that the 15 socio-economics effect assessment is intended 16 to address, impacts to the population, in the 17 City of Savannah and surrounding areas as an 18 indirect effect of the project. 19 MR. DYSART: David, why don't you ask a 20 question and then we'll come back to Judy. 21 MR. KYLER: This is a response to Judy, 22 part of the same exchange. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Go ahead. I was moving to 24 a different topic. 25 MR. DYSART: David. 78 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 MR. KYLER: This is sort of an comical, 3 somewhat lewd -- I mean not really, not 4 entirely in keeping with the facilitators's 5 Gregorian motto for fertile discussion, and I 6 notice he did very tactfully skirt the issue of 7 who is fertilizing the discussion versus who is 8 seeding it. This may be one or the other or 9 both. 10 MR. DYSART: I would rule, David, that 11 most everybody here is capable of being both 12 fertilizer and seed. I think we can come to 13 a consensus on that -- I declare a consensus. 14 MR. KYLER: We're coming to different 15 conclusions about what any one contribution 16 might be, but I was going to warn everyone, 17 involved of the hubris of engineering, and to 18 remind people to reconsider the confidence 19 level of the titanic and Exxon Valdez when 20 concluding we have reached a safe, engineered 21 solution. That's it. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. Judy. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Roger, going back to the 24 assumption in here, anywhere in here, do you 25 look at changes that might be in the near-term, 79 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 like with trade, trade negotiations, or for 3 instance I'm just thinking that, you know, we 4 talk about potential for adjustment for what 5 -- LNG has not actually expanded, even though 6 it seems to be a foregone conclusion they 7 would, it might not happen. 8 For instance, the national debate on 9 immigration. You make a lot of assumptions. 10 Do you just assume nothing big will change the 11 international trade picture, in terms of major 12 trade routes? 13 I mean, like for instance, a major change 14 in the immigration law could conceivably 15 significantly impact the Asian trade routes. 16 MR. BURKE: Not having the reports 17 themselves, I don't have a specific answer to 18 that as to how detailed, and particularly 19 policy level assumptions like that. 20 The contractor may -- I would think what 21 he tried to do was identify assumptions that 22 would have a significant effect on the decision 23 of trying to make -- you're trying to make 24 here. 25 Whether or not the one you just described 80 1 UPDATE - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS 2 falls in that category or not, I don't know, 3 but trade policies among -- among different 4 countries, I know there is a discussion of 5 that, but what ultimately worked it's way 6 through the step-down analysis, that we talked 7 about, I don't recall. 8 MS. JENNINGS: I'll try to make this one 9 less of an external technical review; does that 10 look at the soundness of the methodology, or 11 does it go back to gee, could you trust what 12 that carrier said or not? 13 MR. BURKE: It would look beyond just 14 technical. It would validate or comment on the 15 appropriateness of the various assumptions, 16 used in the analysis, and the support of 17 whether -- whether there's adequate support for 18 them. 19 MR. DYSART: Anymore questions, Judy? 20 MS. JENNINGS: Thank you. 21 MR. DYSART: It was not an unfriendly 22 question. 23 MS. JENNINGS: None of y'all have enough 24 time, let me promise you that. 25 MR. DYSART: Anybody else have any 81 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 questions? Okay. Roger, we thank you for the 3 update and I declare a 10 minute recess. 4 (Short Break) 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. We will reconvene the 6 meeting, and the next item on the agenda is a 7 report on the sedimentation analysis findings. 8 And Bill, who is going to do that for -- 9 MR. BAILEY: That would be me. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. 11 MR. BAILEY: Okay. 12 MR. DYSART: Everybody have a seat, we're 13 back in business. Bill. 14 MR. BAILEY: I'd like to fill in for Alan. 15 He would have done this. He got tied up with 16 some other meeting with Brunswick. 17 I'll present a report for a work that I 18 didn't do and make the presentation in place of 19 somebody else who didn't do it. 20 Sedimentation analysis is engineering, 21 things that we have done, the folks at the 22 Wilmington District, folks for the Corps are 23 the ones that performed it. 24 It is looking at shoaling patterns with 25 various alternatives. It's looking at both 82 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 alternatives. It's what happens with a project 3 and also what happens after a project. 4 A lot of it has to do with costs. We want 5 to make sure we correctly identify all the 6 costs. The major conclusions, I've got about 7 three pages of these. I'll let you read them. 8 MR. DYSART: Could you clarify where 9 station 28 plus 00 is, please? 10 MR. BAILEY: That is toward the lower end 11 of the harbor just before the bight, if that 12 means anything to you. 13 MR. BEASON: 28 -- 28 on your line file 14 would be down around the fort, right above the 15 Coast Guard station -- Long Island. 16 MR. BAILEY: Okay. All right. See 17 Mr. Beason has his copy of the report. The 18 full report is on the web. I don't know if you 19 looked at it, but it's available for you to 20 look at. We have those conclusions and some 21 more, another page. This is the last page of 22 this. 23 I can show those to you again, if you have 24 questions on them. That's the short version of 25 the presentation. I have more if you want 83 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 more detail on what they looked at, I have 3 more, kind of what they -- some of the things 4 they went through and pieces of the report. If 5 you want to go back up and talk about their 6 conclusions, I can do that. 7 MR. DYSART: What is the pleasure of the 8 group? 9 MR. BAILEY: I'll flip back up to this. 10 MR. DYSART: You said the full report is 11 posted on the website, is that correct? 12 MR. KEEGAN: That's correct. It has been 13 for a month now. 14 MR. DYSART: Will Berson has a question. 15 MR. BERSON: When it refers to advanced 16 maintenance, is that -- I always think of that 17 in connection with the harbor deepening itself. 18 MR. BAILEY: Advanced maintenance is 19 something that the existing channel has. It is 20 normally -- well, it's an area that - it's 21 normally a hole that the Corps will construct 22 below the authorized channel depth to let the 23 sediment fall in that hole, rather than 24 building up in authorized channel. 25 What we try to do is get it so we only 84 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 have to come back and dredge a section of river 3 once a year. So we try to have enough space 4 for the sediment to fall in so that it doesn't 5 get too far up in the channel and delay the 6 ships. 7 In most of the harbor there's different 8 amounts of advanced maintenance now. It's 9 below the authorized depth. 10 MR. HALL: What would be maximum -- the 11 maximum above the authorized; two feet, four 12 feet? 13 MR. BAILEY: I think four in a couple 14 of areas. The one in Kings Island Turning 15 Basin, I think, has eight feet, just a hole off 16 to the side of the channel in the bottom of the 17 turning basin. 18 MR. DYSART: Hope. 19 MS. MOORER: Bill, a way to characterize 20 it would be an area -- it's done in an area 21 that shoals more rapidly than an annual cycle 22 that the Corps maintains the harbor on. 23 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 24 MS. MOORER: To give one example, in the 25 Kings Island Turning Basin, it went one month 85 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 from one depth to another month it had been 3 decreased six feet. Within one month, it had 4 shoaled in six feet. So that's an area that 5 shoals pretty heavily. 6 MR. DYSART: Any further questions or 7 comments of the Corps on this matter? Will. 8 MR. BERSON: Back one page it talks about 9 the -- it acts as a sink for the litoral drift? 10 MR. BEASON: Litoral. 11 MR. BERSON: Litoral. 12 MR. BAILEY: That is talking about the 13 entrance channel. It's basically the north to 14 south movement of material out there in the 15 ocean. What they have found was that the 16 channel does trap that material. 17 MR. BERSON: There's less on the southside 18 of the channel than you normally expect because 19 the channel catches it? 20 MR. BAILEY: I believe so. 21 MR. BERSON: It is north to south. 22 MR. BAILEY: It is north to south. 23 MR. BEASON: Will, what they're saying is 24 the sand migrates down the East Coast. If the 25 channel was not, then that would be on North 86 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 Beach. 3 That's part of Bill Farmer and Tybee's 4 question about the, you know, that would have 5 been there, will help you to put that back. 6 That's what they're saying when they say 7 litoral. 8 MR. DYSART: Any further questions? Judy. 9 MS. JENNINGS: Bill, the first -- I'm just 10 not sure I understand the term river discharge, 11 the amount of sediment entering the harbor 12 depends on river discharge. Do you mean from 13 station -- 14 MR. BAILEY: Coming from Augusta that -- 15 when we have lots of rain, we'll have more 16 sediment coming into the harbor. During 17 drought years, there won't be as much sediment 18 in the harbor. 19 MR. BURKE: Discharge is the volume of 20 water moving past a point. 21 MR. DYSART: Do y'all do any sampling to 22 quantify, say bed-load transport as opposed to 23 suspended transport, or do you just look at the 24 results? 25 MR. BAILEY: Like that. This is at Clyo. 87 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 It's only 1 to 5% sands. The most of it is 3 silt and clay -- what's coming down the river 4 is mostly silt and clay. 5 MR. DYSART: That is -- that is in the 6 water column -- 7 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 8 MR. DYSART: -- as opposed to bed-load 9 that you are measuring. 10 MR. BAILEY: Yes, that's right. 11 MR. DYSART: Anymore? Okay. We thank 12 you, Bill. Now we'll move on to -- milestoneS 13 we'll take up a little bit later. How about 14 the update on funding and the scope of the 15 Savannah Ecosystem Project. Who is going to 16 brief on that? 17 MR. BAILEY: That would be me. The 18 Savannah Harbor Ecosystem, you remember that's 19 looking at improving dissolved oxygen in the 20 river or in the harbor. 21 The port authority has provided money for 22 the Corps to resume that effort, that study 23 this year. The city decided not to continue 24 the work this year. 25 The city is our non-federal sponsor, and 88 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 they had been contributing money in previous 3 years. The port authority has worked with the 4 city and gotten the city's approval, and the 5 port authority has provided money. 6 So now we're going to restart that effort 7 and look at continuing the process of 8 identifying the best way to improve dissolved 9 oxygen. The first step we're going to look at 10 is design a dissolved oxygen system, oxygen 11 injection systems under a variety of 12 conditions. 13 I'm not sure -- that's still going to be 14 -- it won't be complete this year. It will 15 still be next year before that would be 16 complete. I think that's about all to say 17 about it at this point, unless you have 18 questions. 19 MR. DYSART: Will. 20 MR. BERSON: I realize that there's a -- 21 the question of dissolved oxygen is also in 22 addition to the harbor deepening question. How 23 does this relate to the mitigation effort? I 24 mean, they're related, but I don't know exactly 25 how formally. 89 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 MR. BAILEY: Everything's complicated. 3 MR. BERSON: Sorry I can't ask a simple 4 question. 5 MR. BAILEY: No, it was a simple question. 6 it was good. The study that I presented the 7 results of, from some previous efforts that we 8 had done -- a contractor had done for us that 9 -- identified and looked at a lot of different 10 ways to improve dissolved oxygen. 11 They said the best way was a DO 12 injection system. Now, we're going to look at 13 using that system in two different efforts. 14 The expansion project, we're looking at using 15 that system to mitigate for DO impacts for 16 expansion. 17 On this other study, we'll look at using 18 that type of a system to improve the existing 19 DO situation out there. So they're both going 20 to use the same design. 21 They will be looked at separately to come 22 up with their own design for just their piece, 23 each of those pieces. 24 MR. BERSON: So in theory, if the decision 25 was to not move forward with the expansion 90 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 project, this would still continue to address 3 the existing problem? 4 MR. BAILEY: Yes. As long as there's 5 funding to complete the study, that could go to 6 Congress for authorization and funding and has 7 its own separate project, yes. 8 MR. BROWNELL: Question for you Bill on 9 that, is that study going to look at some 10 alternatives, like taking a look at the coastal 11 watershed, and the possibility of doing 12 constructive wetlands, or protecting wetlands 13 in the watersheds, dealing with that aspect of 14 it as a long-term strategy to reduce the 15 biological oxygen demand and all that? 16 MR. BAILEY: They did look at those things 17 when they sorted through the different options 18 available. 19 They had like 25 different things they 20 looked at. Those were things they have already 21 looked at that. 22 MR. BROWNELL: That's certainly something 23 that should be considered, along with any other 24 strategy implemented, to do that too for the 25 long-term. 91 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 That's probably responsible -- if you look 3 at watershed impacts -- it is probably more 4 responsible for the decline than anything else. 5 MR. DYSART: Any further comments or 6 questions? Judy Jennings. 7 MS. JENNINGS: Just taking advantage of 8 all the people in the room about DO and the 9 restoration project; does anybody know exactly 10 where we are right now with setting TMDLs in 11 the Lower Savannah River -- in our little piece 12 of the river? 13 MR. BAILEY: I believe -- 14 MR. DYSART: Hope. 15 MR. BAILEY: Okay. 16 MS. MOORER: I would suggest you talk to 17 Bob Scanlon. I was in a meeting with him 18 yesterday. I had to leave the meeting earlier, 19 but Dr. Carol Couch met with the Harbor 20 Committee, and she was giving them a lot of 21 information about kind of the timeline of what 22 she thought was coming up. So I would suggest 23 talking to Bob Scanlon. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. Any further comments? 25 MS. MOORER: Bill may have a better idea, 92 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 but -- 3 MR. BAILEY: My understanding is EPA was 4 going to go out with another draft TMDL, using 5 the model that we just got approved, using that 6 version, and that's about all. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. Next topic, update on 8 the status of impact report. Who is covering 9 that? Bill. 10 MR. BAILEY: That would be me. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. 12 MR. BAILEY. We had talked about it some 13 earlier. We have a model that the agencies 14 have said is acceptable to use for impact 15 evaluation. 16 We had worked with the agencies to figure 17 out how they thought we should use it, should 18 apply it, what input conditions we should run 19 in there, and what types of outputs they want 20 to see. 21 So we have done the initial turning of the 22 crank. We've done that one time. Now we have 23 our outputs for fisheries, and wetlands -- and 24 some of wetlands, and water quality. 25 We have a report. We have a preliminary 93 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 report, and we sent that to the agencies to 3 look at. We have met the last couple of weeks 4 with different coordination teams, agency 5 coordination teams, to look at that report and 6 try to figure out what it says, and what -- 7 what's clear, and what's useful, and what's not 8 useful. 9 In looking at the report they gave us, 10 there were a number of comments, and we will be 11 going back having to revise the report and send 12 out another version. 13 Some of the things that we had kind of 14 once -- once we got them, we saw that they 15 weren't very useful, some of the formats for 16 the information. 17 So we're going to be developing some new 18 formats, and some of the ones we have we're not 19 going to use. It's kind of how do you present 20 the data, some of those things. 21 It made some changes in what they wanted. 22 Sea level rise is one -- one example where we 23 were looking at two different levels of sea 24 level rise, two different amounts. 25 Now we're going to be looking at different 94 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 numbers, rather than -- I think it was nine 3 centimeters and 25 centimeters. Now we're 4 going to be using 25 and 50. 5 Since we had talked before, now people are 6 thinking that well, projections are for more 7 sea level rise, so we're going to use a higher 8 number and evaluate that. 9 So we have some work to do, and we'll be 10 sending that back out to the agencies. After 11 we get that completed and send it back out to 12 them, then we'll also share that report with 13 the public. So right now we have a report we 14 are revising. 15 MR. DYSART: Hope. 16 MS. MOORER: The report -- in 17 clarification, though, the report is basically 18 a lot of output runs, right? 19 MR. BAILEY: Yes, a lot of output and no 20 interpretation. It's just -- 21 MS. MOORER: That was kind of how we had 22 talked about before, and instead of 23 interpreting, at that point, it will just be 24 the model results, and those will be what's 25 posted to the website. 95 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 I think Larry even has already listed 3 everyone of the 100 -- couple hundreds of runs 4 that will be done to get ready to post them on 5 the website. 6 Once they're what the agencies want to 7 see, and the report has been finalized, 8 essentially at that point, there might be some 9 more runs done later on. 10 That would subsequently be posted too, 11 after the agencies take a look at that and 12 decide, working with the Corps, to try to get 13 all that posted so that the public will have 14 that available or people, other agencies who 15 don't receive a report at that time, can have 16 it. 17 MR. DYSART: Will. 18 MR. BERSON: I promise I won't hold you to 19 this, any idea what sort of time frame we're 20 looking at? 21 I know that the model, you use the model 22 calibration, the agency comments on the model, 23 as a guide. It could be a fairly long period, 24 but any sense of when mere mortals, like 25 myself, might see it? 96 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 MR. BAILEY: The short answer is no, but I 3 know there is a schedule. We didn't ask -- I 4 haven't asked the contractor and our hydraulics 5 folks when they can produce the revised report. 6 I haven't asked that question. They're 7 still trying to figure out what it is they have 8 to do in these revisions, so I'm not sure. 9 MR. DYSART: Hope. 10 MS. MOORER: I can offer up once it's 11 posted, we can send out a free e-mail saying 12 the model impacts report has been posted, so 13 you're not wondering out there in never-never 14 land when are model results going to be posted. 15 MR. BERSON: That would be helpful. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Hope, that would still be 17 just the raw numbers? 18 MS. MOORER: It's graphic depictions too, 19 but no interpretation essentially yet. It will 20 have what run, from the graphics that I've 21 seen, and whether they've changed. 22 All of them are identified as to what run, 23 what time of year, what flow, if it's sea level 24 25 centimeters, sea level rise run, or 50 meter 25 sea level -- not centimeter -- those are all 97 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 indicated on the graphic depiction. 3 And you'll see where the salinity or DO or 4 whatever is being measured on that run, you'll 5 see that, but it won't say now how does that 6 translate for striped bass. 7 MR. DYSART: Judy. 8 MS. JENNINGS: My memory of the schedule, 9 from the last interim gathering, was that 10 impact interpretations and analysis will still 11 be finished this year? 12 MR. BAILEY: Yes. 13 MS. JENNINGS: So to the detail of this 14 sea level rise would impact a given species in 15 some way -- to that detail? 16 MS. MOORER: I don't know how far -- 17 MR. BAILEY: I was going to say with that 18 run, it would be that kind of changes in 19 suitable habitat for a species. 20 MS. JENNINGS: So I'm -- so I guess by the 21 end of year it would be like you can sit down 22 and read a paragraph on impact analysis or not? 23 MR. BAILEY: Don't think so -- it's not 24 written. 25 MS. JENNINGS: I love pretty pictures. 98 1 SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2 MR. DYSART: Hope. 3 MS. MOORER: Judy, I think the most 4 information you'll get about impact analysis, 5 essentially, before -- this is just my 6 interpretation of the process that's listed on 7 the schedule -- I think the most information 8 you'll get about impacts will be at that impact 9 meeting. 10 Nothing will be essentially written and 11 you won't see anything written until the 12 document, the draft of the document, but the 13 information about impacts will be communicated 14 at that impact meeting. 15 MR. DYSART: Roughly when would that be? 16 MS. MOORER: That's on that schedule Larry 17 is getting up on the screen soon. 18 MR. DYSART: We'll find out later then? 19 MS. MOORER: Yeah. 20 MR. BAILEY: Just to finish with this 21 thing. We, as part of the meetings with the 22 agencies, we also shared with them the runs and 23 the outputs that we -- some of the outputs we 24 have from looking at different mitigation 25 options. 99 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 After seeing the impacts, now we're using 3 the model to see if we can make those impacts 4 go away, trying different -- different things 5 in the estuary. If we change the flow, you 6 know, in this creek; does that help this type 7 of habitat. 8 So we have started that work and not 9 nearly to the end of it. We started it. We 10 shared the results we have so far. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. Anymore questions, 12 comments? Okay. We thank you. How about 13 committee reports, anything from Aquifer 14 Committee? 15 Okay. Bill Farmer, reported that he did 16 not have any new material to present today. 17 Fred, how about Dredging and Disposal? 18 MR. BEASON: I sent an e-mail to all the 19 folks that were on that committee. Now that 20 this document is posted, we're going to try to 21 get together, those that are still on it, and 22 those agencies that had replacements will be 23 notified. 24 We'll review it. My first read of it is 25 just what Bill Bailey represented, the forecast 100 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 is no real change. 3 There may be some minor shifting of some 4 shoals, but nothing significant. The committee 5 will come back and give you a report. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Judy, 7 Economics Working Group. 8 MS. JENNINGS: Nothing except to say I'm a 9 sponge for Roger's material, and thinking that 10 there might be a time when it would be 11 constructive to have a Q and A with people, you 12 know, interested in more detail about the 13 economics analysis. 14 That's the only role I see for what was 15 the Economics Working Group is to, you know, to 16 ask is there a reason for, you know, a smaller 17 group to have a Q and A, and maybe some input 18 and feedback. No plans for that except for 19 what I would work out with the parties. 20 MR. DYSART: Will, how about the Fisheries 21 and Aquatic Resources. 22 MR. BERSON: Nothing to report. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Let's see, 24 Teri -- who do we have from the -- we've had 25 the input on agenda. Is anything going on with 101 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 respect to the Operating Guidelines? 3 MR. BAILEY: A meeting afterwards. 4 MR. DYSART: Hope. 5 MS. MOORER: Teri's not here. Anybody who 6 can stay afterwards and review the work that's 7 been done on the first draft, and trying to 8 assimilate some sort of, I guess, kind of a 9 sketch outline. It's actually more than a 10 sketch. 11 Teri's has been -- Will and Judy have done 12 a really good job starting the history to 13 incorporate in the final document of the SEG. 14 And so trying to put that down now, as 15 opposed to waiting later when the discussions 16 will be more consensus plan, mitigation plan at 17 that point. So they're trying to do a lot of 18 head work on the front part of the document. 19 so anybody who can stay, please do, and talk 20 about the draft. 21 MR. DYSART: Do we have an exciting 22 incentive for people to stay, door prizes, 23 things like that? 24 MS. MOORER: No -- another bottle of 25 water. 102 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. Striped Bass. 3 MR. GADDIS: Joel is not here today, but 4 there's no new information to share yet. 5 MR. DYSART: How about an update on 6 project milestones -- Larry Keegan is going to 7 provide that for us. 8 MS. MOORER: Sorry y'all, I didn't do the 9 Power Point with that this morning. This is 10 requested by the interim SEG meeting to update 11 each time kind of where we are on milestones, 12 because the schedule changes, unfortunately, 13 week-to-week. 14 It has pushed out -- the schedule had 15 pushed out, since our last SEG meeting, with 16 the addition of tasks or different kind of 17 logic into the schedule. 18 It is pushed out to May '08 for a 19 completion date. The team had a meeting to go 20 kind of go back through the schedule, line by 21 line by line, and review dates and time periods 22 and logic. 23 We got the completion date back to -- it's 24 really funny, if you look at the schedule it's 25 December 25th, 2007 -- so, yeah, a Christmas 103 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 present. Like I don't doubt that they will be 3 signing it on December 25th, but so we did 4 rework some of the logic, just trying to get -- 5 keeping up with the schedule is a task in and 6 of itself. 7 As you can see up there, the chloride 8 analysis looks like October '06. the 9 sedimentation study is done, but that feeds 10 into the disposal plan complete. 11 All of that works together. Actually I'm 12 talking wrong. Sedimentation analysis is the 13 shoaling pattern. Sedimentation study is 14 exactly where do you put the material. 15 That is still underway. The disposal plan 16 is with that, and that is September 29th or the 17 end of September is how I'm going to say. 18 Never give an exact date, or try not to 19 anymore, particularly to my bosses. Then the 20 marsh seccession model, August time frame. 21 Economics analysis, Judy, looks like late 22 October before -- these are the milestones that 23 are on the schedule after reviews, internal and 24 external reviews. 25 The public information meeting right now 104 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 on the impacts sits at mid-November, and the 3 mitigation plan public meeting is in late 4 January. 5 Draft of the document in April of next 6 year, and then the comment period and the final 7 document issued in October of next year. 8 I noticed something when I was putting 9 those dates on this morning. The aquifer 10 analysis wasn't up there, and that's an 11 external review right now. So that report 12 should be final within the next couple of 13 months. 14 I think a lot of you have heard a lot of 15 the outcome of the study, at various water 16 meetings around the state, but the report 17 should be final and through external analysis 18 within the next couple of months. 19 Larry keeps these posted on the website. 20 We'll update -- we'll just try to update it 21 every SEG meeting and the interim SEG meetings, 22 the dates. Hopefully, they won't change much, 23 but they have a tendency to vary. 24 MR. DYSART: Comments, questions, 25 thoughts, views -- seeing none, we will declare 105 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 that to be taken care of. Thank you. 3 We've gotten down to setting a meeting 4 date. Let's talk about the next meeting date, 5 if that is even practical to do. What is the 6 thought of the folks here about the 7 advisability of setting a date, or are there 8 things that are underway that are necessary 9 before it can be appropriate to meet again? 10 The chicken and the egg thing; what needs to 11 happen next involving a meeting of this body? 12 MS. MOORER: Just kind of thinking about 13 what's coming on the schedule, I don't think 14 that within the next 30 days there will be any 15 reports concluded to report to the group, by 16 that time. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. 18 MS. MOORER: I would suggest, offer up 19 maybe an interim meeting in July, and 20 tentatively set an SEG meeting in August. 21 MR. DYSART: Does that -- does that make 22 very good sense to everybody here? Seeing no 23 objection, we will declare a consensus. So we 24 have a tentative next meeting date for this 25 body on the first of August. 106 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 (Whereupon, there was an 3 off-the-record discussion.) 4 MR. DYSART: For planning purposes, let's 5 say the second Tuesday, August 1st -- excuse 6 me, August 8th. Recent experience indicates 7 that we'll just kind of see what floats out. 8 Okay. 9 MS. MOORER: July 11th because the first 10 Tuesday in July is the 4th, so July 11th for 11 an interim SEG meeting. 12 MR. DYSART: Anything else to offer for 13 the good of the Stakeholders Evaluation Group. 14 If not, we'll declare this meeting closed. 15 We will continue, after a brief 16 intermission, with looking at what has been 17 articulated as a starting point for at least a 18 portion of the draft completion report. 19 20 (Concluded at 11:50 a.m.) 21 22 23 24 25 107 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 G E O R G I A 5 CHATHAM COUNTY 6 7 I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript 8 was taken down, as stated in the caption, and the 9 questions and answers thereto were reduced to 10 typewriting under my directions; that the forgoing 11 Pages 1 through 106 represent a true and correct 12 transcript of the evidence given upon said hearing, 13 and I further certify that I am not of kin or 14 counsel to the parties in the case; am not in the 15 regular employ of counsel for any of said parties 16 nor am I in anywise interested in the result of 17 said case. 18 19 This, the 27th day of June, 2006. 20 21 _______________________________ 22 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court 23 Reporter, B-2041 24 25