6. PROBLEMS AND NEEDS. The Savannah Harbor comprehensive study considered a wide range of improvement opportunities, problems, needs, and concerns. These encompassed four general categories of problems and needs: (a) Operating efficiency status of the existing harbor improvements, including the navigation channel, tide gate, sediment basin, and fresh water control works;

(b) impacts of operation of Savannah Harbor on the environment; (c) problems of disposing material dredged for harbor maintenance over the next 50 years; and (d) need for additional harbor modifications providing NED benefits.

7. IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED. The Georgia Ports Authority has frequently emphasized that the present operation as well as the future growth of the Port of Savannah is restricted by the presently authorized 38-foot channel from the harbor mouth to the Kings Island turning basin at river mile 18.9. To remain competitive in container and other cargo trade, the Georgia Ports Authority believes that channel deepening to -42 feet is necessary.

8. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED. In initial formulation of deepening plans for Savannah Harbor, six alternatives were considered. The alternative plans included deepening of the existing 38-foot-deep project by 2, 4, and 6 feet with alternative combinations of methods of dredging and dredged material disposal and placement. Final alternative plans considered included a no-action plan and deepening plans of -40, -42, and -44 feet. For all three deepening plans, dredged material from the inner harbor would be placed in existing disposal areas, and material dredged from the bar channel would be placed in an approved ocean disposal site. 9. NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN. The alternative plan that maximizes net national economic development benefits (NED plan) provides for the inner harbor channel and channel between the jetties to be deepened to -40 feet deep, with the bar channel deepened to -42 feet deep. The inner harbor deepening would extend upstream to river mile 19.5 and include deepening the Kings Island turning basin. An estimated total of approximately 970,000 cubic yards (cy) of material would have to be dredged with implementation of the NED plan. The estimated total first cost of the NED plan is $16,471,000, of which $11,023,000 would be Federal and $5,448,000 would be non-Federal. Based on an interest rate of 8 1/2 percent and a 50-year period of analysis, the average annual benefits in excess of average annual costs (net benefits) are $3,045,600 and the benefit-to-cost ratio is 3.1.

10. SELECTED PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT. The plan of improvement recommended by the reporting officers is the locally preferred

plan (LP plan). The LP plan provides for deepening the inner harbor channel and channel between the jetties to 42 feet deep with the bar channel deepened to 44 feet deep. Channel widths

will generally be the same as existing channels except in the vicinity of the wreck of the CSS GEORGIA and Old Fort Jackson where the channel will be narrowed and vessel traffic will be limited to one direction. The inner harbor deepening will extend upstream to river mile 19.3 and include deepening of the Kings Island turning basin. No other turning basins will be deepened. Bottom materials from the inner harbor will be removed by pipeline dredge and placed in diked upland disposal areas that are also used for disposal of dredged material from maintenance operations. Materials from the bar channel will be dredged by a modified pipeline dredge and dump scows with dredged materials placed in an approved ocean disposal site. An estimated total of approximately 5,927,000 cy of material, 4,375,000 cy from the inner harbor, will be dredged with the LP plan. Based on February 1992 price levels, the estimated total first cost of the LP plan is $38,539,000, of which $11,023,000 would be Federal and $27,516,000 would be non-Federal. Based on an interest rate of 8 1/2 percent and a 50-year period of economic analysis, the average annual costs are estimated at $3,496,100, and the average annual benefits at $5,432,900. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.6.

a. ECONOMIC. The proposed locally preferred plan for deepening Savannah Harbor will reduce waterborne transportation costs for containerized and general cargo and grain moving through Savannah Harbor. Transportation cost reduction results from use of larger vessels and more efficient use of existing vessels. Harbor deepening is not expected to result in a material increase in the total volume of commerce moving through the port.

b. SALINITY. Impacts due to increases in salinity are not significant. The determination of lack of significant impact reflects recent implementation of the section 1135 plan for deactivation of the tide gate and filling of New Cut which by itself will significantly reduce salinity intrusion in upstream areas.

C. CULTURAL RESOURCES. A narrowing of the deepened channel from 500 feet to 400 feet wide, with approach transitions 1,000 feet long, is proposed in the vicinity of the CSS GEORGIA wreck and Old Fort Jackson. The narrower channel will leave the wreck undisturbed and, while limiting traffic to one-way only, will not cause vessel delays. Live ordnance is known to exist in the channel adjacent to the CSS GEORGIA and Old Fort Jackson. This ordnance could be a hazard to the larger vessels using the deepened harbor. Removal of the ordnance is included in the plan

of improvement. The plan of improvement also includes execution of a programmatic memorandum of agreement with the Georgia and South Carolina state historic preservation officers describing the cultural resource studies, activities, and mitigation requirements required for the overall harbor improvement area. The cost of historic preservation data recovery and mitigation is estimated to be $759,000, which exceeds 1 percent of the Federal cost ($112,000) by $647,000. With 75/25 percent cost sharing of cultural resource costs above the 1 percent all-Federal cost limit, the estimated total shares would be $597,000 Federal and $162,000 non-Federal.

d. ENDANGERED SPECIES. Endangered or threatened species that could be adversely impacted by the construction dredging of the recommended plan include the West Indian manatee, the right whale, five species of turtles, and the shortnose sturgeon. With the use of trained observers and restrictions on the types of dredging equipment and the periods of dredging activity, there should be no adverse effects on threatened and endangered species.

12. PROJECT COST SHARING. Based on February 1992 price levels, the district engineer estimates first cost of the proposed project to be $38,539,000, of which $11,023,000 would be Federal, including $44,000 for aids to navigation, and $27,516,000 would be non-Federal. Project cost sharing as stipulated by Public Law 99-662 and otherwise provided by Federal laws and policies for deep-draft navigation projects would be as follows:

13. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORTING OFFICERS. The district engineer recommends that the existing Federal project for deepdraft navigation at Savannah Harbor, Georgia, be modified in accordance with the selected locally preferred plan as presented in his report, with such modification thereto as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable. The division engineer concurs.

REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS

14. GENERAL. The board's review encompassed the overall technical, economic, institutional, environmental, and policy aspects involved in the formulation of alternative plans of improvement and in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the reporting officers. The board considered the results of the consolidated Washington level review and the conformance of the recommended plan with essential elements of the U.S. Water Resources Council's Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies and compliance with other applicable administrative and legislative policies and guidelines. The board also considered the views of interested parties including Federal, State, and local agencies.

15. RESPONSES TO THE DIVISION ENGINEER'S PUBLIC NOTICE. The division engineer issued a public notice on 31 July 1991 stating the findings and recommendation of the reporting officers and inviting interested parties to provide comments to the Washington Level Review Center (WLRC). No comments have been received in response to the division engineer's notice.

16. STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCY 90-DAY REVIEW. State and Federal agency review was initiated by WLRC on 22 October 1991 and completed on 20 January 1992. Letters were received from the U.S. Departments of the Interior (DOI) and Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). DOI and EPA support the deepening project provided the section 1135 project for removal of the tide gate and filling of New Cut is implemented. DOT had no comments. Memoranda were received from the clearinghouses of the States of Georgia and South Carolina providing the results of their agencies' reviews and indicating support for the proposed deepening provided certain conditions were met. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources will support the deepening project provided the section 1135 project is implemented first and adequate measures are undertaken to protect marine turtles and the right whale. The Georgia state historic preservation officer (SHPO) indicated a desire to work with the district engineer in signing and implementing a programmatic agreement dealing with impacted historic properties,

which has now been signed by the Georgia SHPO. The South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department supports the project contingent upon implementation of the section 1135 project and resolution of weir location and dredging schedule issues in the study for long-term maintenance. The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) indicated a need to comply with five conditions contained in the SCDHEC 401 water quality certification issued to Savannah District on 6 December 1991. The district has or will comply with the conditions specified. The South Carolina Department of Archives and History indicated a meeting with Savannah District would be held to discuss mitigative measures for cultural resources impacted by the deepening project. An agreement of understanding has been signed as a result of this coordinating meeting.

17. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors concurs in the plan of improvements recommended by the reporting officers and review findings of the consolidated Washington level review process. The board finds that the recommended improvements, identified as the LP plan, are a departure from the NED plan. Although it is a departure from the NED plan, the recommended plan is economically justified, technically sound, and environmentally and socially acceptable. The cost sharing as recommended by the reporting officers is appropriate; whereby, in addition to normal cost sharing for the NED project plan, the non-Federal sponsor pays 100 percent of the additional costs of implementing the recommended 4-foot project deepening (LP plan) over and above the cost of implementing the 2-foot project deepening (the NED project plan). These additional costs include both additional initial construction costs and any additional subsequent maintenance costs. The board concurs in the reporting officers estimates that there is no quantifiable difference between the maintenance costs associated with the 2- and 4-foot alternative deepening plans and that there is no basis for charging non-Federal interests for any additional maintenance costs. However, should this determination change in the future, non-Federal interests should be charged for any additional maintenance costs.

18. The board notes that the State of South Carolina Coastal Council is concerned with disposal area effluent discharges of heavy metals into the Wright River and in earlier correspondence indicated that the proposed project is not consistent with the State Coastal Zone Management Plan. However, the board understands that recent resolution efforts on this issue have led to agreements on further testing of disposal area effluent discharges and the identification of several alternative means of dealing with any polluting effluent. Based on these resolution