1 2 3 4 5 SAVANNAH HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6 7 STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION GROUP (SEG) MEETING 8 9 DECEMBER 2, 2003 10 9:00 A.M. 11 MIGHTY 8TH AIR FORCE HERITAGE MUSEUM 12 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 5 I N D E X 6 7 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ------------- 3 8 APPROVAL OCTOBER MEETING TRANSCRIPT ----------- 5 9 10 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING --------------------------- 7 11 REVIEW OF GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY ---------- 50 12 COMMITTE REPORTS ------------------------------ 61 13 PRESENTATION ---------------------------------- 63 14 15 16 CERTIFICATE ----------------------------------- 111 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. If you'll take your seats, 3 we'll start the meeting. Three people come in, two 4 people walk out. Okay. It's 9:15, and let's call 5 the meeting to order. 6 We'll start out, I'm Ben Dysart, the 7 Stakeholder Evaluation Group Facilitator. We'll 8 start out, first of all, having everyone introduce 9 themselves, and let's start out with Judy on the 10 left -- excuse me. Start at the far end, say who 11 you are and who you are representing. 12 MR. WRIGHT: Tom Wright, citizen. 13 MR. FARMER: Bill Farmer, myself. 14 MR. STAFFORD: John Stafford, Ogeechee Audubon 15 Society. 16 MS. JENNINGS: Judy Jennings, Georgia Sierra. 17 MR. MARTIN: Ramon Martin, Georgia DNR. 18 MR. FLEMING: Joel Fleming, Georgia DNA. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: Chris Schuberth, Chatham 20 Environmental Forum. 21 MS. WOOD: Judy Wood, Corps of Engineers. 22 MS. VAUGHN: Cathy Vaughn, Georgia Ports 23 Authority. 24 MR. REES: Morgan Rees, consultant to Georgia 25 Ports. 4 1 INTRODUCTIONS 2 MR. KEEGAN: Larry Keegan, consultant to 3 Georgia Ports. 4 MR. ELLIS: Bo Ellis, Applied Technology & 5 Management. 6 MR. EUDALY: Ed Eudaly, Fish and Wildlife 7 Service. 8 MR. FLOCK: Alan Flock, Fish and Wildlife 9 Service. 10 MR. DRAKE: Sam Drake, Fife and Clydesdale 11 Plantations. 12 MR. GRIFFIN: David Griffin, Georgia DOT. 13 MR. DYSART: Thank you. People who are 14 walking in, as they walk to their seats can say who 15 they are and who they represent -- Hope. 16 MS. MOORER: Hope Moorer, Georgia Ports 17 Authority. 18 MS. MAYLE: Mary Mayle, Savannah Morning News. 19 MR. DYSART: Welcome. You have the draft 20 agenda for the meeting before you, and I would ask 21 you to take a look at it if you haven't already. 22 It has been posted on the SEG website by Larry 23 Keegan. 24 If you have any additions or changes, please 25 indicate that at this time. If not -- Morgan 5 1 APPROVAL OCTOBER MEETING TRANSCRIPT 2 MR. REES: For the minutes -- I'm sorry. I 3 was -- 4 MR. DYSART: No, this is agenda -- this is the 5 agenda for this meeting. 6 MR. REES: No comment, sorry. 7 MR. DYSART: Also, we will plan to adjourn by 8 noon, and so seeing no requests for changes or 9 modifications in the agenda, we will operate 10 according to the agenda before you. 11 The next item is the action on the October, 12 2003 transcript of the SEG meeting. Any comments 13 or any corrections that need to be made on the 14 record. Morgan. 15 MR. REES: There are few just kind of edits, 16 but there is one where there is a negative in the 17 statement and should have been not a negative, a 18 positive, and it changed the meaning. And I'm not 19 sure anybody is ever going to worry about it. I 20 would suggest I'll just give this to our 21 stenographer. 22 MR. DYSART: State what it is on the record. 23 I believe we have determined that's the convenient 24 way to this. 25 MR. REES: On page 18, line 21, the word 6 1 APPROVAL OCTOBER MEETING TRANSCRIPT 2 couldn't should be replaced with plan to. All 3 right. 4 MR. DYSART: Could you read the complete 5 sentence for context? 6 MR. REES: I don't have it. That's why I was 7 just kind of -- 8 MR. DYSART: Thank you. We have decided in 9 the past that's the easiest way. That makes it 10 part of the official record. It's a lot more 11 convenient than trying to go back and change 12 things. 13 Any other changes? I appreciate that, and we 14 do want the record to reflect the will and what 15 went on here. One time when I worked in 16 Washington, a gentleman I worked for testified 17 before Congress, and that period you got your 18 testimony back. 19 You could -- certain people were free to edit 20 it. He struck out a not, simply because he decided 21 it would look better. Now, I won't say what this 22 position was, but anyway, seeing no other requests 23 for changes in the transcript, it will stand as 24 amended by Morgan. 25 Anybody who has come in, who has not 7 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 introduced themselves, please do so. David, why 3 don't you do that? 4 MR. SCHALLER: David Schaller with the Georgia 5 Ports Authority. 6 MR. DYSART: Anybody else? 7 MS. LEFFEK: Teri Leffek with Marine Terminals 8 Corporation. 9 MR. DYSART: Okay. As is our custom, 10 briefings on matters that have been requested by 11 this body, on work pursuant to SEG activities, are 12 given priority on the agenda. 13 At this time, I'd like to call on Judy Wood of 14 the Corps of Engineers. What else do I need to say 15 to introduce you properly, Judy? 16 MS. WOOD: I'll do it. 17 MR. DYSART: I told Judy we had all been 18 looking forward to this presentation for a good 19 while, and she could have all the time that she 20 needs to make her presentation, and any comments 21 that she has. And then we'll have questions and 22 answers and discussion from the SEG members. 23 Welcome, Judy. 24 MS. WOOD: I'm not going to use this 25 immediately. You have to excuse me when I use 8 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 the Power Point. I'm a low tech person caught in a 3 high tech world. 4 MS. VAUGHN: Do you want me to dim the lights? 5 MS. WOOD: I'm not going to be using it right 6 away -- actually, I am. How do we get it to go up 7 one? 8 MR. DYSART: Larry, you or Bo are kind of high 9 tech? 10 MS. MOORER: You're probably going to have to 11 use the computer. 12 MR. KEEGAN: Point it at the screen. 13 MS. WOOD: I'd kind of like to get to the map 14 of the harbor -- up or down arrows? 15 MR. KEEGAN: Push N. 16 (Whereupon, there was an 17 off-the-record discussion.) 18 MS. WOOD: I'm going to talk a little bit 19 first about the various harbor studies that are 20 going on for the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, 21 the culture resources, and then I'll get into the 22 CSS Georgia, which is probably the most interesting 23 one we're doing. 24 Right now we have talked with both state 25 historic preservation offices and worked out what 9 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 we have called the area of potential effect, which 3 is the area that might affect culture resources 4 from the expansion project. 5 Normally, we don't have to worry about the 6 bottom of the shipping channel. That shipping 7 channel bottom is in excess of 40 feet now. 8 Historically, the deepest part of the shipping 9 channel was right here by Ft. Jackson. It's called 10 Five Fathom Hole. That's only 30 feet. So past 11 dredging, inside the channel, has dredged through, 12 and anything would have been lost there 13 historically. 14 Where we have to worry is where we have bend 15 wideners or have altered the side slopes or were 16 extending the channel. We've started the surveys 17 of the bend wideners. We did -- we've done about 18 half of them. We need to do the rest. 19 We're doing magnetometer and side-scan sonar 20 surveys. Magnatometers pick up metal objects, 21 side-scan sonars, these things that are sticking up 22 off the bottom. 23 Once we complete those surveys, we're going to 24 have archeological divers go down and investigate 25 those anomalies to find exactly what they are and 10 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 how they're affected by the project. 3 There's a little place up here that Fish and 4 Wildlife is interested in. Obviously, it's above 5 the Kings Island Turning Basin. There is one bend 6 widener that does involve some slope stability, and 7 possibly is impacting refuge property. 8 I have talked to Rick Kanasky (phonetic), 9 the archeologist there about a year ago on this. 10 So when we do our shoreline surveys and testing, 11 we'll send the scope of work to him. He can add 12 whatever he wants to make sure it's done properly 13 on Fish and Wildlife Service land, and he can have 14 whatever wording he's going to need for a 15 contractor to get an archeological resources 16 protection act permit. 17 That way when our contractor applies for the 18 permit from Fish and Wildlife, all of those things 19 will already be in their scope of work. So, like I 20 said, I talked to Rick briefly about that area up 21 in there. 22 Like I said, we've finished about half of our 23 surveys. In the inner harbor in here, that's 24 pretty much debris areas. Everybody and their 25 brother throws metal and things out in the harbor. 11 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 If we find wrecks in this vicinity, I expect 3 them to be totally salvaged as derelict hulls, 4 because it's the main channel. In here, 5 historically, there weren't many shipwrecks that 6 occurred in this area. It's called the mud flats 7 and was a very protected area. 8 If your ship did run aground, you could choose 9 the next tide to get it up. There's also a lot of 10 room in here for avoidance of impacts to culture 11 resources by making minor jogs in the channel. 12 This is the most exciting area for me because 13 we're getting into some new stuff. This is the bar 14 channel. Out here you would have probable wrecks, 15 you could have some stripped out hulls. Mostly 16 what you are going to get are wrecks that actually 17 have cargo and things on them. 18 We've got -- we did the magnetometer and sonar 19 surveys in-house. I have the data and was going 20 through it last weekend. We are seeing a few 21 targets of things. We have something that actually 22 looks airplane. It probably isn't, but it looks 23 like one. It's out about 2,000 feet upstream from 24 the Savannah light tower or where the light tower 25 used to be. 12 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 The other thing that's really exciting about 3 this is that we're getting into some new areas. As 4 most people know, the ocean used to be a lot lower 5 about 10,000 years ago, and man was living out 6 here. 7 We always wondered how to find 8 those sites. The magnetometer won't find them 9 because there's no metal. Sonar won't find them 10 because they're buried. 11 Well, thanks to the Savannah Harbor 12 Expansion's aquifer studies, we've been out there 13 mapping that miocene layer, and the pleistocene 14 stream channel has been intercepted. What we found 15 is that there is a couple of possible bend 16 wideners in here that occur that could cross these 17 old pleistocene stream channels. 18 So when the Corps drill barge goes out in a 19 couple of months and starts drilling into the 20 pleistocene stream channels, the aquifer studies 21 are going to have to move over and do corings on 22 top of the land that's next to the pleistocene 23 stream channel to see if we don't have some early 24 man sites. 25 We've been working with Skidaway Institute 13 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 people, and Irv Garrison of the University of 3 Georgia on the Grays Reef early man studies. These 4 will be nice cores. Drilling into the miocene 5 takes a long time, but we don't care about the 6 miocene. 7 We care about the last 10,000 years of 8 pleistocene and the recent sediments. So these 9 cores will stop at the top of the miocene. They 10 will not penetrate. 11 But that's the really interesting stuff. 12 Other than the small amount of work done out at 13 Grays Reef, nobody's really looked for early man 14 sites off the Georgia Coast. So we're looking 15 forward to that. 16 There's two places, I think, that drilling is 17 going to be in January or February last I heard, 18 and Skidaway Institute and the University of 19 Georgia are going to help me make sure I get my 20 cores in the right spot to find it, if we do find 21 it. 22 The most interesting resource we have is the 23 CSS Georgia, but there are other National Register 24 sites, obviously, in the harbor. There is Ft. 25 Pulaski down here. We'll be looking at studies to 14 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 determine if we're going to accelerate the bank 3 erosion, and if so what can we do about it. 4 We've got Old Ft. Jackson. Old Ft. Jackson, 5 at this moment, is being stabilized as a part of 6 the Savannah Harbor operation and maintenance. 7 The sheet pile is in, and the H pile will keep 8 the sheet pile in place are going to start to 9 be driven this week, and the rip rap is going in 10 right after that. So Old Ft. Jackson, the design 11 for protecting it for the operation and maintenance 12 of the Savannah Harbor is the same design that 13 would have been Savannah Harbor Expansion, because 14 of the geology in that area. 15 That's sort of Old Ft. Jackson next to the 16 harbor right in the shipping channel. It's sort of 17 out of the game on Savannah Harbor Expansion 18 because it's being taken care of as part of O & M 19 project. 20 We have the mountain -- the canal right there 21 that's recessed, set back, we're not going to be 22 impacting that. We have the historic district here 23 which is all modern bulkheads. And then right 24 there, right between the engineer yard and that 25 slip next to the hotel, that's what we call the 15 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 shipwreck graveyard. 3 It used to be Fig Island was here, Hutchinson 4 Island was here, and then you had the channel 5 separating them. That channel in the 19th and 6 18th century was causing a shoal down here called 7 the Garden Bank Shoal. 8 So the locals decided that the cheap and easy 9 way to get rid of that shoal was to take out that 10 channel which slowed the water down and made the 11 deposits drop out. So their way of cheaply doing 12 that, starting probably around the 1800s was to 13 take all the derelict wrecks in the harbor and 14 start dumping them in there. 15 These are wrecks that would be like not real 16 shipwrecks, but more like have a car and drive it 17 and drive it and drive it, and one day you finally 18 decide it's time to let it go. You drag it off to 19 the junkyard. 20 These are the kind of wrecks they are. 21 They're also vessels that actually did wreck and 22 considered totaled for insurance purposes. These 23 are just stripped and derelict hulls. They're 24 buried right in there. 25 The last Savannah Harbor deepening project 16 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 would remove what would be in the side slope and 3 top of the slope. The documentation on those is 4 published in 10 different reports. 5 Right now, Chatham County is bulkheading that 6 slip. When they come around the corner, they're 7 going to impact a wrecked hull that's from about, 8 I would say the hull is pre-1790. The vessel was 9 still actually in use probably around 1800 or so. 10 They're going to be digging that one out. 11 A developer is talking about developing that 12 and bulkheading that. Then we have Savannah Harbor 13 Expansion coming in. We've got slope stability to 14 determine, so we have to do that between the 15 county, the developer, and us, there are going to 16 be wrecks dug up from there in the next couple of 17 years. 18 Then we have the CSS Georgia, and the easiest 19 way to address CSS Georgia is for me to do a canned 20 slide show talking about its history and the stuff 21 that was done in the past. 22 After the little canned slide show, I can talk 23 about what we found last summer and what we're 24 trying to do. Did Doug ever come back? 25 MR. DYSART: No. 17 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 MS. WOOD: If I block anybody, sorry. These 3 slides I'm going to show are from Harbor Weekly and 4 Frank Wesley's Illustrated Magazine from the time 5 period 1862 to 1864. And what's happened is some 6 wanna-be local artist, or national artist, combined 7 these old newspapers, and hand coloring them, and 8 selling them for like 40 bucks a page. They make 9 great slides, but the hand coloring is not vintage 10 although the actual image is. 11 The Confederacy began the war with a handful 12 ships, most of which were old wooden river 13 steamers. They assembled a fleet at each major 14 port. 15 Savannah's was typical, including any small 16 wooden vessel that could be bought, commandeered, 17 or built, and large, locally built ironclads. 18 Y'all might want to get the lights down a bit. 19 These ragtag assemblages quickly earned the 20 nickname mosquito fleets. Savannah's ship building 21 for the Navy was noteworthy. One historian wrote, 22 no seaport in the Confederacy turned out more or 23 larger war vessels than Savannah. 24 The work of naval construction was more 25 energetic on a larger scale than in any other 18 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 Confederate coast city. 3 When the Savannah fell in 1864, two wooden 4 gunboats and three ironclads had been completed and 5 put into service. One ironclad was within days of 6 completion, and two more ironclads were on the 7 stocks. The ironclad Georgia was the first vessel 8 launched. 9 In March, 1862, the most famous naval battle 10 of the war occurred. The first, involving two 11 ironclad warships, Monitor and Virginia or as she 12 is sometimes called Merrimack. The outcome made 13 the obsolescence of wooden warships clear. 14 By summer, many believed that ironclads would 15 win the war for the Confederacy. Out of this 16 enthusiasm grew patriotic groups called Ladies 17 Gunboat Associations that raised money for building 18 ironclads. 19 One such group formed in Savannah, in early 20 1862, with plans to build an ironclad and donate 21 her to the cause. Women of Savannah and other 22 Georgia cities raised over 75,000 of the $115,000 23 cost. 24 She was built in about three months by 25 Confederate troops and ordinary house carpenters, 19 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 based on a plan provided by local iron founder 3 Alvin Miller. 4 Her original purpose was to steam to the mouth 5 of the river and help Ft. Pulaski destroy the 6 blockading fleet, thus opening Savannah to trade. 7 Unfortunately, for the Confederacy, Ft. 8 Pulaski fell before the Georgia was completed, and 9 when launched the boat was found to have a major 10 propulsion problem. 11 Her top speed was two knots; the river's 12 current could do four. The reasons for this 13 problem were many. A timber got stuck to her 14 bottom during launch, seriously hindering her 15 steering. 16 She was extremely heavy. Her armored 17 casemate included over 500 tons of railroad t-iron. 18 They considered throwing her coal overboard to 19 lighten her. Her weight made her bulge at the 20 seams and leak so badly that her engine ran at all 21 times just to operate pumps. 22 One man described her interior as a swamp in 23 an iron box. You can imagine what it was like in 24 August. 25 Adding to her mobility problem was the fact 20 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 that her engine may have come from a side wheel 3 steamer. Adapting it for use with screw propellers 4 would have meant a big power loss to an already 5 inadequate supply. Her creators thought she was a 6 failure. One man dubbed her a mud tub. 7 This is a strange map. I call it the Yankee 8 map. Supposedly, north is this way. North is this 9 way. This is Georgia. This is South Carolina. 10 There is the CSS Georgia. Ft. Pulaski is out this 11 way. The city's up this way. There's the 12 obstruction where the Georgia sat. 13 Due to her mobility problem, she was moored as 14 a floating battery near Ft. Jackson, where the 15 river is limited to one channel. From there, she 16 could bring a broadside of four well-protected guns 17 to bear on any boat that tried to come upriver to 18 Savannah. 19 She functioned much like a guard dog on a 20 chain, but she was chained in the middle of the 21 only water entrance to Savannah, and was wearing a 22 bulletproof vest. 23 Savannah was vulnerable in 1862. The line of 24 river batteries had not been completed, and the 25 other ironclads which, unlike Georgia, were built 21 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 with a lot more consideration and care, under the 3 direction of skilled naval architects using real 4 ship's carpenters, were still under construction. 5 When the Confederates moored Georgia near Ft. 6 Jackson, they doubted her ability to repel an 7 attack. 8 They were not aware that a condition known as 9 ironclad fever was sweeping the blockading fleet. 10 Ironclads were new and untested, their power 11 largely unknown. 12 It was known that under certain conditions 13 they could reduce a wood ship to splinters in a 14 matter of moments. Rumors greatly exaggerated this 15 power. 16 The commander of blockading fleet wrote, in 17 1862, we have been disturbed by the repeated 18 reports of there being an ironclad ship in the 19 Savannah River, and for the first time since I took 20 command of this squadron, I have felt a sense of 21 oppression. 22 Later, he described his officers. Lardner 23 looks 10 years older. The generals have him 24 worried, and his anxiety has been kept up by 25 affairs in the Savannah River. I think Collins, 22 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 who is there, will go crazy next, and the Captain 3 of the Hale, who I left hale and hearty is broken 4 down. They imagine they see ironclad vessels and 5 rams. 6 The strategic value of Georgia is shown in an 7 account by a reporter who saw her from a Union 8 boat. 9 On rounding a sharp turn, we came in sight of 10 the obstructions by which the rebels have attempted 11 to bar our way up to Savannah. Above them, and 12 apparently close to them, lay a nondescript marine 13 monster, which is the ironclad battery Georgia. 14 She lies there, moored with her broadside down the 15 river, prepared to defend the narrow passage which 16 is left in the barrier of piles for ingress and 17 egress of rebel craft. 18 We steamed up steadily nearer and ever nearer 19 to the enemy, till at last an angry flash from the 20 broadside of the Georgia warned us that we were far 21 enough. 22 The naval attack never came, and the ironclads 23 Georgia, and later Savannah, kept them at bay. It 24 took Sherman two years later, at the end of his 25 famous march to the sea to take the city. 23 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 Georgia was scuttled intact by her crew to 3 prevent her capture. With the pumps turned off and 4 the sea cocks opened, Georgia went down like a 5 rock. 6 One officer only had time to grab his saber 7 and sidearm. She went down with everything but her 8 crew, and they left most of their personal 9 belongings behind. 10 She lay undisturbed until 1866 when she was 11 dynamited by Mr. Welles under a Treasury Department 12 contract to clear the channel. He salvaged only a 13 small portion of her railroad iron and then 14 defaulted on the contract. In 1871, we, the Corps 15 of Engineers, considered removing her. We didn't. 16 Except for a few severely disgruntled owners of 17 19th century vessels that grounded on her, she was 18 forgotten. 19 One hundred years later in 1968, a dredge 20 while widening and deepening the channel found 21 Georgia. She broke the dredge. Some of her 22 railroad iron got caught in the cutter head, much 23 like a fork in a garbage disposal. 24 She was marked with a wreck buoy, and 25 temporarily, at least, left alone. The decade 24 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 between the 1968 and 1978 was a time of confusion 3 in attempting to deal with the Georgia. 4 During the first six years, the Corps lacked 5 the authority to expend funds to investigate the 6 cultural resource. Our efforts were spent 7 contacting federal, state, local agencies in an 8 attempt to locate some responsible agency that 9 would remove her from the channel area. 10 While all agreed that someone should do 11 something, all lacked money, personnel, and 12 expertise. In 1969, the State of Georgia asked the 13 U.S. Navy to dive the wreck. 14 After a brief inspection, the Navy recommended 15 that the superstructure be removed with a clam 16 bucket, the interior excavated with a suction 17 dredge, and the hull either raised whole or removed 18 in sections with a clam bucket. 19 They no longer recommend that, by the way. 20 Also in 1969, we attempted to nominate Georgia to 21 the National Register. The nomination was approved 22 by the state, but was blocked by a Park Service 23 historian, who wanted Georgia nominated as a group 24 with two other Savannah Squadron boats. 25 The location and condition of these vessels 25 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 was unknown. The National Register personnel also 3 requested a photograph of Georgia, either at the 4 time she served or as a wreck, seemingly simple 5 request, but as it turned out, one that was not 6 possible to be fulfilled. 7 In 1978, we began formal studies of the wreck. 8 Georgia, however, remained true to her 19th century 9 personality and did not cooperate. One study 10 obstacle was the paucity of historical 11 documentation. 12 Miller's construction plan could not be found. 13 The Confederates burned his records, along with his 14 foundry, to keep them out of Union hands. There 15 were no photographs of Georgia. 16 Since she was considered to be a failure in 17 her time, she may not have been a popular subject. 18 As a general rule, one does not display what one 19 sees as one's failures on one's parlor wall. 20 The Ladies Gunboat Association records were 21 also missing. Any records the Corps of Engineers 22 made, when considering her removal in 1871, have 23 also disappeared. 24 This is one of only three known period 25 drawings. It shows only her superstructure, and 26 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 there is no scale from which to determine her size. 3 The artist probably never saw her. He drew 4 too many gun ports and omitted her smokestack. 5 The smokestack should have been one of her most 6 prominent features, as it belched smoke from her 7 coal-fired power plant, in an effort to keep 8 afloat. 9 The artist for this drawing also probably 10 never saw her. He shows her casemate as railroad 11 t-iron, this is the casemate up here, cut up and 12 assembled into sections to look like rolled iron 13 casemate plates. 14 And you can see, this one has her railroad 15 iron right. It's interlocking railroad iron. This 16 shows it cut up. This would have increased her 17 construction time and cost substantially, and would 18 have severely weakened her defensively. It is 19 extremely unlikely that this drawing is accurate. 20 The third drawing is believed to be the most 21 accurate. It shows her being aground, which she 22 often was, with a hull form similar to 23 locally-produced rice barges -- nice blunt end. 24 You can see the hull because she's aground -- a 25 hull type that did not have a keel and could have 27 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 been produced in a week or two by ordinary house 3 carpenters with equipment and materials readily at 4 hand. 5 There was no -- there were no -- this is what 6 we believed before we did our studies this year, 7 there were no elegant compound ship's curves that 8 would have required trained ship's carpenters, 9 additional time, and hart-to-get specialized 10 timbers, but it shows three gun ports on her stern 11 and there's no historical reference to a stern gun. 12 Few written descriptions have been found, 13 mostly of obvious exterior features located above 14 the waterline. These too were suspect. The 15 lengths given rank from 120 to 260 feet, and the 16 widths from 50 to 60. 17 Less information was found pertaining to 18 construction features locate below the waterline. 19 Her draft was less than 13 feet. She had no keel, 20 implying a flat bottom, and one source referred to 21 propellers in the plural, and that is the only 22 reference to the power plant. 23 Another study obstacle is her environment. 24 She is in 30 to 45 feet of water on the channel 25 edge and side slope. The silt-laden water blocks 28 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 out all surface light, and any light provided by 3 underwater lamps is refracted. Visibility is zero. 4 Photography is impossible. 5 There are currents that can exceed four knots. 6 That diver is not being pulled in the water. He's 7 hanging on to the back of a barge. That's how bad 8 the current is. Sea's four knots, tidal range of 9 six to nine feet. 10 Often, the top of the water column is going 11 one way while the bottom goes the other, adding to 12 the confusion of the already blind divers. Other 13 obstacles are loose wreckage and submerged, 14 floating debris that could trap or injure divers. 15 In 1979, we contacted the Texas A&M University 16 for phase one of a five-phase study to determine 17 the feasibility of removing the wreck. 18 Phase one was an intensive archaeological and 19 engineering assessment, including diving and 20 hydrographic, sonar, and magnetometer surveys. 21 The goals were to define the site limits, 22 collect material samples, prepare a detailed model 23 of the wreck environment, gather information for a 24 National Register nomination, and define how the 25 wreck is affected by harbor operation and 29 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 maintenance activities. 3 In 1980, Texas A&M proposed for phase two, the 4 construction of a wet-cell cofferdam around the 5 wreck. Phase three would be removal and testing 6 within the cofferdamn -- archaeological testing 7 within the cofferdam, phase four excavation and 8 removal of the hull, and phase five conservation 9 and curation of the hull and artifacts. 10 The total cost was estimated at 5 to 11 $7,000,000. As we know now, that's not how much it 12 will cost. It would cost a lot more. Also, in 13 1980, we initiated new dredging practices at the 14 wreck site. 15 We found that if we dredged upstream and 16 downstream, and avoided an area of 100 feet of the 17 wreck site, the current would keep the channel 18 bottom at the wreck site from silting in. 19 There was no need to bring a cutter head near 20 the site, in order to maintain channel depth and 21 safe navigation. Because of this avoidance 22 measure, the extreme cost of the cofferdam 23 alternative, and the technological limitations of 24 underwater archaeology and conservation at the 25 time, we put our studies on hold in the hope that 30 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 new technology and alternatives would come to 3 light. 4 In 1987, this is the sonar view of the Georgia 5 in '87. We nominated the Georgia to the National 6 Register. The earlier problems with the nomination 7 were resolved when it was shown that no other 8 Savannah Mosquito Fleet vessel existed, and a 9 side-scan sonar image was deemed a satisfactory 10 substitute for the non-existent photograph. 11 The wreck site was listed at the national 12 level of significance. It was deemed important, 13 based on her architecture and engineering, her 14 archaeological research potential, her association 15 with significant people, and her association with 16 significant events; all four possible National 17 Register categories for significance. 18 Today, the wreck of the CSS Georgia resides on 19 the bottom and side slope of the Savannah Harbor 20 Navigation Channel. 21 While we have continued to exclude the area 22 from dredging contracts, and have been monitoring 23 the site using remote sensing investigation 24 including hydrographic, side-scan sonar, and 25 magnetometer surveys, it has been almost 20 years 31 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 since the last archaeological studies were made of 3 the wreck site. 4 Within the last few years, analyses of the 5 remote sensing data indicate the collapse of the 6 wreck has accelerated, and the site is beginning to 7 scour with more artifacts eroding into the 8 navigation channel bottom. 9 Clearly, something is very wrong, and we need 10 to determine if this is a natural phenomenon, or is 11 resulting, in some way, from our harbor operation 12 and maintenance practices. 13 In addition to the potential O & M impacts, 14 Savannah District, in partnership with GPA is 15 studying the feasibility of deepening the Savannah 16 Harbor Navigation Channel, and the effect of 17 channel deepening upon Georgia, and the need for 18 and scope of mitigation alternatives for the site. 19 are major study components. 20 As a result of the potential O & M problem and 21 the proposed deepening project, Savannah District 22 has re-initiated studies of CSS Georgia. The O & M 23 study purpose is to determine the past, present, 24 and future impacts from the existing harbor 25 project, and identify and evaluate alternatives for 32 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 mitigating and/or avoiding this effect. 3 The deepening study purpose is to identify and 4 evaluate potential impacts from channel deepening, 5 -- identify and evaluate mitigation and/or 6 avoidance alternatives for those impacts. 7 Because the O & M funding became available at 8 the same time as the deepening money, and combining 9 the two studies substantial cost savings, the two 10 studies are being combined into a single study 11 effort, with each project paying for its share of 12 the research efforts. And that's the end of the 13 canned part. 14 All that stuff was true up until about four 15 months ago. We did re-initiate our additional 16 studies. The contract was initially for new 17 archival research. 18 We picked Bob Holcomb of the Civil War Navy 19 Museum in Columbus, Georgia to do that research. 20 He's been researching the Georgia for about 25 21 years now, and other Confederate vessels. 22 He knew which repositories hadn't been looked 23 at, which ones had, where to look. I believe that 24 study was $30,000. They spent about two months 25 scouring archives in Washington, D.C. to Texas. 33 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 We still don't know squat about the CSS 3 Georgia. There is a record that after she was 4 launched, someone did make a plan of her, a real 5 architect's plan. We don't know where it is. If 6 it was in Miller's iron foundry, it's gone. 7 We still don't know what happened with the 8 Ladies Gunboat Association records. We found a 9 whole lot of newspaper information about who was 10 on the committees, how the committees were run, how 11 they collected money from all over the state, but 12 there's just no plans and drawings. 13 There still aren't any pictures. These 14 lithographs are basically what we have to work 15 with. So despite all that money and time, we still 16 don't know what she looked like. 17 The problem we have with the archival 18 research is we do have one reference to propellers 19 in the plural, which Bob Holcomb of the Naval 20 Museum always laughs when he sees that, because he 21 has two gunboat hulls on display in Columbus with 22 the machinery on one of them -- actually on both of 23 them -- and there's someone who saw the vessel, one 24 of the vessels actually in use, and says it only 25 has one propeller period. 34 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 And that was somebody who was on the vessel, 3 saw the vessel, served with the vessel. You can 4 stand at the back of the museum and stare at that 5 gunboat and count two propellers. So archival 6 records, even by people who supposedly saw the 7 Georgia are iffy. 8 The next thing we did was our field work 9 phase. And the field work, we have open ended 10 contract with Gulf South Research Corporation, and 11 they normally subcontract with three different 12 underwater archaeology firms. 13 In this case, the two strongest firms, 14 Tidewater and PanAmerican Consulting asked if they 15 could do it together, and it gave us two topnotch 16 firms. When you take the two principle 17 investigators, Gordon Watts and Steve James, 18 together between them they've got like 50 years 19 underwater archaeology experience. PanAmerican has 20 some of the best black water archaeological divers 21 around. 22 It was great watching the team work this 23 summer. So we sort of handpicked this team. They 24 started work in, I believe it was August. They 25 were going to use some really nice, super high-tech 35 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 equipment. We had been told that's just what we 3 wanted. The first thing was a sector scanning 4 sonar, unlike the sonars we use in the harbor 5 that's a drive-by thing, a sector scanning sonar 6 sits on the bottom and just scans. 7 It looks like an ultrasound image of the wreck 8 site. We were hoping, in using that, they could 9 direct divers with it. They could actually say you 10 know, Bert, where you are, and it could tell them 11 which direction Bert was facing. They can turn 90 12 degrees and walk 15 feet, and he would walk into 13 this piece of wreckage. 14 We were also hoping to help map the site. The 15 other piece of high tech equipment was also based 16 on sound. It was sound-based underwater mapping 17 system, where they would set up a known point, what 18 they call a Christmas tree, a known location, and 19 they would have a handheld sensor they would put on 20 the piece of wreckage and give the coordinates for 21 it. 22 Unfortunately, neither one of those pieces of 23 high-tech equipment really panned out for us. 24 Everybody here is familiar with the saltwater wedge 25 -- well, when our divers were there at dead low or 36 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 dead high tide, that saltwater wedge was moving 3 through the area, and the sonar was seeing what we 4 could call a thermal climb. We see it a lot in 5 lakes, hot water at the top, cold water at the 6 bottom of the lake, and sonar bounces off that 7 transition layer. 8 That's what it was doing, apparently, so 9 neither one of those mapping systems really worked 10 very well. We ended up taking our side-scan sonar 11 images, and once we found a known point on the 12 wreck, directing the divers to different points, 13 they actually connected all the major pieces of the 14 wreck using ropes. 15 They have like 10 different kinds of ropes and 16 like five different diameters and different color 17 schemes. They made like an underwater web 18 connecting these. Then they would drag tape 19 measures from each piece of the wreckage. 20 Each time you drag a tape measure out you had 21 to go back and make sure it wouldn't snag on 22 something to get an accurate measurement. 23 This time we did get something that we didn't 24 get in 1980. In 1980 they had zero visibility. 25 This time we got six inches. It was six inches of 37 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 visibility, and you can use the tape measure, that 3 six inch visibility saved us. 4 There were a couple of times, and we're still 5 not sure what was causing it, we actually got three 6 feet of visibility for like 15 or 20 minutes. 7 Unfortunately, you couldn't really predict that. 8 By the time you got the diver on the bottom 9 with the camera, they were losing it. What we 10 found about the Georgia was a lot of misconceptions 11 on my part. Before they started the work, I would 12 have bet on this all being gone. 13 To put out something in three months with 14 ordinary ship's -- house carpenters, who don't do 15 compound curves and things, and don't understand 16 about waterproofing and pressures from various 17 directions, I would have sworn it was like a rice 18 barge hull, something that they could just knock 19 together fast. 20 Unfortunately, what we found is that the hull 21 probably is not there. The hull has just 22 disappeared. We think it's been deflated and ship 23 worms ate it. 24 Right now they're trying to figure out exactly 25 what happened at the wreck site. But we did find 38 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 one of the two propellers. The other one is 3 probably down there somewhere. 4 The structure indicates it is one of a pair. 5 That propeller is almost identical or may be 6 identical to the ones that are hanging off the 7 sterns of the gunboats in Columbus, Georgia, which 8 means that that propeller may have come from 9 Columbus, Georgia. 10 For those propellers to have worked at all, 11 you had to have a nice ship's stern with compound 12 curves that looked like the ones in Columbus, 13 Georgia, which means somewhere in that three month 14 period that the Georgia was built, there was a real 15 naval architect on site, and there were some real 16 ship's carpenters. 17 So we know what the stern probably looked 18 like. If they put that much effort into the stern, 19 then she probably did have a pointy bow, so we're 20 inferring a lot about it. 21 The Georgia was awfully broken up than we had 22 thought. We had assumed that the boilers would be 23 in pieces, because when she sank and Mr. Welles 24 came in three years later, the Treasury 25 Department contractor, this would have been a 39 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 formidable thing to try to break up. She's an 3 ironclad. She's like six inches of iron and then a 4 foot and a half of wood. 5 To actually break her up for salvage would 6 have been a nearly impossible task. The easiest 7 thing to do, and to remove the worst navigation 8 problem quickest was to put a powder charge down 9 the smoke stack. 10 Well, that means your boilers are blown. So 11 we expected the boilers to be blown, but we 12 expected the engine to be intact. The engine was 13 also blown. 14 It's down there, but it's in pieces. Just 15 looking out in the dark, and that was one of the 16 good things about using this company, Gordon Watts 17 is probably one of the authorities on marine steam 18 engines, and if you could actually go down there 19 in the dark, with six inches of visibility, and 20 pieces of a steam engine, and tell you what kind it 21 is and how it worked. 22 It looks like the steam plant came out of 23 Columbus, Georgia along with propellers. There's 24 records of a couple of steam plants that were built 25 in Columbus, Georgia intended for other vessels 40 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 that were not built. 3 We think what happened is Savannah snagged one 4 and put it in the Georgia. It is an engine that 5 was intended for screw propellers, and it is an 6 engine that would have been adequate to move the 7 vessel around. 8 So if she's got a decent hull design, and 9 she's got a decent engine and good propellers, why 10 was she so underpowered? Well, there's the weight 11 thing, but in looking at the boilers, they think 12 now -- I haven't talked to them in about a month -- 13 but they think now the problem was the motors were 14 inadequate, which is the part that we would have 15 thought would have been the best because Savannah 16 made boilers. 17 Miller was usually half bankrupt, the iron 18 founder, half the time, and got around his 19 creditors. He actually was a darn good iron 20 founder, and he could make boilers. But apparently 21 the boiler was too small. There was just too 22 little steam for her. 23 It's sad that the engine and the boilers are 24 broken up like that. It does make them easier to 25 conserve. There's only been two marine steam 41 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 engines recovered from saltwater by archaeologists. 3 One of them, the Australian, was pulled about 4 10 years ago. They spent literally 10 years of 5 trial and error with chemists, and physicists, and 6 you name it, and engine experts, trying to conserve 7 that, trying to get it apart. 8 I think if you offered them another steam 9 engine to conserve, they would run. But basically, 10 they literally wrote the book on how to do it. The 11 other steam engine that's been recovered is the USS 12 Monitor, which is sitting in a tank in Newport 13 News. 14 They're all sort of standing around, looking 15 at the tank, wondering what to do with it, because 16 they have to disassemble the thing. So actually, 17 the engine being in parts will make it easier to 18 conserve. 19 It will answer all of our questions about what 20 was it, where did it come from, how did it operate; 21 it will answer all of our archaeological and 22 historical questions. It just makes it very 23 difficult to display. 24 The third study that we've been doing, in 25 addition to underwater and archival research is the 42 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 St. Louis District of the Corps of Engineers is the 3 Center of Expertise for Conservation and Curation 4 for the Corps of Engineers. 5 We hired them to start canvassing conservation 6 facilities and saying, you know, what could you 7 take, what would be the conditions, how would you 8 handle it, because you just can't take an ironclad 9 and put in somebody's conservation facility. 10 The State of Maryland has one of the best 11 underwater conservation facilities in the world 12 probably, but if you took and gave them an ironclad 13 to preserve, it would tie up their entire facility 14 for 10 years, which means the wrecks that come out 15 of maryland wouldn't be addressed. 16 Obviously, they don't want to hold one. What 17 we basically came up with is if there's going to be 18 any recovery of the CSS Georgia, the best way to do 19 it is deal with the Navy's Hundley facility in 20 Charleston. 21 The artifacts would all go there. They would 22 then sub the stuff out to like Maryland and Texas 23 and other places with various types of expertise, 24 but the big pieces would be done in Charleston. 25 Once the conservation is done, then things 43 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 would be brought back to Savannah, and worked 3 locally, probably with Coastal Heritage Society to 4 establish a real curation facility and display 5 facility for them. 6 But right now, my contractor is trying to 7 figure out what they have got down there. It was 8 disappointing in that we didn't find an intact 9 ironclad with everything y'all could have wanted on 10 it, but she is still significant. 11 She still offers a lot of information. It's 12 just minor stuff like this ironcladding, we know 13 they got the iron from Central Georgia Railroad, 14 and railroad iron at that period came in 24 foot 15 lengths. And it's very difficult to cut. And we 16 know that the railroad didn't even want to give up 17 the iron. 18 They wanted it. They were forced to give it 19 up for the Georgia. We can't really see them 20 helping too much in cutting it up. When the divers 21 went down there and measured the iron down there, 22 it was in 24 foot lengths. 23 So one of ways they were able reduce 24 construction time, and construction costs, was to 25 develop a design for the vessel that made use of 44 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 existing materials and material lengths. Anyway, 3 that's about all I have right now. 4 If anybody has any questions, we're going to 5 have a draft report, I think, in January, and when 6 that draft report comes in, it will address the 7 operation maintenance problem and the Savannah 8 Harbor Expansion problem, identify what's happened 9 to the vessel, what will happen to the vessel, with 10 or without the deepening project, and identify what 11 we need to do to give us some alternatives to look 12 at. That's my CSS Georgia talk. 13 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Questions, comments. 14 Chris. 15 MR. SCHUBERTH: Judy, when all is said and 16 down, down the road, what will -- regardless of the 17 outcome what will be the status of this 18 archaeological site, will it be raised, will it 19 stay there, will it be outlined or -- 20 MS. WOOD: Staying there isn't an option. As 21 to how much will be addressed as an operation 22 maintenance problem, how much will be addressed 23 as an expansion problem, I don't know, but because 24 she's been so deflated over the years, and plus the 25 19th century salvage was a lot more than we 45 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 thought, she isn't as expensive, insurmountable 3 problem as she used to be. 4 So our hopes, I think, is to get, eventually, 5 the whole thing out of there. Like I said, 6 long-term operation and maintenance project or 7 expansion or part of both, and have her parts 8 conserved and on display here in Savannah and 9 curated in Savannah. 10 MR. SCHUBERTH: Where -- where would it be 11 displayed? 12 MS. WOOD: Everybody used to say Old Ft. 13 Jackson, because that's where she served. It would 14 be a nice place to exhibit her. The problem with 15 Old Ft. Jackson, it's in like a 10 year flood 16 plane, high velocity, and if I pulled the stuff out 17 of the river, I'm only going to do it once. 18 So that's the major things. The best 19 alternative from what we can tell now is the 20 Coastal Heritage Society, but the Central Georgia 21 Roundhouse and Shops facility is on the highest 22 land in the county. 23 A force five hurricane isn't going to flood 24 it. The car barn that the city's buying, they want 25 to reactivate the Savannah Science Museum to put in 46 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 there, they want to put in a whole bunch of other 3 exhibits, that would be the area that would 4 actually curate it in part of that building and 5 display it and do interpretation of it. 6 MR. SCHUBERTH: Can I ask you one more 7 question? 8 MS. WOOD: Oh yeah. 9 MR. SCHUBERTH: Post-miocene stuff, have you 10 run into any assemblages of bones, and sloths, 11 and mammoths and mastodons? 12 MS. WOOD: We haven't started work on Savannah 13 Harbor Expansion to look for that. I know at Grays 14 Reef, Irv Garrison had early archaic, no paleo yet, 15 it's early archaic. 16 The problem we're going to have with the 17 Savannah Harbor bar channel is you have the 18 miocene. Pliocene is missing. Then you've got 20, 19 30 feet of sediment that's all pleistocene and 20 recent and no time markers. 21 So we're hoping that these cores will come up 22 with some layers that we can thermal luminesce date 23 and try and figure out where that pleistocene layer 24 is. 25 There was some work done off the coast of 47 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 Florida a few years ago that the Park Service did, 3 and they were lucky. They had early man stuff. 4 They had actually a layer of material that was 5 firmly dated late pleistocene. They knew anything 6 above it, they could deal with. 7 Right now, we're going to take those cores all 8 the way down to miocene and try and then figure out 9 where we are in the column. The problem is where 10 those bend wideners are are extremely shallow 11 areas. 12 You have got the bar channel that's bitten 13 down into them, so the layers are going to be 14 somewhat deflated, maybe at the extreme edge of the 15 widener that we have intact columns. That's 16 something we're going to have to figure out. 17 That's never been done in Georgia, so we're kind of 18 excited about that. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: Thank you -- thanks. 20 MR. DYSART: Judy. 21 MS. JENNINGS: I might not have understood 22 what you said, but I thought you said your mapping 23 system didn't work well because of complication 24 caused by the saltwater wedge -- 25 MS. WOOD: We think, we're not sure. I mean, 48 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 we know the systems work very well in saltwater 3 and they work very well in brackish water, they 4 work very well in freshwater. 5 They wouldn't work at our site, so we're not 6 sure exactly. It's our best hypotheses, but we 7 didn't do any testing to figure that out. That's 8 just our best guess about what was going on. 9 MS. JENNINGS: I'm just curious if there was 10 any -- for the model -- any data collection done 11 near that site? 12 MS. WOOD: There was. There's one just 13 downstream, and I gave my contractor the data from 14 that. It was -- engineering had the files. 15 They're going to be looking at that to see exactly 16 what's going on. 17 MR. DYSART: Other comments? Doug is back 18 with us do now. Do you have any comments that you 19 would like to make? 20 MS. WOOD: Like how do you run the projector? 21 MR. PLACHY: Did you figure that out? 22 MR. DYSART: Anything you would like to add, 23 putting that in the context of the project. 24 MR. PLACHY: I apologize for coming in late. 25 Doug Plachy, Corps of Engineers, Savannah District. 49 1 SCIENTIFIC BRIEFING 2 Good morning. 3 The Georgia work, I think, is one of those 4 situations where we're able to do something 5 positive, and to do additional things positive as 6 the project goes on. Most likely, if it were not 7 for the navigation channel and the work, the wreck 8 would probably always be down there and continuing 9 to disintegrate. 10 It's probably a good thing we've been able to 11 do what we've done so far. As you probably heard, 12 they did find and confirm some things. Some of the 13 hypotheses may be a little bit different now. 14 I'm kind of waiting with baited breath for the 15 report that's going to come out of the field work. 16 That's going to be interesting to read. 17 One thing I think that was the success story 18 of this summer's effort was with the dangers of the 19 diving, and the fact they couldn't see inches in 20 front of them, and ships were passing within feet, 21 we had absolutely no injuries, no casualties, and 22 that's a good thing. 23 I think that was the number one thing that 24 came out of that, is we were able to do the 25 scientific work without endangering anybody's 50 1 REVIEW OF GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY 2 life. Again that's the good parts of some of this 3 work. Thank you, Judy. 4 MR. DYSART: Further comments or questions. 5 Thank you very much, Judy. Let's proceed now with 6 old business. First of all, Larry, would you like 7 to talk about the review of the general 8 reevaluation studies data. 9 MR. KEEGAN: Sure. Thank you, Ben. I 10 apologize. I don't have the November status report 11 published yet. I just have not had an opportunity 12 to finish it. 13 I'm going to fill in the things that have 14 occurred since the October report, and I promise to 15 get the November one written up, hopefully within 16 the week. 17 We're actually at a point with the progress of 18 the work that's going on that we have a number of 19 things that are approaching their completion, and 20 some things in the way of analysis or investigation 21 that are starting or in progress, and not much that 22 has been concluded and we can make specific 23 conclusions from. 24 As a result, in November, there's not a lot of 25 additional -- really no milestones or not very many 51 1 REVIEW OF GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY 2 significant items. 3 In October, I mentioned in the status report 4 there was going to be a meeting of the group that 5 project management plan calls the executive 6 management group in Atlanta. 7 That was held on the 14th of November, and 8 that group is the district engineer, David 9 Schaller, and the regional heads for EPA, and Fish 10 and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, 11 and there were some other agencies there. 12 The focus was to introduce people to each 13 other, and to discuss where things stood, and sort 14 of lay the groundwork for future communications and 15 cooperation with the federal agencies that are 16 coordinating agencies. 17 Minutes or a records of that meeting was in 18 preparation. It's got to go through everybody's 19 review and all, so it's not available yet, but I 20 would characterize it as very productive, very 21 enlightening to have all those different agencies 22 at that level sit down and discuss their concerns, 23 and talk about a number of the things involving 24 this project. 25 I thought it was very encouraging. No 52 1 REVIEW OF GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY 2 conclusions were reached. No decisions were made. 3 Like I said, it was intended to start the 4 communications process. 5 Moving from that, the interagency coordination 6 efforts on wetlands, and water quality and 7 fisheries, groundwater, there were no meetings of 8 any of those coordination efforts in November. 9 I'm not sure that there's going to be any in 10 December, given the holiday period, and that 11 usually means that's a little tough to get things 12 on calendars. 13 There may be one, groundwater maybe, is that 14 still a possibility, do you know, Doug? I don't 15 recall what Card said. 16 MR. PLACHY: Well, there's a meeting next 17 Wednesday, I believe. It's next Wednesday or the 18 following Wednesday on the Sound Science 19 Initiative. 20 MR. KEEGAN: Right. 21 MR. PLACHY: So all the players that are in 22 part of the coordination with the other agencies 23 are all there at that conference. So whether 24 there's an actual meeting called, I don't know, but 25 I do know that they will talking about the project, 53 1 REVIEW OF GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY 2 at least in the halls or whatever else during that 3 time. 4 MR. KEEGAN: Didn't that group ask if Card 5 would talk a little bit about what he was doing? 6 MR. PLACHY: I don't know, possibly. 7 MR. KEEGAN: I'm not sure. Since it's not our 8 meeting, I can't say for sure. Economic analysis, 9 that scope of work and timing and all of that is 10 finalizing. 11 It should come to fruition here a little bit 12 later this month, I expect. And I think the effort 13 is to get back with the Economic Working Group, 14 Judy, to apprise you of how that's going and where 15 that's going and outline. 16 MS. JENNINGS: If you want to do that now, 17 Doug and I have talked. 18 MR. KEEGAN: Well, I don't know where it is 19 appropriate. Why don't we just wait until 20 afterwards. 21 MS. JENNINGS: Sure. 22 MR. KEEGAN: Some planned formulation, 23 screening of potential alternatives is going on. 24 That's being done by David Miller & Associates. 25 Right now it's sort of investigatory and data 54 1 REVIEW OF GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY 2 gathering for things like, is it possible to change 3 the under keel clearance, in order to free up the 4 tide windows so that the ships can move. 5 Is it possible to increase the through put and 6 decrease the time that a ship is actually handling 7 cargo to make it make their turnaround faster. 8 There's a number of other things that group is 9 -- those people are looking at. I don't expect 10 that we're going to see anything to work with from 11 their reports, probably until January, February, 12 maybe even a little later. 13 I don't know their exact schedule off the top 14 of my head, but it is ongoing. Model calibration, 15 H & S, and dissolved oxygen model calibration, ATM 16 is still working on finishing the calibration and 17 the calibration report. 18 There's some investigation going on now for 19 the potential to improve the water quality or DO 20 model performance in the area of the harbor that 21 predicts the dissolved oxygen deficit. 22 Please don't ask me to explain that because 23 it's so far over my head I can't see it. We may 24 know a little more by the end of the week about how 25 that's going. 55 1 REVIEW OF GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY 2 The aim there is to make the model's 3 performance more closely match what we're seeing in 4 the recorded data. 5 The marsh secession model effort, which is the 6 next big one, the Fish and Wildlife Service 7 contractor is doing the field studies. I think 8 they will we finished in December. Ed, does that 9 sound right? 10 MR. EUDALY: December, January. 11 MR. KEEGAN: Late in the year, I don't know 12 exactly what Wiley's schedule is, but he's working. 13 The other part of that was to do some work to 14 expand the boundaries of the marsh secession model, 15 work on integrating the various modules and 16 validating how they work together, look at ITR and 17 who could do that, and complete GIS-based module 18 portion of that. 19 That work is also in progress. ATM is doing 20 that effort, and I expect that's going to go until 21 January, February time frame. The final module is 22 the one that's being developed by USGS in advanced 23 data mining, and that's close to completion. 24 The last information I had from Paul Conrads 25 is they need to integrate the latitude and 56 1 REVIEW OF GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY 2 longitude of data readings into the model. That 3 was taking them longer than they thought. 4 I haven't been able to talk to Paul for a 5 while, so I don't have a predicted completion date. 6 He keeps promising me soon, so we'll see. 7 Those are the big model pieces. Aquifer 8 analysis, the study plan that you saw on the 9 website and Doug handed out earlier, the first 10 increment of funding to carry that out is in place. 11 I know Card is working on getting the various 12 pieces moving. I don't have his specific schedule 13 at this point, 14 MR. PLACHY: I spoke with Card briefly 15 yesterday, and possibly within the next couple of 16 weeks they may be actually doing some borings. And 17 we're working with public affairs so that when that 18 gets closer, we can at least get a press advisory 19 out or something for people who may be interested. 20 And you know, for those that would like to go 21 out actually on the vessel, when it's doing the 22 deep borings in the water, if you have an interest 23 in that area, come talk to me about it. I'll see 24 what I can work up for you, and on the land ones 25 that's not really a problem, unless it's not 57 1 REVIEW OF GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY 2 accessible by land. The land borings should be 3 fairly easy to get to from where I think he 4 selected his sites. 5 MR. DYSART: Would you indicate Card's full 6 name and affiliation for those who might not be 7 familiar? 8 MR. PLACHY: Oh, Cardwell Smith, he's a 9 hydrogeologist at the Savannah district. He's been 10 basically the principle technical person working 11 the aquifer question now for quite a few years. 12 MR. DYSART: Thank you. 13 MR. KEEGAN: Okay. Thanks, Doug. Ship 14 simulation, there were some additional runs that 15 were completed in November, and that simulation 16 report now is in final preparation. 17 And finally, the schedule, it still is being 18 driven by the same series of tasks, and we're still 19 searching for ways to -- if we can reduce the 20 duration of any of those things without 21 compromising what needs to be done. 22 We're looking to do that. We don't have any 23 magic bullets. We're looking to save days and 24 maybe a week here and there at this point. 25 Hopefully, we can find some other things that will 58 1 REVIEW OF GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY 2 make it better, and that's all I have, unless 3 someone has questions. 4 MR. DYSART: Questions, comments. Chris. 5 MR. SCHUBERTH: Doug -- 6 MR. PLACHY: Yes, sir. 7 MR. SCHUBERTH: -- you commented that there 8 are Sound Science Initiative Meetings. 9 MR. PLACHY: My understanding is there is a 10 meeting Wednesday next week. 11 MR. SCHUBERTH: Question, are these open to 12 the public, if I wanted to come in and sit in and 13 just hear what's going on -- 14 MR. PLACHY: I would make the assumption that 15 they are, but I guess we probably have to check. I 16 think it's Georgia EPD that's basically heading 17 that up. 18 MR. SCHUBERTH: Could you find out? 19 MR. PLACHY: Sure. 20 MR. SCHUBERTH: I would be interested not in 21 participating but just hearing and seeing and kind 22 of seeing what the -- where the conversation is 23 going. 24 MR. PLACHY: Sure, sure. I'll check on that. 25 MR. SCHUBERTH: If I can fit that in my 59 1 REVIEW OF GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY 2 schedule, I might just want to drop in. 3 MR. PLACHY: I can send you an e-mail. 4 MR. SCHUBERTH: Okay. Thank you. 5 MR. DYSART: Any other comments, questions. 6 Judy. 7 MS. JENNINGS: I don't know actually who would 8 do this, and I don't see the folks here who 9 probably might, but I'd be really interested in 10 hearing a presentation and chat some time about the 11 ship simulation studies. 12 MR. PLACHY: Okay. 13 MS. JENNINGS: I mean, it's all about the 14 boats. I think that's what I have somewhat more or 15 less a feel for. 16 MR. KEEGAN: It may disappoint you, but yeah, 17 I'm sure we can put something together. It's 18 probably going to be more of here's a run. This 19 was the track of the ship, that sort of thing. I 20 assume that's doable. 21 MR. PLACHY: Uh-huh. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. Noted. 23 MS. JENNINGS: Another thing if I could 24 mention just for the record about some of the 25 studies that are being done on the aquifer, you 60 1 REVIEW OF GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY 2 guys may have seen it in the paper funded literally 3 by Ft. Stewart, a fellow named Tom Bryce is doing 4 some research into the paleo channels, and how that 5 might affect short-nose sturgeon, just for -- when 6 he called me about it looking for people to help 7 monitor, this is the Ogeechee not the Savannah, 8 but they're looking at very similar types of 9 science. 10 I suggested he contact -- I gave him several 11 names and phone numbers in the hope you would refer 12 him on to the scientists, not so much that it 13 relates to the Savannah Harbor, but so that might 14 be a good interchange of scientific information. 15 MR. KEEGAN: Okay. 16 MR. DYSART: Questions. As your facilitator, 17 I would note with a lot of an appreciation the high 18 level of civility, collegiality, and 19 colleaguality, as well as good, productive and 20 communications that we have grown to expect at our 21 SEG meetings over the last two or three years, and 22 I see Chris has his card up. 23 MR. SCHUBERTH: I just wanted to comment, 24 Mr. Dysart, you're looking at me when you said the 25 high level of collegiality, as if in my past 61 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 history I have not been particularly collegial. 3 MR. DYSART: I was, I think at a previous 4 meeting you corrected my pronunciation of 5 colleaguality as collegiality, and I think they 6 may be two separate words. 7 And if so, they're both important in a body 8 like this. In the spirit of great civility, I 9 would like to call a five minute break, and then 10 we'll proceed. 11 (Short Break) 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. Let's reconvene the 13 meeting, please, and we'll go through the committee 14 reports. Chris, do you have any status report, any 15 comment in the aquifer area? 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: No, no comments. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. Beach Erosion. I know 18 Bill Farmer had a pressing commitment at 11 19 o'clock, and so who would like to talk about 20 anything that's going on in the Beach Erosion area? 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: I don't think the Beach 22 Erosion Committee has met. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. That's what I'd call a 24 brief status report. Fred is not here. Does 25 anyone else have anything to say about the Dredging 62 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 and Disposal area -- the status there? 3 MR. PLACHY: They haven't met. 4 MR. DYSART: Okay. Where is Judy? Okay. 5 We'll skip over her for a moment. Ramon, does 6 anybody -- do y'all have anything to say about 7 Fisheries and Aquatic -- 8 MR. MARTIN: Striped Bass Committee hasn't met 9 since the last meeting. There hasn't been any 10 activity since the last meeting. 11 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Bo Ellis, 12 MTRG. 13 MR. ELLIS: No activity to report. 14 MR. DYSART: Teri, Operating Guidelines 15 Committee. 16 MS. LEFFEK: I understand Morgan has 17 something. 18 MR. REES: Yeah. I just have one item. I 19 sent an e-mail on the 22nd of November with a 20 suggestion for modifying the language of the 21 Operating Guidelines to reflect the decision of the 22 SEG a couple of meetings ago to combine the 23 Communications Committee and the Operating 24 Guidelines Committee. 25 I just call it to your attention. Check it 63 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS 2 out. Get back to Teri through e-mail. We can 3 coordinate and recommend something at the next SEG 4 meeting to take care of that. 5 MR. DYSART: Anything else, Teri? 6 MS. LEFFEK: No. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. Ramon, Striped Bass, 8 anything there? 9 MR. MARTIN: I've just -- no activity. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Well, we'll let Judy pick 11 up whenever she gets back, or does anybody else, in 12 the Economics Working Group, like to report what's 13 going on since the last meeting? 14 MR. REES: Judy sent an e-mail, within the 15 last couple of days, polling the Economic Working 16 Group, to schedule a meeting for sometime in 17 December to talk about where we are and some other 18 things. Doug, you probably know a little more of 19 the details of how to describe what the agenda 20 might be. That's where we are on that. 21 MR. PLACHY: Yeah. I think the intention is 22 that we're basically at the end of getting, you 23 know, coordination with the headquarters staff and 24 others in the Army chain on the economics work, 25 specifics in the economics work. 64 1 PRESENTATION 2 And before we put the work actually under 3 contract, the Economics Working Group will look 4 over the plan of work and give us any feedback that 5 they can, so that it can be cranked into the 6 contract, prior to being issued. 7 So it's just an opportunity, again, for an 8 interface with the committee to get some feedback 9 and some input. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. Next item on 11 the agenda, last time Laura Knight from the 12 University of Georgia visited with us. She 13 mentioned that she had some data and some 14 information that she had collected, some 15 preliminary information that she would like to 16 share with the Stakeholders Evaluation Group. 17 And so she was put on the agenda. I see that 18 she is all set up. I would like to ask Laura to 19 provide a little bit of introduction to her 20 project, and her research, and share with us some 21 of the raw water quality data, and sonar data that 22 she's collected thus far. Laura, welcome. 23 MS. KNIGHT: First of all, let me just start 24 out by saying I'm a Phd student in the Geography 25 Department at UGA, and my minor is Marine Science. 65 1 PRESENTATION 2 This project is a combination of those two 3 efforts, kind of an unusual combination, but I 4 think perhaps a very useful one. I'm by no means 5 here to present data to you and tell you what it's 6 all about -- quite the reverse. 7 I would very much like to solicit your 8 opinions, if you have any, given that this is very 9 preliminary and very sketchy data. I've taken 10 something like 300 samples, individual samples, and 11 I'm only going to present just a fraction of that 12 today, maybe 10% day, just because of the time 13 limit today and some of the other things I'd like 14 to mention. 15 One of the most interesting things about the 16 work I've done so far is the fact that I'm able to 17 use state of the art technology in my research. 18 And I want to cover some of that with the 19 sonar data. Judy Wood, I understand, gave a 20 wonderful presentation earlier, which I'm dearly 21 sorry I missed, but I hope not to overlap in too 22 many ways, but I will do a little bit of 23 explanation when I present some of my sonar data. 24 Understand, it's very preliminary at this point 25 though. 66 1 PRESENTATION 2 The other thing I wanted to mention is that my 3 purpose is really not to show one way or the other 4 whether sturgeon are endangered or not, but in fact 5 address the situation where somebody can make a 6 difference, based on knowing a little bit of 7 geography about where the sturgeon are, where the 8 sturgeon have been, and where the sturgeon could 9 likely go. 10 And that comes through geographic analysis. 11 That's why -- what I intend to do. In doing that, 12 it involves multiple tiers. That's what I'm going 13 to explain in my presentation. 14 Okay. I called this presentation, When Fish 15 Sing, A Geographical Analysis of Water Quality 16 Concerns for Shortnose Sturgeon in the Savannah 17 River, mainly because I feel very strongly that the 18 canary in the and coal mine syndrome is going on 19 here with the shortnose sturgeon. 20 It's a prehistoric fish, and that dates back a 21 long, long time, and just since the 70s really it's 22 been in serious decline enough to have made it to 23 the Endangered Species List. That, to me, sends up 24 red flags. Obviously, it piqued my curiosity, 25 well, why is this going on? Is there any 67 1 PRESENTATION 2 geographic phenomenon that we can examine that 3 might explain any of this decline? 4 Maybe, maybe not, but that's certainly the 5 original premise that I had. The shortnose 6 sturgeon is, basically, a case to see how a 7 geographic model can help us predict better where 8 we might put our projects and where we might not 9 put our projects. 10 And by creating a grid system, and overlaying 11 layers, you can have a real good idea about what 12 you're facing long before you actually invest the 13 resources in development. 14 Okay. My research area is the Savannah River, 15 and it starts up SRO 1 is very near where Judy 16 Woods' project was, the CSS Georgia, very near Ft. 17 Jackson, so that's the very beginning of my 18 research area. 19 The next and last data point range all the way 20 to the National Wildlife Refuge area. You see here 21 on FRO 3 and BRO 3, those are well within the 22 National Wildlife Refuge area, so it is a 23 substantial size, the area that I'm studying. 24 And by no means is this original data to me, 25 in terms of it being the first time that anybody 68 1 PRESENTATION 2 has done something like this, I'm building on 3 research done by Mark Collins and many, many others 4 who have been researching it for the past 30 years. 5 But what they haven't looked at is the role 6 that sonar can play, and the role that looking 7 at various different conditions, like drought years 8 versus non-drought years, there's just not enough 9 data to examine that as of yet. 10 So I'm just adding to the data pool. So 11 that's my research area. Here's an aerial 12 photograph that gives you a better understanding of 13 just exactly where some of the points are. 14 I don't know how familiar you are with this 15 part of the Savannah River, but KIO 1 stands for 16 Kings Island, that's the Kings Island Turning 17 Basin, which you should be able to recognize. 18 That is an aerial photograph, and that is a 19 critical area in my study, it's a critical area of 20 interest because it's a former nursery of shortnose 21 sturgeon. 22 The sturgeon, when they're juveniles, have a 23 very low tolerance to salinity, dissolved oxygen, 24 and temperature in combination. And basically, in 25 temperatures that exceed 23 degrees Celsius, they 69 1 PRESENTATION 2 have a very high mortality rate. 3 So at what point does that temperature factor 4 drop out? Obviously, I wanted to look at the 5 temperature spike, and then see what happened after 6 the temperatures had been taken out of the 7 synergistic relationship. 8 So the last six months, I've been examining 9 data during the peak time when the temperature 10 exceeded 22 degrees Celsius in each of the 11 locations that I'll be covering here. 12 One of the things that I went into early on, 13 in my pilot project, was science versus local 14 knowledge. This has always somehow pitted one 15 against the other when, in fact, I think they 16 should go together. 17 My project intends to blend the two together 18 along with culture resource data and other types of 19 data, putting scientific data in a cultural 20 context which, I think, enhances the value of the 21 data, specifically when you reference it 22 geographically. 23 I plan to do this by creating a series of 24 layers in arc view, and I'm already well on my way 25 of starting that process. The aerial photograph 70 1 PRESENTATION 2 that I showed you earlier will be one of my base 3 maps, and I'll be adding layer upon layer of 4 information; water quality data, cultural resource 5 data which would include archeological data, and 6 various other cultural factors, which I'll 7 encounter during 30 interviews with each and 8 everyone of the 30 stakeholders that agree to talk 9 to me. 10 I want a representative cross-section, 11 everybody from fisherman to scientist to engineers 12 to get a real good understanding as to everybody's 13 reference point, from a geographic standpoint, in 14 their area of concern. 15 One of the questions that will be asked of all 16 of the respondents will be what specific geographic 17 region is the cause of you're being present at 18 these SEG meetings. 19 There's obviously some are, within my study 20 area, that brings you here. I don't know if it's 21 the whole area as a whole or a very specific point, 22 but for those of you that I end up interviewing, if 23 you could think about any specific geographic 24 regions, within my research area, that are cause 25 for concern, whether it be Kings Island Turning 71 1 PRESENTATION 2 Basin, because of it being a former juvenile 3 habitat, or some other area that has not yet been 4 recorded. 5 That will be one of the questions I will ask 6 each and every respondent, and that information 7 will be plotted on a grid and included in the 8 cultural resource data as giving a geographic 9 location to specific SEG stakeholder concerns. 10 Therefore, for those of you that have concerns 11 that a lot of your time and information is just 12 window dressing, you need not have those fears, 13 because you can actually see your concerns on a 14 map. 15 And that map can be used as an evaluation 16 tool, and that's what I hope to do with it. In 17 finding a culture context for water quality data, I 18 wanted to start at the very beginning. I didn't 19 want to just start with the science, the 20 instruments themselves and go out there and find 21 the particular dissolved oxygen, salinity, and 22 temperature data that I was looking for, so I went 23 out and I started talking to fisherman. 24 I started with Darwin Gayle, who you may or 25 may not know, he's a local fisherman that's been 72 1 PRESENTATION 2 fishing for about four generations now, to my 3 understanding. And he has plenty of local 4 knowledge, and he claims scientific knowledge as 5 well. 6 So he seemed like a good place to start. And 7 although this is in the Altamaha, we were tagging 8 shad together, and we caught many sturgeon as a 9 by-catch, which I thought was very interesting. 10 The Altamaha is perhaps the most healthy of 11 all the rivers in this general area, and it seems 12 to be rich with sturgeon, compared to say for 13 example the Savannah River. 14 So I thought that was interesting, and that, 15 of course, was my first exposure to the shortnose 16 sturgeon live and in the flesh. So I started at 17 the beginning. 18 One thing that occurred to me is that 19 side-scan sonar was being used in giving great 20 detailed analysis of ships, and the location of 21 ships, and what kind of condition they were in. 22 And I thought that that would be a very good 23 beginning for understanding what the bottom looks 24 like in these sensitive habitat areas, and what 25 kind of condition that bottom might be in. 73 1 PRESENTATION 2 So I wanted to use side-scan sonar to 3 investigate that more thoroughly. I've already 4 gone out a couple of times, but I plan to do it 5 until I have all the data I need. 6 The first time you go out, I've been shooting 7 data in 75 meter resolution, when you find targets, 8 which I'll discuss in a minute, then you go back 9 and shoot it at 25 meter resolution, and see if you 10 can figure out what it is that you're looking for. 11 I might be looking for sekes (phonetic), 12 I might be looking for critical habitat changes, 13 for example, if there are no benthic organisms 14 present in an area that formerly had benthic 15 organisms, because we have a good bit of sonar data 16 that's historic. 17 But hopefully fish holes will also be visible 18 when I go back at the 25 meter resolution, and I'm 19 already aware of several that exist, but nobody is 20 quite certain whether they're still in existence, 21 or whether they're filled in, or exactly whether or 22 not they're being used. 23 And I'm told on a good day I might even 24 actually get to see fish, so we'll see. That was 25 the rationale behind my choosing the side-scan 74 1 PRESENTATION 2 sonar. 3 SRO 1, of course we have a very famous 4 neighbor, that's CSS Georgia that Judy spoke of, 5 and I'm sure her presentation was rich with an 6 understanding that has been really enhanced not 7 only by the divers, but also by the side-scan sonar 8 for its preliminary evaluation, very similar sort 9 of thing here. 10 In my first sonar data that I shot, this is a 11 couple of weeks ago, this is out by Houlihan 12 Bridge, which corresponds to FRO 2 on my sampling 13 regime, you can notice that these particular little 14 streaks here, those represent the posts of the 15 pier, and one of the great challenges with sonar 16 data is learning how to interpret it. 17 So it's a lesson for me as I go everyday, but 18 what was interesting was some unusual anomalies 19 here, and wanted to go back and check that out. 20 Before we did that, we actually shot it a little 21 closer range. 22 And you can see this is the Houlihan boat 23 ramp. That's actually where the boats go up right 24 here. You can see the signature there. This is 25 rip rap along the sides, and these are the posts 75 1 PRESENTATION 2 that support the dock. 3 That's the shadow, so you can determine the 4 height of the object. There's the hard signature 5 and there's the shadow of the sonar data. But what 6 we found interesting was this area here, and we 7 wanted to take a closer look. 8 We blew it up as much as we could and still 9 maintain some degree of resolution, and what I 10 found was this strange area right here. It could 11 be an old shipwreck, because this area was prone 12 just to collect them over the years, as Judy might 13 have discussed with you, but also I'm looking to 14 see if there are any strange anomalies that might 15 be related to fish habitat. 16 I would tend to believe this might be more of 17 a ship than -- a ship hull shape here than related 18 to fish, but that will be an interesting part of 19 what I'm doing is discovering any archaeological 20 resources along the way that, perhaps, have not 21 already been mapped, since there's literally 22 thousands of them that haven't been cataloged. 23 I'm sure at some point I'll have to get 24 together with the people who are working on that 25 specifically, if I do find anything that looks 76 1 PRESENTATION 2 interesting, particularly when I'm shooting at 25 3 meters. 4 FRO 1 and BRO 1 are represented right here, 5 and in the middle you have Hutchinson Island, if 6 that gives you any kind of idea. 7 What I thought was interesting about this 8 shot is that you can clearly see the remnants in 9 this shoot and many others of the former rice 10 plantations that were in this area. 11 And yet, when I look at my water quality data, 12 the salinity levels wouldn't tolerate the 13 production of rice. And that's one of the things 14 that has been, I think, most disturbing so far just 15 in this preliminary portion. 16 That's nothing new and nothing novel, but I'd 17 like to just see how far the rice plantations went 18 up versus the salinity levels that would be -- 19 would tolerate the production of rice. And Judy 20 again has done a rich history on the back river 21 area and the rice plantations that come from that 22 area. 23 But what was interesting is this area was so 24 filled with rice production, at one point in time, 25 approximately a little bit more than 100 years ago, 77 1 PRESENTATION 2 that they actually had made a cut in between the 3 Hutchinson Island, right through it, so that the 4 slaves could run the rice over to be milled in the 5 City of Savannah. 6 So at one point in time, obviously, there was 7 a huge amount of production for Savannah. 8 Obviously, time's have changed, and certainly the 9 water profile has changed as well, dramatically in 10 the last 100 years or so. 11 MR. SCHUBERTH: Before you go on -- 12 MS. KNIGHT: Sure. 13 MR. SCHUBERTH: -- what are those white 14 patches? It looks like salt flats. 15 MS. KNIGHT: I don't know, honestly. I don't 16 know what everything is on the aerial photos. 17 MR. KEEGAN: Surface areas -- 18 MR. REES: International Paper. 19 MR. SCHUBERTH: Oh, oh, oh, I thought they 20 were natural features. 21 MS. KNIGHT: No. I didn't know what they 22 were. This is the Houlihan Bridge, and this is the 23 area where I showed you the side-scan sonar that we 24 took initially. And there's the bridge, the swing 25 bridge right here. 78 1 PRESENTATION 2 And this represents the very end of the 3 initial dredging of the harbor. Beyond this area 4 it's not dredged anymore, and certainly we can rule 5 that out, some of the impacts, as far as dredging 6 is concerned when you go up into the reaches of 7 the national Wildlife Refuge, but that's yet to be 8 seen. 9 The data I'm collecting is much to sparse to 10 maintain a causal -- cause and effect 11 relationships. It's just to determine what's there 12 and what's not. 13 But this corresponds to FRO 2, this Houlihan 14 Bridge area that I showed you earlier where we have 15 the docks, the signature profiles, and the boat 16 ramp which is right there. 17 MRO 1 is perhaps the richest area where Mark 18 Collins had formerly discovered fish, particularly 19 adult fish. 20 Now, what's interesting is in the South, 21 sturgeon, adult sturgeon only grow to be about 22 12 years old and about 100 centimeters in length, 23 as compared to up north, where they get bigger and 24 live at least 18 years. 25 So life span is longer, and obviously there 79 1 PRESENTATION 2 probably is some factors that can contribute to 3 that. It may be climate, but I think there's other 4 factors at work. Again, it's not to determine 5 causal relationships, but just what factors are 6 there here that we don't have maybe in a northern 7 environment, where the sturgeon are also in decline 8 I might add. 9 At this particular area right around the 10 middle river was rich with fish; in fact, there are 11 fish holes all along in here. There were two major 12 ones, some as big as 30 meters in diameter which is 13 huge. 14 I don't think that they're that big anymore, 15 based on some preliminary sampling I've done, but 16 they have been very large in the past. I think 17 they've filled in considerably. Again, the sonar 18 data will be very rich with information, and will 19 let us know what exactly has happened with those 20 fish holes, and are they, indeed, in use. 21 We're coming up on the spawning season for the 22 shortnose sturgeon. It starts in January and 23 really ends in about the beginning of March. And 24 what happens then is the fish have been upriver 25 where the temperatures were cooler and temperature 80 1 PRESENTATION 2 wasn't a factor in their degradation of water 3 quality. And as the temperatures get cooler, they 4 move further down river and spawn, particularly 5 where they've imprinted at some former time. And 6 that puts them squarely coming back to this middle 7 river area, if they are following patterns of the 8 past where Mark had actually located sturgeon 9 during a 1999/2000 study. 10 BRO 1 is the reverse side of the tide gate, so 11 you've got the tide gate portion that goes out to 12 sea, and then on the other side of the tide gate, 13 just a little bit upriver is BRO 1. This gives a 14 perspective of where this is located. 15 And what I'm interested in comparing in BRO 1 16 is how that data looks compared to the other side, 17 which I call tide gate O 1, TGO 1. It's too early 18 to tell really, because I have to do a variance 19 analysis against Mark Collins' original data. 20 And I'm still entering my data in. Logging it 21 in takes many, many hours. So at some point in 22 time I hope to have the statistical significance as 23 to what is just chance, and what might be related 24 to the existence of the tide gate in the past, and 25 what influence it still has. 81 1 PRESENTATION 2 BRO 2, here's another view so you can see 3 there very clearly the former rice plantations 4 here, so when the salinities do get above one, it 5 starts to create a stressful environment for both 6 fish and the growing of crops. For the most part, 7 I found this area having zero salinity, but from 8 time to time, particularly when temperatures got 9 cooler, the salinity levels were rising. 10 I'll show you the bit of data at the very end. 11 This is just a longshot view. You can see right 12 here Hogg Island and the confluence there between 13 the back river O 1, and this is back river O 1 and 14 back river O 2 up there. 15 This is a blow-up of some cultural features 16 that I want to examine further that will also be 17 included in my resources that I'm looking at. 18 These are just former piers and pylons that are 19 still there. This used to be, I think, the remains 20 of a trunk that was used to control the water 21 height for the rice fields. 22 At least, that's the preliminary data I have. 23 I could be completely off. I'm sure -- Judy, I'd 24 appreciate any interpretive comments from you. 25 That's the best of my abilities at this point in 82 1 PRESENTATION 2 time. But anyway, this is a feature that the 3 underwater archeologists have indicated they might 4 want to examine, at some point in the future. It 5 may play some type of role in terms of fish habitat 6 as well. 7 Clearly, fish like to hang out where there's 8 something to hide under, and benthic organisms will 9 be rich, and protected from strong currents. 10 Here's the tide gate, an aerial view, and my 11 tide gate point that I've created. That was not 12 originally in Mark Collins' study. Again, it was 13 for the purpose of analyzing the water quality in 14 the sediment catch basin versus the water quality 15 here, where I've got BRO 1 on this side. 16 Obviously, there are many influences. This is 17 under almost constant dredging and fill. So it's 18 obviously different characteristics from this area 19 up here, but I just wanted to catalog water quality 20 differences and what they are, and how they might 21 have compared to other data that's been collected. 22 There are three data points in my set that 23 are collected by USGS. They would be tide gate by 24 the Houlihan Bridge and in front of Ft. Jackson. 25 And other than that, all the other points are 83 1 PRESENTATION 2 unique, but I do have a way to ground truth my data 3 to existing data collection that's ongoing, live 4 even as we speak on the web, for anybody that's 5 interested enough to see. 6 So I do plan to ground truth my data with 7 existing date for those three points. Kings Island 8 Turning Basin is approximately lateral to BRO 1. 9 This just give us you an appreciation for the two. 10 When they're listed in a column of data, it's 11 hard to understand, geographically, where one 12 relates to the other. So comparing the Kings 13 Island data to the BRO 1 data that would be a 14 significant factor. 15 Obviously, there's a lot more activity going 16 on in here. We have dredging. We have the former 17 nursery area. This would be an area of great 18 focus. 19 And then, until next time when I'm going out 20 gathering more sonar data and water quality data, 21 once I have my neat little charts and graphs and 22 variance analysis, I would like to represent at 23 that point. 24 But, I see that as being at least six months 25 away. It's very time intensive to take all this 84 1 PRESENTATION 2 data and do the analysis. But that's my 3 preliminary overview. 4 For those of you that may be interested in any 5 data, I do have some data that I can show you. I 6 just did three points -- 7 MS. MOORER: Get rid of the paper clip. 8 MS. KNIGHT: Here's some of the initial 9 data that I've collected, and I just picked the 10 10 locations starting with SRO 1, going all the way to 11 FRO 3, you can see that's the whole span of the 12 entire research area. 13 These are some of the preliminary data. And I 14 just picked three data points -- I mean research 15 sets. Okay. 16 All these eventually will be filled in with 17 all the data I've already collected, but I'm doing 18 two different kinds of analysis. If you notice, 19 this type of analysis is just looking at SRO 1 data 20 across all the different dates. That will be one 21 way I'm analyzing it. 22 And the other way I'm analyzing it will be 23 each week datas across all the points. I'll 24 get an aggregate, which is how Mark Collins 25 evaluated the data. But I want to also be able to 85 1 PRESENTATION 2 evaluate at each point to see if there was 3 something geographically of note in certain 4 locations that might make a difference in 5 explaining some unusual or out of characteristic 6 data. 7 So I don't know if y'all can see this in the 8 back of the room and all, but the general trend in 9 temperature, obviously, is the temperature is going 10 down for the season. Obviously, the dissolved -- 11 the dissolved oxygen is going to up as the water 12 quality tends to improve in the cooler months. 13 And the salinity is going up. That seems to 14 be a general trend that I'm seeing across almost 15 all my data points, and pretty much all reveal the 16 same thing. 17 Nothing particularly really riveting or 18 exciting, but what I will be looking at is the 19 exception, and what might explain some of the 20 exceptions where the reverse might be true, and 21 what are the other factors, and is there something 22 there that may be a decision-maker needs to be 23 aware of before they decide to expand in a certain 24 region. 25 Obviously, if you're making decisions picking 86 1 PRESENTATION 2 between point A and point B, knowing the attributes 3 of both points would be very helpful. And that's 4 the purpose of my study. Any questions? 5 MR. DYSART: What is your basic hypothesis 6 that you're wishing to prove or investigate? 7 MS. KNIGHT: I'm using what's called grounded 8 theory. In grounded theory, you don't have a 9 hypothesis. You let the data determine your flow 10 of information. 11 And it's very well-respected within the field 12 of anthropology. And, in fact, I'm using N VIVO 13 software, which is anthropologic software that 14 actually takes qualitative data and turns it into 15 quantitative data, by using phrases that I'll be 16 getting from my interview participants, and 17 counting the number of repeat times, within each 18 interview, how many times those phrases appear and 19 in what context. 20 It actually does a statistical analysis, on 21 the frequency responses, and creates a decision 22 tree as to what the primary ideas were that came 23 out, and some possible questions for the future. 24 It's very helpful software. And again, it 25 turns qualitative data into quantitative data, and 87 1 PRESENTATION 2 it's called N VIVO. N, V-I-V-O. They have a 3 website, if anybody is interested in looking at 4 this. 5 MR. MARTIN: I was interested in how often 6 you're sampling, what's your sampling protocol? 7 MS. KNIGHT: Mark Collins was sampling 8 approximately every other week, so that's what I 9 adopted as well, up until the temperature spike 10 that I spoke of where it is above 22 degrees 11 Celsius -- leveled off to 22 degrees Celsius. 12 From that point forward, he was going back 13 just once a month. A big decided difference 14 between his study and mine is not only was he 15 collecting water quality data, he was also looking 16 at benthic organisms, and doing sweeps with a trial 17 net. 18 So obviously that affected turbidity and 19 potentially some other water quality data, 20 dissolved oxygen, so that could explain some of the 21 differences, given we're doing different 22 activities. 23 But he was also in a drought year, so I 24 imagine that the variance analysis is not going to 25 be too helpful because of these huge factors are 88 1 PRESENTATION 2 going to make the data very different from his. 3 But nonetheless, I still plan on doing it just 4 to see if there's any kind of variation that I can 5 explain. 6 MR. MARTIN: Are you doing surface only or are 7 you doing -- 8 MS. KNIGHT: I was doing surface and 9 approximately one meter from the bottom, and that 10 was the protocol that he established. And I was 11 doing replicate samples at each location, so that I 12 could make sure that I had the average of the two, 13 and had a good data point. 14 Again, doing data points is very different 15 from doing a run. The way I compensated for that 16 is if he had a run that started at point A and 17 ended at point B, I just called them point A and 18 point B for the same data point; thus SRO 1A and 19 SRO 1B to show you that start and end points of his 20 run with his trial run. 21 However, I used the GPS so that I could 22 approximate points back on the line connecting the 23 two, and any of the points in between were used for 24 evaluation for water quality. 25 MR. MARTIN: Also, are you taking into 89 1 PRESENTATION 2 consideration tide stage and river discharge; 3 that's going to affect your -- 4 MS. KNIGHT: The tide stage is given right 5 here and the time, and this is the way that Mark 6 Collins dealt with it. 7 I'm using the same type of data tables that he 8 used. The only thing I have yet to deal with is 9 raw data. In fact, I have used the same language, 10 so I'll go back and change it and make sure I'm 11 using the same type of terms that he is using, so 12 that it's no confusion when we go to compare the 13 data. 14 That's why it's raw data as opposed to data 15 that's been cleaned up, some other little minor 16 glitches here and there. 17 One thing that has to be noted anytime, and 18 I'm sure that those of you who have done field work 19 are aware of this, you have storms that come up. 20 You have boat problems. You have all kinds 21 externalities that totally influence the quality of 22 your data for maybe a particular time or a 23 particular day or even particular point. 24 So anytime I had any of those disruptions, I 25 had a column out here to the side which was for 90 1 PRESENTATION 2 comment. And sometimes I just put things as 3 mundane as saw a bald eagle between Ft. Jackson and 4 Savannah. Other times I'd put just escaped with my 5 life out of a violent storm, you know, quit for the 6 day or whatever, so whatever type of comments might 7 have had any type of impact, or might suggest some 8 type of cultural or other environmental resource 9 that I might need to look into in that particular 10 geographical location. 11 It's right here in the comments which is the 12 same way it was handled. The instrument I was 13 using was a YSI 85. And that's the same instrument 14 that was the being used by Mark Collins in his 15 study. 16 I was using a grab sampler. I did get 17 sediments samples which you'll notice. I just did 18 first and last sediment, and didn't do them in the 19 middle. 20 For those of you that do field data, I'm sure 21 you're aware it's a big pain in the neck to go out 22 and use that grab sampler, and haul that thing up 23 20 times in one day full of sediment. So that was 24 just practical suggestion, given by one marine 25 biologist I was working with. 91 1 PRESENTATION 2 But the whole point is to see if there's any 3 great change between the sediments at the very 4 beginning of my sampling period, and the sediments 5 at the end. 6 Now, I say at the end, it's not technically 7 the end -- the end of the period where the 8 temperature is a factor in the synergistic 9 relationship between dissolved oxygen and salinity 10 and temperature. 11 After that, temperature drops out and just 12 becomes salinity and dissolved oxygen. This is 13 based on studies that have been done starting in 14 1967 that made these correlations. 15 And I can certainly provide references, if 16 you're interested. Any comments? That's what I'd 17 really like to get. 18 MR. DYSART: Judy. 19 MS. JENNINGS: These aren't comments. But I 20 really don't get -- I don't know. Is there any way 21 that you can -- I mean like when you do your 22 sediment sampling, might you find historical 23 evidence, might you find evidence of salinity 24 historically, might you find something like a seed 25 and you would go well, this would only occur in a 92 1 PRESENTATION 2 salinity of? 3 MS. KNIGHT: If I were doing an analysis for 4 actually the content, but I didn't preserve for my 5 benthic organisms or any of the biological material 6 I was bringing up. 7 All I did was freeze the samples, and then 8 I'll be doing a coarse analysis to see how coarse 9 or fine the sand grain particles are, and just 10 basic -- basically, use that basic kind of analysis 11 that was the done by Mark Collins. And beyond just 12 saying the sediment size and content, what's there, 13 I hadn't planned to do any greater analysis. 14 Obviously, toxilogical profiles, heavy metals, 15 all that kind of stuff could be done out of these 16 same sediments that I've collected, but that's 17 beyond the scope of my project. 18 MS. JENNINGS: But it could be done -- 19 somebody could do it? 20 MS. KNIGHT: It could be done, but you're 21 talking maybe 100, $200 per sample, because I have 22 replicate samples at each of these 10 sites. 23 So that's 20 samples per day -- 24 MS. JENNINGS: Oh, I'm not advocating -- I 25 don't know enough science to know. 93 1 PRESENTATION 2 MS. KNIGHT: That would require a huge amount 3 of funding, and I'm not after toxicological data, 4 even though that's my background. 5 I'm just looking to see what other types of 6 information are out there and could be represented. 7 And when you go toxicological data, you open a 8 whole new can of worms, and I'm not prepared to 9 address that within the scope of this study. 10 MR. DYSART: What are -- you would like to get 11 initial feedback right here on what in particular, 12 why don't you say what you would like to get a 13 reaction to? 14 MS. KNIGHT: Before I do that, may I change 15 batteries? 16 MR. SCHUBERTH: Can I ask a question? 17 MS. KNIGHT: Sure. 18 MR. SCHUBERTH: Where are the samples being 19 kept? 20 MS. KNIGHT: In frozen storage. 21 MR. SCHUBERTH: What institution? 22 MS. KNIGHT: Well, I'd really rather not say 23 because I've been asked not to. 24 MR. SCHUBERTH: Oh, it is an institution 25 somewhere? 94 1 PRESENTATION 2 MS. KNIGHT: They're being taken care of. 3 MR. SCHUBERTH: It's not in your kitchen? 4 MS. KNIGHT: It's not in my kitchen. Okay. 5 (Whereupon, there was an 6 off-the-record discussion.) 7 MS. KNIGHT: Okay. The types of information I 8 was hoping I could garner from the wealth of 9 knowledge represented in this room. For example, 10 Judy if you had any interpretive data you could add 11 for the very, very preliminary sonar data that we 12 shot, particularly regarding the target that we 13 thought we might have, as to viability or not. 14 Other types of information, those of you that 15 have a background in marine biology, if there's 16 something critical that I'm overlooking, I'm not 17 pretending to come here and say I have 30 years 18 of experience in marine biology, enough to evaluate 19 all the possible combinations of factors that I 20 should be looking at. 21 Those of you that have other types of 22 background, any types of cultural data that you 23 think would be -- I would be remiss in not 24 including in my study, from what I've described 25 thus far. 95 1 PRESENTATION 2 There's not any direct way to gather that 3 data, or comments about the data collection 4 procedures that I've chosen. The cultural 5 analysis, you know, doing the 30 interviews, what 6 do you think about that? What do you think of 7 grounded theory? 8 What do you think of taking qualitative 9 data and quantifying it and doing statistical 10 analysis? How do all those things sit with you? 11 MR. DYSART: First comment, Morgan Rees has 12 his card up. 13 MS. KNIGHT: Yes. 14 MR. REES: Actually, it's more of a question, 15 although let me comment on grounded theory, since I 16 used it myself in my dissertation, I think it's 17 fine. 18 MS. KNIGHT: Okay. That's a good thing to 19 hear. 20 MR. REES: Do you have a map, a hardcopy or 21 can you send on e-mail where your sampling sites 22 are? 23 MS. KNIGHT: Sure. The graphic sites are 24 fuzzy, but you can still see where they are. I 25 would be happy -- 96 1 PRESENTATION 2 MR. REES: That would be helpful in viewing 3 the transcript and all to be able to fix on where 4 you're really talking about. You can send them to 5 Larry, then we would have them. 6 MS. KNIGHT: No, that's great. I'll impose on 7 you in return and ask you to be one of my interview 8 participants. 9 MR. REES: Sure. 10 MS. KNIGHT: That would be great. And really, 11 that was the main reason I wanted to present the 12 data today, is so when I would ask you as potential 13 participants to come and be an interviewee of my 14 data collection process, you wouldn't be scared I 15 have ulterior motives, or don't know what I'm going 16 to do with the data, or whatever other reason you 17 might not be able to participate. 18 It's really not a scary project, as far as I 19 can tell, and I really would value each and 20 every one of your participation representing a 21 cross-section of Stakeholders Evaluation Group. 22 MR. DYSART: Sam. 23 MR. DRAKE: I'm representing the Fife and 24 Clydesdale Plantation, which is on the back river. 25 MS. KNIGHT: Uh-huh. 97 1 PRESENTATION 2 MR. DRAKE: And it's been in the family of 3 Mr. Rob Harrison since the 1700s from a King's 4 Grant, and I think probably he would be a person 5 you would want to interview as a stakeholder along 6 the river -- 7 MS. KNIGHT: Great. 8 MR. DRAKE: -- and could provide a lot of 9 historical data on some of the types of structures 10 you see now, because they have quite extensive 11 records from Clydesdale on management of it and 12 rice production. 13 MS. KNIGHT: One thing I do want to state, 14 simply because if I don't I'll hear about it, the 15 state archaeologist wants me to very much stress I 16 have no intention of giving you a road map to 17 looting on the Savannah River. 18 That is no intention of mine. I will be 19 aggregating the cultural data which would include 20 archaeological data along with Joe's fishing hole 21 he particularly wants to talk about when I 22 interview him. 23 And those points will not be differentiated 24 from any archaeological site. It will just be 25 called the cultural layer. And that aggregate is 98 1 PRESENTATION 2 quite intentional. 3 Now, if somebody wants to develop a model that 4 separates the cultural layers into many, certainly 5 that would have more value in terms of doing an 6 analysis, but for the purposes of this study, which 7 is just to see what happens when you take 8 scientific data and put it in a cultural context, I 9 think it's not appropriate at this time. 10 MR. DYSART: Ed. 11 MR. EUDALY: I was just wondering how many 12 location points you have or how much data do you 13 have on location -- I think you said it was over 14 since 1967, I believe, up through Mark Collins' 15 study, I guess? 16 MS. KNIGHT: Yes. 17 MR. EUDALY: How many points do you have on 18 location? 19 MS. KNIGHT: Well, interesting EPA, when they 20 were created in 1970, this is one of the very first 21 projects that they jumped on, was looking at water 22 quality in the Savannah River, which really 23 surprised me. 24 So EPA has a wealth of data. In fact, the 25 points that Mark Collins selected were selected 99 1 PRESENTATION 2 based on their salinity regime, and that originally 3 came from the EPA study that was done prior to his 4 study. 5 So every single researcher has had their 6 little toothmark on the research all along. It 7 started out with EPA. And before that, I think 8 there was a group of historians that were looking 9 at this type of data, and wanted a more scientific 10 presentation and evaluation, so they got EPA 11 involved. 12 That's how EPA, upon its inception almost, got 13 involved in this project. I went to the Athens EPA 14 location and brought back stacks, two stacks about 15 this tall of reports and data related to my study 16 area. 17 Unfortunately, the woman that had been 18 processing this data had died, and in the three 19 years since her death nobody had even looked at it. 20 So it's basically just sitting there for somebody 21 to come in and data mine. I happened to the sloth 22 that did it. So -- 23 MR. EUDALY: I know there's a good bit of 24 water quality data. I was just wondering, do you 25 think there's enough shortnose sturgeon data to do 100 1 PRESENTATION 2 the studies, as far as the locations at various 3 times? 4 MS. KNIGHT: The tricky thing about shortnose 5 sturgeon is they don't stay in the same place, and 6 they found that to be quite a problem when they 7 were doing telemetry studies. 8 They were trying to find out exactly where 9 these sturgeon are, and where they go, and where 10 they have been. But unfortunately, all you can go 11 on is the particular sturgeon that you are 12 monitoring at the particular time you're monitoring 13 it. 14 And there are all kinds of problems with 15 telemetry; the cost of each of the monitors, 2 to 16 $300 apiece. Once you enter saltwater they're not 17 going to work anymore. 18 The batteries go dead prematurely sometimes, 19 and sometimes the fish never return due to lack of 20 imprinting and who knows what -- die, get eaten 21 by a predator. We really don't know. 22 So it's very difficult to determine, with any 23 great deal of certainty, where the fish have been, 24 only when that particular study addressed it and at 25 that particular moment. 101 1 PRESENTATION 2 We know, historically, that fish, juveniles, 3 have been in Kings Island Turning Basin, but as to 4 whether they're still there now, even Mark Collins 5 would say he's not sure. 6 So that was one of the reasons that I'm going 7 in there with side-scan sonar, and hope to do that 8 at 25 meter resolution. I should be able to see if 9 there's at least suitable habitat. 10 I know my samples were mud, that pluff mud, 11 and I can't imagine how they could get food or 12 oxygen in that kind of stuff. They're bottom 13 dwellers, so I really don't know. 14 But that remains to be seen. That's part of 15 the data I might happen upon in the process of 16 doing this collection procedure, if I'm lucky. 17 MR. DYSART: Sam. 18 MR. DRAKE: Just one other question or 19 comment. 20 MS. KNIGHT: Sure. 21 MR. DRAKE: It's kind of interesting that 22 you're a marine biologist and you kind of working 23 in a system that wasn't historically freshwater and 24 now is changing. 25 And you've kind of brought up about rice 102 1 PRESENTATION 2 fields. If you look on the aerial photographs, 3 you'll see those things -- 4 MS. KNIGHT: Sure. 5 MR. DRAKE: -- went quite a bit further down 6 below the tide gate, miles and miles. 7 MS. KNIGHT: Argyle Island -- 8 MR. DRAKE: I think, historically, we used 9 what, three parts per thousand for rice? 10 MR. EUDALY: I don't remember, but it's got to 11 be pretty low. 12 MS. KNIGHT: Pretty low, yeah. 13 MR. DRAKE: Pretty low, so it's predominant 14 freshwater wherever you see. 15 MS. KNIGHT: Right. 16 MR. DRAKE: Are you going to include any 17 historical data on the river? Because a lot of 18 what Judy showed in her presentation was shoals and 19 things; but when Savannah was settled, a lot of 20 folks got drinking water and the water was clear. 21 I mean, talking about the turbidity, read some 22 of the old, historical documents and the Savannah 23 River was clear quite a ways down. You could 24 actually see the bottom, shoals, and that type of 25 thing. 103 1 PRESENTATION 2 MS. KNIGHT: So many land disturbances 3 though -- 4 MR. DRAKE: Right. 5 MS. KNIGHT: -- you really can't point a 6 finger as to when it became the dark water it is 7 now, but certainly the historical data is there in 8 the archives. 9 MR. DRAKE: Are you going to include some of 10 it? 11 MS. KNIGHT: I've included some of that in my 12 research so far, and I imagine I'll put it in 13 my backgrounds. But again, I don't want to get too 14 far off the focus, which is how would this type of 15 tool benefit decision-makers in making better 16 decisions on the location of expansion projects, or 17 the location of picking this location over that 18 location, and prioritizing. 19 That's really the whole purpose of adding yet 20 another dimension to existing water quality data. 21 I'm not reinventing the wheel. 22 The water quality data has been out there 23 forever. All I'm trying to do is suggest the 24 concept that we make it richer, and deeper, more of 25 a 3D kind of a profile, as opposed to scientific 104 1 PRESENTATION 2 over here, lay data over here, and the two shall 3 never mix. 4 MR. DRAKE: I guess -- I guess that I was 5 suggesting that Oglethorpe selected the site of 6 Savannah based on some water quality needs, and 7 then as the city evolved, whatever, all that 8 changed. 9 MS. KNIGHT: Development happened. 10 MR. DRAKE: Right, right. 11 MS. KNIGHT: Any other questions or input 12 about the way I'm doing this, any suggestions to 13 make it better, things I didn't mention that maybe 14 I should have. 15 MR. DYSART: We look forward to hearing from 16 you again. Let us know when you have something 17 else to share with us. We really appreciate your 18 being with us today. 19 This has been interesting, and obviously you 20 have some context to follow-up on, so forth. So, 21 let us hear from you. Judy -- 22 MS. KNIGHT: Thank you. Thank you for letting 23 me. 24 MR. DYSART: -- you have something you would 25 like to say on the Economics Working Group. 105 1 PRESENTATION 2 MS. JENNINGS: Yes. Doug Plachy and I have 3 chatted over the phone, and it's my understanding 4 that the Corps has contracted out for a work plan 5 on the economics analysis update. 6 And it might be approaching a time at which 7 the Corps could share that work plan with the 8 Economics Working Group for our information and 9 possible feedback, and maybe for comments on 10 independent technical reviewers. 11 I've sent an e-mail to typical Economic 12 Working Group folks asking what availability, and 13 Larry already alluded to how difficult it is to get 14 people together in December, but if there is 15 availability for a meeting in December, and 16 possibly, I think Doug and I agree we would all 17 like the opportunity to be able to review what work 18 plan is already on the table before we meet. 19 So I think we are looking towards the Economic 20 Working Group to review the work under contract at 21 the stage it's at, and offer some impact and 22 feedback on ITR on the economic analysis. 23 MR. PLACHY: Yeah. That's the other -- that's 24 a good point. Chris gave us three excellent names 25 for ITR on the aquifer work. And again, it's 106 1 PRESENTATION 2 always worth asking folks on the Economics Working 3 Group. 4 Maybe they know of or can provide us with some 5 names of economists that we could use for 6 independent technical review. We're always open 7 for that. 8 MS. JENNINGS: Doug, can you help me? I got 9 some feedback from some people about potential 10 meeting dates in December. Are we at a point at 11 which the plan can be put out, in a raw form that 12 we can disseminate? 13 MR. PLACHY: Maybe as soon as tomorrow -- 14 there was only one person we were waiting for 15 some feedback on. I believe his came in yesterday. 16 So maybe I can get something to you as soon as 17 tomorrow. Then you can get it out to the Working 18 Group. 19 MS. JENNINGS: I'll do that, and I really 20 appreciate Doug's working with -- Doug and the 21 Corps working with the Economics Working Group on 22 the economics analysis update. 23 And I will get out anything that Doug can give 24 me. We'll meet according to the availability of 25 peoples' schedules in December. If not, I'm sure 107 1 PRESENTATION 2 we can schedule something after the 1st of 3 January. I'll try to do it in December, if people 4 are available. 5 MR. DYSART: Okay. I would like to say -- 6 Hope. 7 MS. MOORER: I had an action from the last 8 meeting to bring copies, hardcopies of the OMB 9 draft peer review standard. I have those copies, 10 if anybody wants a hardcopy. 11 MR. DYSART: Chris. 12 MR. SCHUBERTH: Just following up on Hope's 13 comment provided me a wonderful opportunity to lead 14 in, because I was going to ask the SEG to allow me 15 to make a comment that doesn't fit anywhere in this 16 agenda. I'm not sure what the -- 17 MR. DYSART: Now's a good time. 18 MR. SCHUBERTH: But now is a good time. I 19 know we referenced this last time. My computer 20 picks and chooses what it wants to print-out, no 21 rhyme or reason. This it would not print-out. 22 Cathy gave me a copy. 23 During the break I had a chance to glance 24 through it, and I wanted to say that I feel 25 vindicated, that I feel vindicated in standing on 108 1 PRESENTATION 2 the issue of peer review, because on page two is 3 the language that I wish I had been able to state 4 in the meeting. 5 And I asked -- for the record also I ask that 6 people spend some time reading this page two, page 7 three, page four, because it is right on target. 8 And I know we're addressing this, so I have no 9 complaint. There's no criticism. I'm in the 10 spirit of collegiality in all of this. 11 So I just wanted to be in the record as a 12 point of information regarding this particular 13 item. We've had, in the past, some animated 14 discussion and debate about definition of two 15 words, peer review. 16 MR. DYSART: Somehow I think that will 17 continuing. Hope, we appreciate you're making that 18 available to the members of SEG. Appreciate your 19 comment, Chris. 20 Let me know now or in the near future if 21 there are additional topics you want to put on the 22 draft agenda for the next meeting, because y'all 23 are where that comes from. Okay. Next meeting 24 date. Got potential dates January, February, and 25 March in the agenda. Pick one. 109 1 2 MR. SCHUBERTH: Consistent with the pattern, I 3 suggest February 3rd. 4 MR. DYSART: I declare there to be a consensus 5 for February the 3rd. 6 MS. KNIGHT: I have a request. 7 MR. DYSART: Yes. 8 MS. KNIGHT: Is there any way we can make it 9 later on in the day for those of us that have to 10 drive five hours to get here? 11 MR. DYSART: No. I declare a consensus on 12 that also. The 9:00 o'clock, nine to noon is 13 pretty well evolved and it's locked down. 14 MR. SCHUBERTH: It's been that way for 38 15 meetings and 62 months. 16 MS. KNIGHT: Okay. Never mind. 17 MR. DYSART: Okay. Anything else for the good 18 of the cause? 19 MS. KNIGHT: I have one last question. 20 MR. DYSART: Yes. 21 MS. KNIGHT: If it's at all possible for those 22 of you that would be interested in participating, 23 as one of the people I interview, I would very much 24 wish you would come and talk to me afterwards. 25 I would greatly appreciate getting your name 110 1 2 and phone number. And I'd much rather it be 3 voluntary than me have to track you down, which of 4 course I wouldn't. 5 But those of you that might be interested in 6 participating, I would very much like it if you 7 would talk to me afterward. 8 MR. DYSART: I suggest you get at the head of 9 the stairs and catch people. 10 MR. SCHUBERTH: What's the e-mail? 11 MS. KNIGHT: Just L Knight at UGA dot EDU, 12 that's my e-mail, L Knight at UGA dot EDU, and put 13 in a subject because I get something like 100 spams 14 a day, put in the subject, something that will grab 15 my attention, maybe SEG project, something like 16 that, so I could recognize it right off as not 17 being spam. 18 MR. DYSART: Laura and Judy, we really 19 appreciate both of your presentations a great deal. 20 And we look forward to hearing more about your work 21 in the cultural area, and your work as well. 22 MS. KNIGHT: Mine's very preliminary. 23 MR. DYSART: Okay. Thank you. I declare the 24 meeting adjourned. 25 111 1 2 3 4 C E R T I F I C A T E 5 G E O R G I A : 6 CHATHAM COUNTY: 7 I hereby certify that the foregoing 8 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 9 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 10 were reduced to typewriting under my direction; 11 that the foregoing Pages 1 through 110 represent 12 a true and correct transcript of the evidence 13 given upon said hearing, and I further certify 14 that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties 15 in the case; am not in the regular employ of 16 counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 17 anywise interested in the result of said case. 18 This, the 29th day of December, 2003. 19 20 21 ________________________ 22 Kathleen Dore, Certified Court Reporter, B-2041 23 24 25