# Those Crazy Confederates are still costing the US!



## Capt Worley PE (May 7, 2012)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/05/civil-war-shipwreck-creates-hurdle-for-government-653m-plan/#ixzz1u15Nqoek



> Before government engineers can deepen one of the nation's busiest seaports to accommodate future trade, they first need to remove a $14 million obstacle from the past -- a Confederate warship rotting on the Savannah River bottom for nearly 150 years.
> Confederate troops scuttled the ironclad CSS Georgia to prevent its capture by Gen. William T. Sherman when his Union troops took Savannah in December 1864. It's been on the river bottom ever since.
> 
> Now, the Civil War shipwreck sits in the way of a government agency's $653 million plan to deepen the waterway that links the nation's fourth-busiest container port to the Atlantic Ocean. The ship's remains are considered so historically significant that dredging the river is prohibited within 50 feet of the wreckage.
> ...


----------



## Chucktown PE (May 7, 2012)

Thread Hijacking Alert:

The Savannah river deepening will go down as a gigantic boondoggle. They want to deepen the shipping channel but the COE will only allow them to deepen it to 47 feet, which isn't deep enough to get a super post panamax container vessel through the channel.

They could deepen the Charleston Harbor channel to 50 feet at half the price, but that would make too much sense, and take away from Savannah's port business.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (May 7, 2012)

The government engaging in a boondoggle? Surely you jest!


----------



## Road Guy (May 7, 2012)

weird and kind of cool all at the same time!

However I think this is another good example of the NEPA process costing taxpayers $14 million dollars that we shouldnt have to pay, whats the harm in just plowing through this unmaned sunked ship? If it had bodies in it I could "maybe" see a significance, but this is just typical of the "process" delaying and costing more revenue...


----------



## Capt Worley PE (May 7, 2012)

I'm with you, RG. It was an insignificant ship that never fired a shot in anger, plus it has been rotting away for about 150 years. Just run the dredge through it and go on about life.


----------



## MA_PE (May 7, 2012)

Road Guy said:


> weird and kind of cool all at the same time!
> 
> However I think this is another good example of the NEPA process costing taxpayers $14 million dollars that we shouldnt have to pay, whats the harm in just plowing through this unmaned sunked ship? If it had bodies in it I could "maybe" see a significance, but this is just typical of the "process" delaying and costing more revenue...


not necessarily. This is a process to salavage something historical as opposed to just throwing it into a landfill. I'll admit I can't define the difference between art, historical significance and just plain old junk, butI can see how some people have an interest in preserving artifacts from the past.


----------



## engineergurl (May 7, 2012)

not the NEPA process... regardless of what kind of Environmental analysis was completed, this would have been an issue because someone applied to get it listed on the historic places list back in the 80's, that is usually done because the locals want to preserve something... just saying...


----------



## Wolverine (May 7, 2012)

It seems to me that the problem of unstable munitions located near a poorly located large piece of metal junk is a problem that could conceivably solve itself.

Adam &amp; Jamie?


----------



## Road Guy (May 7, 2012)

then the locals should pay for it to be "restored".....I would imagine if you go to the Chatham County Board of Commissioners and asked them to either come up with $14 Million or lose it they wouldnt be so fond of it...


----------



## engineergurl (May 7, 2012)

Doing a little digging further, found a really interesting report from about 5 years ago... but I'm trying to find out who got it listed back in the 80's...


----------



## engineergurl (May 7, 2012)

I am now reminded of why I have the job I have. Additional information that I found is as follows...

In 1868 there was a contract to have this removed, and in 1872 calculating in the return on what was salvaged the cost would have been about $10,000. There is a large gap in the history of addressing the wreck, but then in 1968 it was rediscovered buried under 12-16 feet of silt during a dredging operation, it is suspect that this operation caused the inital damage to the wreck.

1979, Texas A&amp;M conducted the first Archology research on the site, and then in 1983 when additional work was being conducted on the channel (again suspect to having damaged the wreck further) a Design Memorandum was issued. At that point in time coffer dams were a feasible solution to conduct further research and possible removal. References show that the site was listed as eligible but was NOT officially a historic site.

It gets hazy here, but apparently right around that time the Georgia Battlefields Association and the Civil War Preservation Trust (and I say this only based on what I could find in under an hour and only on the internet) backed the nomination, which leads us to where we are today. The site being on the registar of historic places.

Additionally, I want to point out that the article really did not represent the facts as they are. First, the term disinigrated is slightly misleading as there are several intact portions of the ship still underwater. The research conducted in 2003 clearly shows this and that corresponds with previous reports. Second, the majority of the cost associated with this project, really and honestly would not have to do with dealing with the task at hand, but dealing with any UXO's. Those are pains in the ass, scary and I only deal with the ones made with modern technology. I imagine they would be an issue during a dredging operation anyway as munitions tend to just be an issue in general.

In all reality, since the Navy wanted to claim that as a captured ship way back when (even though the south sunk it so it didn't get captured), I don't see why it isn't the Navy's problem... just saying.... to the victor goes the spoils?

EDIT: and by the way, had Henry Welles blown it up back in 1868/1872 like the contract was for, this would be a mute point.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (May 7, 2012)

What I want to know is how the gunpowder/UXOs could possible be "dry" as described in the article. They say that the wood parts have "disintegrated," and I assume that the powder barrels were wood. Is there any way they could have been sealed in such a way that they would survive 150 years under water?


----------



## engineergurl (May 7, 2012)

If you read the actual arch report from the 2003 investigation, much of the wood was preserved because it was buried, also the area is brine. And the technology back than was not that archic, not all the gun powder was stored in wooden barrels.

I am really not trying to be a brat, I bring logic to the environmental end of things, so I'm just trying to bring it to the engineering end of it....


----------



## Road Guy (May 8, 2012)

Actually this is the fault of the imperialistic North, the Southern States freely entered into a Union, and they should have been allowed to freely exit it. so had the north not needed to eat and continue the unfair taxation of the South, and thus fired on Fort Sumter, then this war would not have been needed, and this ship would not have ever existed..

I just dont think anyone thinks this is worth $14 Million dollars to sit in a museum somewhere...Environmental Documents should require a B/C Analysis!


----------



## mudpuppy (May 8, 2012)

What's a B/C analysis? Birth Control? I think they could use some of that down there.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (May 8, 2012)

engineergurl said:


> Additionally, I want to point out that the article really did not represent the facts as they are.


Are you truly shocked at this?

BTW, thanks for the research. Interesting.



engineergurl said:


> EDIT: and by the way, had Henry Welles blown it up back in 1868/1872 like the contract was for, this would be a *mute* point.


It wouldn't necessarily be silent, but it would be moot.


----------



## Chucktown PE (May 8, 2012)

Road Guy said:


> Actually this is the fault of the imperialistic North, the Southern States freely entered into a Union, and they should have been allowed to freely exit it. so had the north not needed to eat and continue the unfair taxation of the South, and thus fired on Fort Sumter, then this war would not have been needed, and this ship would not have ever existed..
> 
> I just dont think anyone thinks this is worth $14 Million dollars to sit in a museum somewhere...Environmental Documents should require a B/C Analysis!


For the record, we fired on those Yankees out at Fort Sumter first.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (May 8, 2012)

Chucktown PE said:


> Road Guy said:
> 
> 
> > Actually this is the fault of the imperialistic North, the Southern States freely entered into a Union, and they should have been allowed to freely exit it. so had the north not needed to eat and continue the unfair taxation of the South, and thus fired on Fort Sumter, then this war would not have been needed, and this ship would not have ever existed..
> ...


Those Citadel guys screw everything up...


----------



## engineergurl (May 8, 2012)

mudpuppy said:


> What's a B/C analysis? Birth Control? I think they could use some of that down there.


Benefit/cost analysis.... all though knowing his feelings about NEPA, he could mean bull crap


----------



## Wolverine (May 8, 2012)

Chucktown PE said:


> Road Guy said:
> 
> 
> > Actually this is the fault of the imperialistic North, the Southern States freely entered into a Union, and they should have been allowed to freely exit it. so had the north not needed to eat and continue the unfair taxation of the South, and thus fired on Fort Sumter, then this war would not have been needed, and this ship would not have ever existed..
> ...


Yep, but they was askin' fer it.


----------



## Road Guy (May 8, 2012)

thats right I forgot that they were tresspassing on our property!

However the best way around NEPA is to have a local funding source and NOT utilize Federal Money. makes ones life a whole lot easier......


----------



## Chucktown PE (May 8, 2012)

Wolverine said:


> Chucktown PE said:
> 
> 
> > Road Guy said:
> ...


Damn straight, and it wasn't a Civil War. A Civil War is a war in which both parties are vying for control over one central government. The War Between the States, or War of Northern Aggression was a war fought such that the imperial federal government could exert control over a constitutional decentralized confederation.

My grandmother grew up in Charleston and her grandfathers both fought for the Confederacy. She said her grandmother used to tell her stories about having to evacuate Charleston when they thought that ass-clown Sherman was approaching. She said her grandmother wouldn't allow the Battle Hymn of the Republic to be played in her presence till her dying day because it was a Yankee song.


----------



## snickerd3 (May 8, 2012)

a lot of that $14 million is for the uxo...sorry, MEC (munitions and explosives of concern, using the current terms, as there is both UXO and gun powder present). It's an expensive task on land...let alone all the added issues being underwater.


----------



## engineergurl (May 8, 2012)

glad someone else chimed in since the environmental NEPA person should probably not be listened to...


----------



## Road Guy (May 9, 2012)

Heres one example of why I despise NEPA..

Back in 2004, there was a parcel of land that was privately owned (adjacent to a National Park). Racetrac (big gas station chain) wanted to buy the land and put a gas station in, sell slushies, etc.. The County I live in purchased the land out from under race trac and donated the land to the National Park, so that there wouldnt be a gas station in the middle of a civil war battelfield national park (about a $1.5 Million dollar "gift") one of the stipulations was that the County would have a permanent easement along the frontage of the property for a future intersection project....(it is shown in the deeds as such)

Well a few years later time goes by and that county gets ready to build their project and the National Park System (greedy bastards who received a very nice "gift") said the easement is okay but they want a NEPA document before any work was done.. so the Document said that the County, who spent $1.5 Million to help the park, would have to bring in "Native" soil for any work done along the proprty frontage and plant "native" plants to accomodate for the work done inside the "park"

This was in Georgia... the NEPA process said the Native Soils would have to come from Kentucky and that the Native Plants would need to come from Virginia (No Fucking Shit!!)

NEPA used to be about protecting the environment and now all it is is a paperwork exercise and an opportunity for agencies to use it as a way to generate revenue (receive work in exchange for allowing public works projects to be constructed in their vicinity)

Same County needed to replace a bridge over a RR inside a National Park (public Road, RR pre-dated Civil War,) Bridge was about to be closed.... NPS (through the NEPA Document) said that in order to grant a temporary easement to re construct the bridge (road right of way pre-dated National Park, but land around road was donated to NPS 100 years ago) that that County would have to construct a 150 space parking lot as "damages" to the park by reconstructing the bridge)


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (May 9, 2012)

I don't run into NEPA very often, but the various state versions of it that fall under that law. Volumes and volumes of binders and years of delays just to conclude a turtle might be inconvenienced.

I'm with MA on this one. I'm all for a historical relic being preserved, but is it worth it for $14M for some rotting, rusty old boat?


----------



## Master slacker (May 9, 2012)

If that "rotting, rusty old boat" was your ding-ding, would you want a dredging boat to tear it off?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (May 9, 2012)

Environmental laws have their place, but over the last thirty years or so, they have grown horribly, horribly out of control.


----------



## Wolverine (May 9, 2012)

&lt;insert hysteric Wolverine rant about power bill going up due to outlawing of coal here&gt;


----------



## Capt Worley PE (May 14, 2012)

I'm paying close to 12 cents kW hr...what's the rate there?

Oh, and a five percent increase is already a done deal here...


----------



## Supe (May 14, 2012)

5% rate hike is about $3 a month average for me. So, $36/yr, vs. the thousands I make building coal and nuclear power plants...


----------

