Following are sections of a report on ecological river flows written by number of water
experts and provided at a water conference in March of 2007. The report is in black
type. My comments and requests to legislators and the Corps are in blue. M. Massey
RESTORING ECOLOGICAL FLOWS TO THE LOWER SAVANNAH
RIVER: A COLLABORATIVE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Amanda Wrona1, Donna Wear2, Jason Ward3, Rebecca Sharitz4, Jay Rosenzweig5, Joseph P.
Richardson5, Douglas Peterson6, Steven Leach7, Linda Lee4, C. Rhett Jackson6, Judith
Gordon2, Mary Freeman8, Oscar Flite9, Gene Eidson9, Mary Davis10, and Darold Batzer11
AUTHORS: 1The Nature Conservancy, Savannah, GA, 2Dept. of Biology, Augusta State University, Augusta, GA, 3United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Savannah, GA, 4Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Aiken, SC, 5
Marine Sciences Program, Savannah State University, Savannah, GA, 6University of Georgia Warnell School of Forestry and
Natural Resources, 7Normandeau Associates, Inc., 8United States Geological Survey, Athens, GA, 9Southeastern Natural
Sciences Academy, Augusta, GA, 10The Nature Conservancy, Atlanta, GA, 11Dept. of Entomology, University of Georgia,
Athens, GA.
REFERENCE: Proceedings of the 2007 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held March 27–29, 2007, at the University of
Georgia.
From page 6 PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF SHORTNOSE STURGEON, ACIPENSER BREVITORUM, DAM
PASSAGE ENHANCEMENT WITH ECOSYSTEM FLOW RESTORATION
The Savannah River supports more than 108 native fish species representing 36 families, the greatest
number of species of any river that drains into the Atlantic. The Savannah River Basin is home to more than 75
species of rare or endangered plants and animals. Among these are 18 species of fishes tracked by the Georgia
and South Carolina Heritage Programs as species of concern including the federally endangered short nose
sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, one of few remaining relatively robust populations left on the Atlantic coast.
M. Massey Comment 1: A 2006 report by: K. Hill, Smithsonian Marine Station states :
(http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Acipes_brevir.htm)
II. HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION
Regional Occurrence:
Acipenser brevirostrum ranges along the entire Atlantic coast of North America, from the Saint John River in
New Brunswick, Canada to the St. Johns River, Florida (Gilbert 1989). The federal recovery plan (NMFS 1998)
for this endangered fish identifies 19 distinct population segments, each defined as a river/estuarine system in
which shortnose sturgeons have been captured within the generation time of the species (30 years). It is
significantly more common in northern portions of its range than it is in the south.
Abundance:
Shortnose sturgeons are listed as Endangered throughout their range; however, adults tend to be more abundant
in the north than in the south (Kynard 1996). Studies show populations in Maine, New York, and Connecticut
are apparently increasing slowly, to the point where they may become downlisted to Threatened at some point in
the future (NMFS 1998). However, in the Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida, low juvenile abundance
indicates that recruitment has not increased despite an apparent increase in the adult population from the
stocking of hatchery-reared fish during 1985-1992 (NMFS 1998; Collins et al. 2002).
M. Massey Comment 2: – Apparently this is not “one of few remaining relatively robust populations left on
the Atlantic coast.” There are plenty in the other Atlantic coast rivers and they are apparently thriving. This
means eggs and fry are available with a little work and expense. I expect an argument about different climates
and spawning periods would be made but at the same time, these fish have been adapting for millions of years.
From page 6 Prior to mainstream impoundment by dams, shoals existed in the Savannah River from Augusta upstream to
the mouth of the Tugaloo River, a distance of about 110 miles. The only existing shoal habitat in the Savannah
River is a 4.5 mile reach extending downstream from the Augusta Diversion Dam. In the early 1970’s the
Savannah River estuary contained 21-percent of the tidal freshwater marsh in Georgia and South Carolina and
these two states accounted for 28-percent of the tidal freshwater marsh along the Atlantic Seaboard. Since that
time the amount of tidal freshwater marsh in the estuary has been reduced due to harbor deepening and other
impacts.
M. Massey Comment 3: – The government has dammed up the river to help the people living along it by
providing flood control and to generate power. There apparently was little thought or study done on the impacts
of the dams to the sturgeon at that time. After the fact study of a pre-existing situation should not be disallowed
but certainly logic and reason must be applied more heavily in favor of current situational facts – especially
when the problem is not clearly defined and efforts to do so have not been successful as provided in this report.
From page 6 These two habitats are essential to adult shortnose sturgeon that spend a majority of their time in the
estuarine habitat and migrate upstream to spawning habitat (Collins et al., 1999). In Georgia, spawning takes
place in February-March in swiftly moving water over gravel and rocky substrates found in river shoals.
Spawning may occur 1-16 years after reaching sexual maturity (age 6 in females) and individuals may skip 3-10
years between spawning events. The eggs are sticky, and adhere to the substrate until they hatch. After hatching
the larval fish seek cover and hide until the yolk sack is absorbed and their sensory systems are fully developed.
They begin drifting downstream in March-April to the freshwater-saltwater interface into their nursery habitat.
M. Massey Comment 4: - OK – Allowing for the fact that the sturgeon are in the river and laying eggs,
according to the Corps press release on 2/1/09, the flow through the Thurmond Dam will be increased to 3,600
cfs “largely dictated by the presence of a specific species of endangered fish – the short-nosed sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum)”. The article also states the river must be protected to allow the fish to spawn each
season.
A question and a request comes to mind here:
If the spawning occurs in February to March and the eggs drift down to the ocean March to April, why can’t
the water flow be reduced to 3,100 cfs, or less, from May through January?
From page 6:
There are approximately 3,000 shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River. Research done in the Savannah
River in 1999-2000 (Collins et al. 2002) indicate that there has been no increase in recruitment into the
population over the past 8 years but that increased numbers of shortnose in the river was due to the stock
enhancement program from 1990-1992.
The design of the proposed pilot study was focused on the capture of adult shortnose sturgeon during early
spring months once they have migrated to the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam (NSBLD) , just prior to their
annual spring spawning.
M. Massey Comment 5: – The report states there is “no increase in recruitment”. By its omission we can
assume there has been no decrease as well. If that’s the case then the sturgeon population is steady here and
increasing elsewhere. Why don’t we let the river be managed to keep higher water in the lakes and monitor the
fish population until a real problem is identified? A decrease can always be supplemented by more fish taken
from eggs in the northern rivers where they are doing well! I don’t understand the major problem here where the
people in the upper basin must sacrifice livelihoods for a questionable problem.
From pages 6 and 7 Results
Only four fish were tagged in this 2006 pilot study. Fish size ranged from 908 to 990 mm total length. Tag
3903 was placed in a smaller fish of undetermined sex, on 3/9 and left the area on the same day. Tag 3902 was
placed in a gravid female fish on 3/9 and left the area on 3/12.
Tag 3901 placed in fish of undetermined sex on 3/12 and left the area on 3/13. Tag 03904 was placed in a
gravid female on 3/14 and left the area on 3/14. No data was collected from either of the receivers placed
upstream of the dam indicating that none of the tagged fish passed through NSBLD. No fish were located using
manual tracking of over 40 river miles downstream on March 23rd. On April 6th, 2 fish were located in the
Savannah River estuary and one fish (tag 3901) was located the next day as a result of a concurrent shortnose
sturgeon monitoring project in the Santee-Cooper river system in SC. This fish first appeared in the Santee
Cooper river study area on 3/30, over 300 miles from where it was tagged and released.
M. Massey Comment 6: The report states there is no data indicating the fish stayed within 40 miles of
NSBLD and definite data that three of them went down to the ocean and even out to a different river system over
300 miles away. The report does indicate there is definite proof that the fish are smart enough to know when they
should migrate out. There is NO indication in the report that further testing of this finding has been done before
suggesting the lake flows be increased to accommodate a very questionable and even hypothetical problem!!!!
From page 7 In a study of sturgeon tagged in the Santee-Copper River system, Cooke and Leach (2004) reported that one
fish tagged and released in the Santee-Cooper was found 715 days later in the Savannah River. This, along with
the one fish from this pilot study that migrated between the two systems, may indicate that the population in the
Savannah may be an important source for genetic variability within other southeastern rivers. Preliminary results
from this study indicate that ecosystem flow restoration may not be adequate alone to restore spawning success
in the Savannah River. Efforts should continue to restore spawning habitat by either a fish passage facility (such
as a ladder) and/or enhancing spawning habitat below the NSBLD.
M. Massey Comment 7: Three thoughts here:
1 – This report pretty well provided proof positive that there is genetic variability between the river systems.
That is a good thing. The fish go back and forth.
2 – “Preliminary results from this study” do not indicate there is a NEED to increase flow restoration related
to “spawning success”. The anticipated problem is clearly not validated, however, the price to pay in other
negative economic benefits upriver is tremendous – and validated.
3 – Put the fish passage facility in! This sounds like the first logical suggestion I have heard from this report.
This can probably be done at a fraction of the revenue being lost due to low water.
From page 7 Some scientists believe that surgical internal tagging through(???) may have interrupted the spawning
process in the tagged female fish. Cooke et al. 2002, looked at residence time in spawning area after tagging
suggested little impact indicating that the tagging technique used in this study is minimally invasive. In the
future we may consider external tag attachment since the results here may suggest aborted spawning.
M. Massey Comment 8:
It seems there is a question regarding how to tag a fish to get the desired study results. This has been done in
other studies. Should this not have been one of the first conditions and variables resolved? What has been done
since to better understand and resolve the tagging process?
From page 7 It is still unclear if short nose sturgeon, primarily a benthic fish, can pass thought the NSBLD even at ideal
water temperatures and flow conditions. An eight foot concrete sill is situated at the bottom of river (where the
flood gates rest when closed) and shortnose sturgeon may be unlikely to swim over it (Cooke et al., 2002).
M. Massey Comment 9:
I had to read this several times to be sure I understood what the study report is describing here. It is actually
pretty clear but I will leave it to the experts to take a good hard look at this conclusion and see if they want to
revise it – or at the least – consider an alternative like indicated in my comment 7-3.