COMMENTS TO CORPS ABOUT FISH PASSAGE AT AUGUSTA LOCK AND DAM LOCATION

Jerry Clontz who is one of our members sent the following email as a comment to the corps on the fish passage design basis. As stated in our last blog SOLN is concerned that the current design basis may lead to future problems with drought control .  Here is the comment.

comment on design of fish passage at augusta lock

 and dam location on savannah river

We noted from a recent release of balancing the basin that the pool will drop at Augusta/North
 Augusta for flows below 5,000cfs after the fish passage is built.

We are concerned that this situation will pit the cities against Lake interests and complicate future

 drought protection releases.

Why not look at the minimum flows that occur at this location during droughts of record (creeks plus

 thurmond = ???) and design the passage such that the pool at augusta will hold level at that flow

 through the passage?

If you wish to send comments to the corps, the address is CESAS-PD.SAS@USACE

.ARMY.MIL

Inbox

x

CORPS ABOUT TO DESTROY OUR LAKES

Sorry for the alarming heading but it is true.  Most people apparently have not realized yet the implications of the fish passage as currently designed.  The corps in their balancing the basin recently stated that the pool level at Augusta will drop anytime release rates from Thurmond dam drop below 5,000cfs. This is a bad design basis.  The fish passage should be designed such that the pool level at Augusta remains constant to release rates below 3000cfs.

Here is what a 5,000cfs basis means:

• Lake stakeholders will be in direct conflict with Augusta / North Augusta interests.  If we try to drop the release rates from Thurmond below 5,000cfs to avoid destroying the lakes during a major drought (we have had about 5 such droughts since the year 2000) it will destroy the pool level for the river flowing past Augusta and North Augusta.  That in turn will do both physical damage to the sides of the river and economic damage to Augusta and North Augusta. The Corps would simply sit idly by and let us fight it out.
• If the cities win the lakes will be destroyed.
• If lake interests win the corps will jump into the battle claiming that the poor sturgeon who have not been north of the Augusta lock and dam for almost a century must be permitted passage by maintaining release rates of 5000cfs or so.

This borders on criminal negligence by the Corps who spent over $2 million during the past several years to come up with a plan demanding 3600cfs releases from Thurmond during severe droughts.

Plans for Fish Passage for Lock and Dam replacement could spell disaster for lake levels during droughts

Following is a comment on "Balancing the Basin" site by one of our members.

"The numbers given in this explanation indicate drastic problems for lake level control. At present release rates from Thurmond of 3600cfs or higher are acceptable downstream.  Release rates higher than 3600cs during droughts cause drastic drops in lake levels. The design basis for this project should be based on 3600cfs or less, not 5,000cfs and higher.  The Corps knows these numbers well.  All lake stake holders need to demand a more rational design basis which includes protection against negatively impacting lake levels during drought conditions."

Save Our Lakes Now agrees with these comments and recommends a totally different design basis for the fish passage.  What the Corps is proposing now with the fish passage being put in replacing the current Augusta Lock and Dam could exacerbate lake level problems during droughts to intolerable extremes. The current design proposal shows a 2ft drop in river level along the shores of Augusta and North Augusta with release rates from Thurmond of 5,000cfs.  Apparently release rates from Thurmond dam below 5,000cfs would drop the river at Augusta and North Augusta to unacceptable levels with the fish passage.  The corps knows full well 5,000cfs release rates from Thurmond dam during droughts can literally destroy our lakes.  This design basis is unacceptable and we need to insist on a more rational design basis that protects both lake levels and river levels at Augusta during the worst droughts of record.