Light at the End of The Tunnel?

Whie the U.S. Corps of Engineers (The Corps) was aware of the pending lawsuit that would extinguish their existing planning and demolition efforts associated with with Alternative 2-6d (removing the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam and replacing the dam’s water containment functionality with an artificial rock weir, thereby lowering the pool levels at downtown Augusta and north Augusta), they continued to move forward as if their instructions were “full steam ahead.”

Well, not only did U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel order an injunction against the Corps to cease and desist, it appears that any of the Corps’ remaining steam will have to be redirected to finding an alternative plan that restores the existing dam structure, thereby preserving the communities’ ability to control the pool existing level and resurrecting, what this organization has called, a “common sense fish bypass” that satisfies the Savannah Harbor Deepening Project’s mitigation requirements.

This organization feels certain the the Riverkeeper will inevitably reveal another card or two up their sleeve; regardless, we are grateful that our many years of effort have finally gained traction.

It should never have been this difficult. The entire dam renovation project, in conjunction with a fish bypass as approved in 2012, would have been completed long, and many millions of dollars, ago.

Making Progress/Opinion from Augusta Comissioner

This recent Opinion letter in the Augusta Chronicle represents a refreshingly well articulated position from an elected official on the Augusta, GA side of the issue.

By Brandon Garrett

Posted Sep 5, 2020 at 6:30 PM   

For 25 years Savannah has been trying to deepen its harbor. For 25 years they’ve needed some way to lessen the harbor project’s impact on sturgeon. Removing the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam was the price for environmental groups and agencies. Starting in 1995 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers tried, but instead then-U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood got a law passed requiring the federal government to maintain the lock and dam, repair it and then turn it over to locals.

But the harbor still needed dredging, and the lock and dam was still the price.

So despite the law that was on the books, the lock and dam was never repaired or turned over to locals. And it hasn’t been maintained.

The Norwood law was repealed in 2016, but Augusta-area officials are currently supporting a return to it. Honestly, the Corps-induced drawdown of the river last year left us no option. And it wasn’t just that the pool was way lower than the Corps predicted, either. Folks understood the pool would be worse. But few anticipated the constant and drastic pool fluctuations and quickness of the current. All of a sudden the pool looked way less safe and harder to access. It looked way uglier with the mudflats.

The drawdown really brought into focus the beauty of the system put in place by the Corps and Congress more than 80 years ago. The lock and dam lifts the pool in drought and allows access to 200 miles of river and the sea, all while passing debris, sediment and floodwaters harmlessly downstream. Maybe we took for granted the fact that federal law requires the Corps to operate gates at Thurmond Lake and the lock and dam to maintain the pool at a steady, safe and predictable water level of about 114.5 feet.

But with the drawdown, our water supply — along with events such as the Ironman triathlon and the regatta, and hundreds of millions in recent economic riverfront investment — suddenly flashed before our eyes. And losing our access to the river and the sea is a tough pill to swallow.

Compromises suggested by Augusta and North Augusta were declined and we sued. I can’t say much about the lawsuits or the negotiations, but I can say that our approach all along has been science- and solutions-oriented. We’ve learned a lot.

Apparently there’s a movement in this country called “dam-busting,” and removing structures such as the lock and dam from rivers is a very big deal. That’s all fine and good but we don’t think these folks understood the impacts it would have on our communities. Anyway, it really doesn’t address the sturgeon issue the harbor has.

We literally can’t find a single rock weir anywhere in the world that has been successful for passing these sturgeon. In 2018, government fisheries biologist Fritz Rohde was in town, and The Augusta Chronicle reported that he pointed to a weir in North Carolina’s Cape Fear River as a successful example. But the Nature Conservancy says even the Cape Fear weir has been a failure.

Also, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the expert panel hired by the Corps tell us the rock weir could actually injure or kill sturgeon. The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and others are very concerned about this and other ways the weir could actually do more harm than good for the sturgeon.

Our experts say the habitat above the lock and dam is likely not even any good for sturgeon anymore because of the Augusta Canal and the lakes above. There’s probably nothing for sturgeon to eat above the lock and dam, and the flows, temperature and water quality may not be good for sturgeon. Groups such as the Savannah Riverkeeper and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are also concerned about these things.

And even if everything goes just right, there are only about 15 miles of habitat above the lock and dam. Meanwhile, below the lock and dam, there’s hundreds of miles and thousands of coastal acres that could be improved to actually help the sturgeon that are affected by harbor dredging. Years ago, Congress authorized this approach. In addition to repairing the lock and dam and turning it over to locals, the legislation we’re after in Congress now would add to this effort.

The Corps has given the lock and dam a very safe rating, but we need to know about the condition of the lock and dam, which hasn’t been maintained during the entire 25 years of the harbor deepening process. The Consortium of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam — composed of the governments of Augusta, North Augusta and Aiken County — has funded a dive team and an inspection and we are expecting a report in October, assuming the Corps continues to cooperate.

Nothing’s easy with the Corps. It has prohibited an inspection until very recently and has even refused to share the info it has from inspections regarding the lock and dam’s condition.

The inspection will show which direction is the most fiscally responsible course of action moving on. It may be that the feds should fund much-needed repairs after they allowed it to get in the current condition. Or, if the inspection shows it is in much more dire condition, we will have to accept that and move forward with the best possible solution for salvaging the river we know and love and keeping as much water in the pool as possible.

Looking ahead to the next few months, we are encouraged by the work of our legislative bodies and by the legal efforts to reach a positive solution.

Please continue to reach out to Georgia and South Carolina state and federal elected officials to voice your support for saving our river pool.

The writer represents District 8 on the Augusta Commission.

Fox in the Henhouse?

Reputed as much, if not more, for their political and legal maneuvering than their interests in truly balancing their clearly stated mission to remove the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam (reference Savannah RiverKeeper website: “With our Rock the Dam campaign, SRK advocates for the replacement of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam with a rock weir.”), can a court truly determine that they should be allowed to join the plaintiff’s lawsuit that opposes its removal?

Given the rain events of the past few months, it should be clear to anyone with any remote sense of logic that, if a weir structure were in place today, that the river at downtown Augusta and North Augusta, would be getting shallower via the accretion of measurable silt buildup behind the weir by the minute.

To cite an article from the International Rivers relating to sediment problems with dams, “Sediment flows vary widely both annually and seasonally over time – far more than water flows – and so calculating an annual average needs a long run of data. According to Mahmood, dam planners should ideally have sediment statistics going back over a period equal to at least half the projected life of the dam… sedimentation is still probably the most serious technical problem faced by the dam industry.”

Despite the RiverKeeper’s mission to return the river to its natural state, how is it not clear that what they have proposed, and nearly accomplished with the NSBL&D is to remove a functional manmade dam that has the functional capacity to eliminate sediment build-up via a dam structure with gates that can be lifted out of the water during heavy flow periods. Instead, they are proposing a replacement (also manmade, by the way) that maintains the illusion of a more natural river feature, but is in actuality a non-functioning dam that will precipitate an upstream river which will become shallower and shallower with every single rain event and, eventually create a maintenance burden that exponentially eclipses any maintenance associated with what we have now.

A “weir” is, by definition, a dam. “A weir /wɪər/ or low head dam is a barrier across the width of a river that alters the flow characteristics of water and usually results in a change in the height of the river level. There are many designs of weir, but commonly water flows freely over the top of the weir crest before cascading down to a lower level.” But unlike a restored NSBL&D, we have all been duped to think that we would be eliminating an unnatural obstruction for something natural; but in actuality is only design to look natural.

The Corp has created maintenance cost estimates for a repaired NSBL&D that dauntingly support their final proposal but have no statistical support that we have seen. Where is their study about sedimentation statistics with regard to the immovable weir? How much time before North Augusta, South Augusta and local industries are sucking mud into their water treatment facilities? How much time before the river “silts-up” behind a weir when the channel capacity is clogged to the extent that the emergency overflow in alternative 2-6d becomes the channel? What is the cost burden to continually dredge the upstream river to avoid this? What is the cost burden to landowners related to the ecological condemnation of properties associated with a floodplain line that increases at a rate equal to the decrease is flow volume associated with increases in sediment.”

The Savannah RiverKeeper’s position supports this inevitability? This is the reality They simply cannot be allowed to interfere with the goals of the plaintiffs to avoid this potential catastrophe for our cities. In today’s world, who knows?

Sound Legal Case

Noel Schweers, General Counsel for Morris Communications Co. LLC, the previous owner of The Augusta Chronicle, posted this very articulate and sound argument for the legal case against the Corp, as well as bringing to light concerns related to the legality of The Riverkeeper’s use of government funds and lobbying efforts, which are non-compliant with their non-profit status.

AUGUSTA, GA - December 15, 2019

Augusta’s Access to the Sea Must be Protected By J. Noel Schweers III Guest Columnist Posted Dec 14, 2019 at 6:31 PM Augusta’s joining with the state of South Carolina in its lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a very positive development. Hopefully, this united front will encourage the Corps to reconsider its plan to remove the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam and replace it with a big pile of rocks. When I penned a column Feb. 24 describing the legal history of the battle (“Was Augusta’s river input thwarted intentionally?”), I naively believed that the Corps, the Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) and our elected officials would change course once the deceptive back-room maneuverings involved in getting the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (the WIIN Act) became public. Clearly, that was not to be. The Corps’ resolve remains undeterred by such things as public outcry, clear technical errors, shame, common sense or the plain language of the new law. They apparently intend to ignore any facts that do not support their position. For example, I wrote the Corps in October to point out that the commencement of final dredging in the Savannah Harbor, without simultaneously commencing construction of an out-of-channel fish passage, violated the court-approved agreement to comply with the 2011 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion. The only response was what appeared to be a form letter, thanking me for my interest. Therefore, when I discovered another overlooked or ignored problem, I decided to raise my concerns in this forum, in the hope that public disclosure will encourage the Corps to comply with the law. While this column may not deter the Corps, it will at least alert them that we are aware of their erroneous actions. As is now well-known, the protections then-U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood obtained for the Lock and Dam from Congress in 2000 were reversed through the clandestine efforts of the Savannah Riverkeeper, the GPA and the Corps. The objective they sought, and achieved in the WIIN Act, was the “deauthorization” of the Lock and Dam. The impact of this ambiguous legal term must be understood to appreciate our current plight. When Congress determines that a civil works project is worthy of federal support, it “authorizes” the project to be eligible for federal funding. Deauthorization involves revoking this approval, and normally follows a regimented two-year public evaluation of the merits of the project called a disposition study, which requires public comment. After deauthorization, the project is ineligible to receive federal funds or protection. The calculated actions taken to get the WIIN Act provision enacted intentionally deprived us of our ability to object. In fact, the parties working on the law did not even notify the congressional representatives for the impacted areas, Rick Allen and Joe Wilson, until the Senate had it quietly added to large infrastructure bill destined for passage. people opposing the Lock and Dam, the loudest of which has been Riverkeeper Tonya Bonitatibus, lecture us that the deauthorization is a done deal and we need to get over it. Unfortunately, they may be correct, at least as to the deauthorization. The deauthorization, the self-proclaimed legal and scientific experts claim, means that we must either choose Option A (accept a rock weir that results in a lower river level), or Option B (pony up $27 million to fund a higher weir, which will cause increased flooding, but still not maintain the pool). Fortunately, they are wrong. While the Lock and Dam deauthorization has occurred, there remains an authorized project that should block the anti-Lock-and-Dammers’ scheme. In 1736, Gen. James Oglethorpe sent a detachment of soldiers from Savannah to establish Fort Augusta at the river’s navigable limits. At the time, the river was subject to significant unpredictable fluctuations. These fluctuations caused flooding during the rainy season and very shallow areas during dry spells. This made year-round navigation difficult. Over the next 200-plus years, many improvements were made at great expense to remedy these problems. One such improvement was made when the Lock and Dam was built. Congress authorized certain dredging to create a 6-foot-deep channel from Savannah to Augusta to accommodate the vessels in use at the time. This project was dubbed Savannah River Below Augusta, or SRBA. In 1950, Congress modified the SRBA authorization to require the Corps to create and maintain a 9-foot deep, 90-foot wide navigation channel from downtown Augusta to Savannah, to support a renewed interest in commercial river traffic. As part of these improvements, the channel was straightened to overcome some of the river’s most meandering sections. This shortened the route between the two cities by about 30 miles. Not surprisingly, the Corps ceased maintaining the channel based upon its opinion that commercial traffic had declined to an extent that they should be freed from this burden. Despite this, the channel is still a congressionally authorized and a reliable mode of transportation. In fact, the GPA’s top man, Executive Director Griff Lynch, extolled the river’s virtues in a June 11, 2016, article (“Barge delivers first cargo up Savannah River in 40 years”) in the Savannah Morning News. In the article, which reported the successful barge transport of a 700,000-pound piece of equipment to PSC Nitrogen’s Augusta plant, Mr. Lynch boasted how the trip “demonstrates Savannah’s ability to move super-sized cargo inland via river barge.” He went on to describe the River as “a useful option when a cargo’s size and weight complicate overland transit.” The SRBA’s channel is important today because it uses the still-repairable lock to permit navigation from Savannah to Augusta upstream of the 13th Street Bridge. This is the same route taken by Oglethorpe’s soldiers 243 years ago. In an apparent violation of its core mission of ensuring rivers remain navigable, the Corps plans to permanently block any navigation on the congressionally-mandated channel with an ill-conceived rock weir. While it is possible that this issue is unknown to the Corps, the facts suggest otherwise. Just last year, two years after the deauthorization law, the Corps approved the Savannah Riverkeeper as the sole sponsor of a little-known study to determine the feasibility of returning the river to its original, circuitous route. The Corps is likely to rely on this study as a justification for the commencement of the two-year-long Disposition Study, which they evaded on the Lock and Dam. It is important to know that, as the nonfederal sponsor, the Riverkeeper is required to pay 50% of the cost of the approximately $3 million study. The balance of the cost is to be funded by the Corps. The Riverkeeper has apparently convinced governmental officials in Augusta, Savannah and Columbia County to fund, or commit to fund, at least a substantial portion of her $1.5 million share of the project. So far, the city of Savannah has paid $360,000. Columbia County has paid $120,000 and committed to pay another $60,000 next year. The amount of Augusta’s commitment is currently unavailable. However, the city’s website discloses multiple payments made to the Riverkeeper for unknown reasons totaling $92,702.26 over the years. Giving large amounts of public funds money to a private, nonprofit corporation - which is not subject to regulation or public scrutiny - should not be done. Allowing the Riverkeeper to control public funds is especially troubling considering that, at least as to the WIIN Act, the organization has engaged in direct lobbying activities. This is despite the fact that tax-exempt organizations are prohibited from engaging in such activities, if a substantial part of its activities. However, a determination of the scope of the Riverkeeper’s lobbying activities cannot be made because the required disclosure details were not included in its annual tax filings. It is clear that the Corps must not block the channel, nor take any actions to jeopardize its 9-foot minimum depth, as long as it remains officially authorized. We must do everything possible to halt the proposed deauthorization of the channel. This includes informing our federal officials that another deauthorization is unacceptable, and demanding our local officials cease funding the Riverkeeper’s feasibility study. The actions to date may not be completely reversible, but we can stop those who wish to alter our river, without regard to the communities’ wishes.

Metro Spirit Tells it like it is

Why did Augusta hire a highly-motivated dam buster to help them save their dam?

The InsiderDecember 11, 2019

Insiders want Augusta to fire the Riverkeeper

Savannah Riverkeeper Tonya Bonitatibus has millions of reasons to want Augusta’s Lock and Dam gone.

The Spirit has reported on the Riverkeeper’s 2013 Savannah Harbor Settlement on multiple occasions. The Settlement pays $12.5 million to a Board that will be headed by Bonitatibus if the Harbor dredging is completed.

But, as things currently stand, dredging can’t be completed—and the $12.5 million won’t be paid—if the dam isn’t removed.

Sure, sure, we get it… this money doesn’t pay out to the Riverkeeper directly. But we hope Bonitatibus will spare us all from insulting our collective intelligence with claims she and her organization don’t benefit in huge ways from this money and the decades worth of work it will entail—if the dam is removed and the dredging completed.

The 2013 settlement aside, Bonitatibus is the leader of an environmental organization whose parent organization (the Waterkeeper Alliance) is all about dam removals. In fact, just a few months ago, Bonitatibus was actually rewarded for her hard work to remove the Lock and Dam. She has been elevated to a leadership position at the Waterkeeper Alliance and she now serves alongside serial dam killers like Bobby Kennedy, Jr. and Dr. Gary Wockner.

See here for a video of Wockner explaining how Waterkeeper Alliance’s “Free Flowing Rivers” initiative “provide[s] support and services to local waterkeeper organizations that are protecting rivers and fighting dams.”

Have a look here for the scoop on Bonitatibus’ recent rise in the “free flowing rivers” ranks.

Given all this, Insiders are completely confused why Augusta continues to employ Bonitatibus’ services. Her seat at the negotiating table should be burned.

But instead, the Augusta Chronicle’s Sylvia Cooper reported this past Sunday Savannah Riverkeeper Executive Director Tonya Bonitatibus is still representing Augusta in this Lock and Dam deal and arranging meetings between Augusta, the Georgia Ports Authority and the Corps of Engineers.

Seriously?

The Riverkeeper’s goals are 180 degrees different from Augusta’s. Consider the fact that Augusta, Columbia County, Aiken County and North Augusta governments all passed resolutions and otherwise stood together in their demand that the dam be kept in place.

Insiders are also perplexed as to why Augusta continues to deliver up hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and prizes (for various services, pet projects and other perks) to Savannah Riverkeeper and its bank accounts.

Her numerous conflicts of interest aside, Insiders have provided mountains of evidence that Bonitatibus’ handle on these issues is actually quite shaky. Her strong suit is definitely in sales… not science.

And her marketing skills are at ninja level. If this Riverkeeper gig doesn’t work out we pity the poor stiffs who stumble onto her used RV lot looking for a deal. Ninja.

So, look, Augusta… real talk. We get it. The Riverkeeper has a special brand of aggressive self-serving cluelessness. Media outlets have relied on her for copy and quotes for years, back when it was all ‘removing debris from the river’ type feel good stories.

In January of 2019 the Metro Spirit published an article entitled “Could Augusta lose its chances at a Whitewater Park?” Before that, in February of 2018, we published a piece entitled “Augusta should spend $10,000 on a Whitewater Study.”

Ouch.

At that time, we reported with great annoyance that the Augusta Commission was hesitant to spend $10,000 on Whitewater because Congressman “Rick Allen [was] leading the charge to get the Lock and Dam reauthorized” and, as we reported, “Augusta commissioners seem[ed] leery about moving forward with a whitewater study if Allen has another proposal up his sleeve.”

In retrospect it is painfully obvious right now that Augusta should have ignored Bonitatibus and begged Rick Allen to see up the sleeve.

But it was so easy to buy what she was selling. She has a way of saying things so authoritatively you think to yourself, ‘she must know what she is talking about because no one would talk like this if they didn’t know what they were talking about.’

But she really doesn’t know what she’s talking about. This is her genius.

It appears Augusta media outlets could not resist the siren song wafting from the banks of the Savannah River. Enchanted, we believed her when she hustled us ashore to show us the whitewater snake oil she’d brewed up in the $1.00 per year, 14 acre compound Augusta provides to her rent free. metrospirit.com/the-riverkeepers-100-year-lease/).

Like Augusta, we were scared to death when she said the Lock and Dam was in “imminent failure status” and it could fall in the river at any moment. But we were reassured to learn her whitewater plan would make everything okay.

Her plan was going save the lock and it was meant to save our current pool levels at downtown Augusta as well. We were fired up when she told us the rock weir would save our communities so much money (yes, in case you missed it, the Riverkeeper is huge on fiscal responsibility) and we were very reassured when she said the rock weir was not a boondoggle at all. We were told there is a successful rock weir just like this one in North Carolina.

Folks were so desperate and enchanted they even forgot we lived in America. When she said the Lock and Dam is a lost cause, and nothing can be done to save it, we believed her. Even as recently as this past Monday, she told George Eskola the “dam is gone.”

And hopefully everyone has remembered by now that we do in fact live in America and laws can be written or amended to do damn near anything—including save our pool, our drinking water and all the other benefits the River has conferred to our area for hundreds of years.

Long distance dedication going out to the Riverkeeper and everyone who forgot how all this “Bill on Capitol Hill” stuff works.

And Bonitatitabus knows this. What did she do when she wanted a law that removed the Lock and Dam? She went to Washington and asked for it. Now Augusta should fire the Riverkeeper and hire someone to go to Washington to undo the law that even she now admits isn’t turning out like she planned.

But, as it turns out, only the February River drawdown and its aftermath could break the spell many Augustan’s were under in regards to the Riverkeeper.

Even the Corps now says they are “not expecting an imminent collapse” of the Lock and Dam and the Lock and Dam is rated as “Low Urgency.”

Bonitatibus is now admitting the River will drop by two feet. But the Corps is owning up to three feet; and the State of South Carolina and Augusta have both filed lawsuits revealing the ugly reality: the River will drop by over five feet with the rock weir.

At the end of the day, Bonitatibus pitched whitewater as a snake oil cure-all for the Lock and Dam crisis. A chorus of local stakeholders told the Commission this was ludicrous because the Corps wouldn’t pay any attention to whitewater.

They were right and Bonitatibus was wrong. The Corps brushed whitewater off like a fly and they have no intention at all of leaving us with a lock or access to the Atlantic Ocean.

And this rock weir is in fact a boondoggle because the North Carolina project the Riverkeeper kept selling has been a complete failure at passing sturgeon, or even bass.

This rock weir will cost more than double the project the Riverkeeper worked to eliminate. The kicker: none of this cost was ever going to be paid with local money. The feds and the state are on the hook for all of it. Just another crisis the Riverkeeper conjured.

By the time Augusta Mayor Hardie Davis realizing the snake oil wasn’t working in April, the drawdown was in the books so much damage was already done. Mayor Davis took a personal point of privilege around that time to say, “The Savannah Riverkeeper does not speak for the City of Augusta. The Savannah Riverkeeper does not speak for the City of Augusta. The Savannah Riverkeeper does not speak for the City of Augusta.”

But Insiders are concerned Bonitatibus gets what she wants because Augusta’s Utility Director Tom Wiedmeier serves as Secretary on the Savannah Riverkeeper Board. Wiedmeier was tasked with heading up Augusta’s Lock and Dam crisis management up until he and Mayor Davis fell out over the Riverkeeper’s oversized role in all this.

Regardless, here we have a person in Bonitatibus that is pretty clueless with regard to science or policy. She’s known to play fast and loose with reality and the facts. And she’s highly motivated for millions of reasons to remove the Lock and Dam.

The obvious result: Bonitatibus will apparently say and do anything to achieve a result completely at odds to the goals of Augusta, North Augusta, and Columbia and Aiken Counties. Our elected folks want to keep the dam but the Riverkeeper is fighting that for everything she’s worth.

Whether it’s incompetence or malice, it’s seems pretty clear Bonitatibus has sold us down the river. Letting the Riverkeeper run this initiative was a huge mistake.

The reality is the sooner we stop listening to the Riverkeeper and her friends at Georgia Ports Authority, the sooner we can come together to get to the real job of finding a solution that can undo this boondoggle with legislation. Thanks to the recent lawsuits, it’s still not too late.

But including the dam ninja in these discussions makes no sense. And it’s hard to imagine how walking into meetings she’s setting up can end positively either.

It’s time for Augusta to remove the Riverkeeper from the effort to Save the Lock.

So Much for Dialogue

After years and months of attempted engagement between this grassroots organization (represented by influential Civic and Business leaders, City and State Governments and Congressmen any thousands of area citizens), it appears that the Corp has muscled on with their own plans and simply tolerated public input at the various private engagements and public meetings and moved on with their plan to demolish the dam and construct the most aggressive rock weir alternative. This final decision, announced October 29, reflects virtually zero consideration for any public comment (except to effectuate the goal of the Riverkeeper, which amazingly maintains the oddest of working relationships with the Corp’s despite the otherwise litigious relationship between the two entities).

There is plenty in the news these days reflecting the public’s bafflement of a decision that defies literally every single part of the Corp’s own, excruciatingly detailed, independent study warning that the solution they have chosen is too expensive; does not comply with the law (2016 WIIN Act); grossly increases the risk of upstream flooding and will not be adapted by migrating sturgeon. It even states that if a sturgeon does make it upstream that they are likely to die on their way back down, as their lethargic swimming ability, combined with strong downstream current, will cause traumatic brain injury for the fish as they crash into the rocks put in place to take them up (How about that… a solution that stands to negatively impact the population of protected fish greater than the alleged saltwater intrusion in Savannah that created the mitigation boondoggle to begin with!).

Where do we go from here? It appears that dialogue with the Corp is off the list given that they have clearly ignored every attempt at constructive dialogue and consensus. They even paid for input that was provided in the independent Battelle report and ignored that. So, so much for dialogue.

Below you will see that South Carolina is saddling up for litigation. On the meantime, we will keep getting signatures to the SMS Petition and try our best to encourage GPA to stand up and take a position that demands a solution that does not sabotage the needs of the Augusta and North Augusta communities. GPA has its harbor… they are dredging now. Why not stand up and support their sister community upstream? This is the only way that the Georgia Senators will get on board. As it stands now, they have been - and are - the missing link and the only potential leverage with the Corp.

South Carolina Takes Action

The City of North Augusta, South Carolina has remained vigilant about saving the Savannah River pool level above the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam for years, both as an original member of the “Consortium,” which is represented also by the CIty of Augusta and the various industries which depend on this pool level for their livelihood.

As an original member of the Save the Middle Savannah grassroots initiative, they have been consistent in stating that, if the Savannah River Ports Authority and Corps of Engineers do not ultimately develop a plan that protects the City, and South Carolina Industries along the river, they they will help lead a concerted effort to intervene. Given the unyielding nature of the Corp to-date, and the inherent desire of our local Riverkeepers organization to restore the river to its natural state, this time has come, as evidenced by the The South Carolina House of Representatives recent budget proviso that would prohibit the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control from using funds “to approve the licensing, permitting, authorization or certification related to the new Savannah River Bluff Lock & Dam so as to maintain the current water level.”

Time will tell how effective this will be; but the Savannah Ports Authority and the Corp seem to have forgotten that there are two states involved here, and that there are more cities than the CIty of Savannah, GA that depend on this river.

Corp of Engineers Workshop on Lock and Dam, March 6

Please plan to attend the important Corp of Engineers workshop on March 3 at the Lamar Room in the Augusta Marriott from 4-6pm on March 6, 2019. It is critical that the Corp receive community feedback on the importance of finding a solution for the upstream sturgeon mitigation that protects the pool level at downtown Augusta and North Augusta (as required by the 2016 WINN Act), particularly in view of the drastic effect of the proposed lowered level defined in the preferred Corp alternative associated with removal of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and dam in place of a fixed rock weir with no gate controls. See link to the event from WJBF Channel 6.

Save the Middle Savannah River Fact Sheet

Share this fact sheet to easily share our goals!

What is the Issue? 

• The New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, through its five remotely operated dam gates, provides critical functions for the Central Savannah River Area (CSRA) – it creates a steady, controlled 10mile long River Pool, and it routinely minimizes flood water levels during storm events while "flushing" silt and other debris flow which would otherwise accumulate behind the dam structure.

• The US Army Corps of Engineers was required by Congress to conduct essential repairs to the Lock and Dam. The Corps never performed the mandated repairs.  The Lock and Dam remains in critical need of repair.

• The Corps is evaluating whether to remove the Lock and Dam and replace it with a permanent, inriver rock weir to provide passage for endangered fish species – a solution that will create new and significant risks to the CSRA communities. 

What are the risks to our communities?

Replacement of the Lock and Dam with a rock weir would be potentially disastrous on a number of levels.  According to the Corps’ own reports, the rock weir could…...

• Cost as much as twice the cost of repairing the Lock and Dam and constructing a fish bypass;
• Critically and permanently lower the lever of the River Pool, endangering water supplies, as well as devastating the recreational and business opportunities of the riverfront – such as the River Walk, North Augusta's Project Jackson, and boat and swim races, and loss of the millions in revenue these activities generate for the CSRA;
• Magnify flood risks in storm events which are already affecting North Augusta riverfront communities and affect the insurability of properties along the river resulting from changes in floodplain and floodway effectuated by this obstruction.
• Result in permanent loss of river navigation from Augusta to Savannah
• Create siltation and debris buildup, threatening water supplies, river users, wildlife habitat;
• Potentially cause temporary loss  of the pool during weir construction; and
•  Impose an unknown, uncertain future for the CSRA.

Repairing the Lock and Dam and constructing a modest fish bypass is the cost-effective, practical, workable and protective solution that serves all needs.

How Can I Get Involved?

• Voice your concerns – Register your name and email on this website, which will trigger an email letter to the Corp and the federal delegations for both middle GA and SC stating your support for the Save the Middle Savannah cause.
• Submit written comments to the Corps by June 3rd at  CESAS-PD@usace.army.mi
• Continue to voice your concerns to the Corp and to your state and federal legislative delegation even after the June 3rd comment period.
• Join with other CSRA stakeholders to support the Save the Middle Savannah River -- to promote the Lock and Dam restoration and fish bypass solution through legislative and local action. 
• TELL OTHERS AND ENCOURAGE YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO SAVE THE MIDDLE SAVANNAH

Comments on Corps Misconceptions

By Tom Robertson, PE

Tom has more than forty years experience with Cranston Engineering and as a consultant for a wide variety of civil engineering, planning, urban design, land surveying, and historic engineering projects throughout the southeast.  In his engineering practice, he has a sound background in flood plain studies and in the design of dams, canals, and levees. Additionally, his experience includes safety inspections under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) guidelines.

---

I grew up fishing at the New Savannah Buff Lock and Dam and have spent nearly a lifetime engineering and planning for things that are dependent on its upstream pool.

I have reviewed the your posting of alleged “Misconceptions on Fish Passage Corrected,” and find that most of what you call “misconceptions” are actually official information taken straight from the Corps’ own documents, including the estimated costs.  Other “assumptions or misinformation circulating within the community” are not that at all; rather, they are the Corps’ mischaracterizations of those assumptions.  I have helped the “Save the Middle Savannah River” group formulate thoughtful comments on the currently-open scoping notice.  That group’s official comments, to be sent to the Corps later this month, will address these issues in detail, which are too complicated to recount here. 

Rising above those details, let’s look at the overall picture of the Middle Savannah River situation in its simplest terms:   

We currently have an aged Lock and Dam with five adjustable spillway gates and a navigation lock.  When we get a flood event, the gates are opened as needed to let the water out.  Thus, they are used to regulate the pool level upstream.  When the gates are fully open, the river doesn’t even know the dam is there.  

If we had a stone weir or ramp across the river instead of the gates, it would be impossible to move them out of the way and open up the channel in times of flood, as is routinely done now with the dam.  Therefore, if we got a similar flood event with the weir, the waters would have to go somewhere.  Of course, they will go over the top and the water levels will rise upstream. Or, an excavated flood runaround pathway would be needed to carry the water at the same levels. 

For the extreme event of the 100-year flood, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations provide that any change in river channel or floodplain must cause no-rise in that flood.  The FEMA computer model for the Savannah River assumes that the Lock and Dam gates are wide open when a flood of that magnitude happens.  My experience with FEMA is that “no-rise” means “NO-RISE.”  Zero.  So, we can assume that the project cannot raise the 100 – year flood level. 

Nor can the project lower the normal pool level.  The WIIN law requires the project to maintain the current pool “as in existence on the date of enactment of this Act.” 

Therefore, the WIIN Act alternatives, as drafted, are entirely unworkable – since the pool cannot be lowered and the flood levels cannot be raised.  Physically you cannot have it both ways.  It doesn’t take an engineer to figure that out. 

Fortunately there is a common-sense solution that addresses all risks for the greater Augusta area and serves the goals of the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project.  A modest-sized fish bypass, similar to the already-approved 2012 Fish Passage, would work quite well when the Lock and Dam is simultaneously repaired to support it.  Moreover, this plan would appear to cost the least of all the alternatives heretofore proffered.  It is already environmentally vetted, and is virtually shovel-ready -- the quickest to implement.   

Why would we not do that?

A Common Sense Solution

Proposed by Augusta-area Stakeholders 

---

The Problem

Neither of the WIIN Act Rock Weir alternatives (the free-standing rock weir or the rock ramp over the dam) will meet the technical requirements that Congress included in the WIIN Act.  They are entirely unworkable – because the pool cannot be lowered and the flood levels cannot be raised.  Further, the Rock Weir alternatives would impose unnecessary and unreasonable economic, human health, safety, and environmental risks on the citizens, businesses and municipalities of the Central Savannah River Area (CSRA). 

The Risks

According to the Corps own documents, the Rock Weir alternatives could . . .  

• Cost more, as much as twice the cost of repairing the Lock and Dam and constructing a fish bypass;  

• Potentially lower the river pool (notwithstanding the WIIN Act’s direction to the contrary); "
• Potentially cause increased flood risks (in spite of FEMA regulations prohibiting raising the flood level);
• Result in permanent loss of river navigation;  
• Cause siltation and debris buildup;  
• Include temporary loss of the pool during weir construction; and
• Impose an uncertain environmental and economic future for the CSRA. 

The Common-Sense Solution   

Fortunately, there is a solution that would align the environmental mitigation requirements of the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP) with most of the goals of the Corps of Engineers, the Consortium for the Lock and Dam and the vital interests of both the Central Savannah River Area (CSRA) businesses and the broader Middle Savannah River communities under a commonsense, workable plan, at a reasonable, if not substantially lower, cost than the other solutions.  It is already environmentally vetted, and is virtually shovel-ready. The solution includes the following major components:

• Rehabilitation of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam consistent with the intent of the WIIN Act and the mitigation needs of the SHEP project, thereby protecting: navigation and recreation, control of the pool for some flood regulation, and to support the many events that depend on a pool that can be easier regulated, such as the Augusta Drag Boat Races, Iron Man, etc.

• Construction of a Fish Bypass around the Lock and Dam as previously planned and approved for SHEP mitigation, similar to the already approved 2012 Fish Passage, along with the rehabilitation efforts listed above.  Part and parcel to this, Save the Middle Savannah is asking the Corp to meet with South Carolina and Georgia DNR to ensure that the size of the bypass should be minimized to the amount necessary for sturgeon and other migratory fish, but no more, in an effort to control cost.  
• Evaluation of localized spawning habitat restoration projects for endangered species downstream and elsewhere.  There is much published material that neither a bypass of direct overpass will effectuate a facility that will be used by the sturgeon.  Save the Middle Savannah is very much a proponent of using its influence to help ensure that, whatever alternative is decided for the sturgeon, that there is sufficient science to warrant success (versus simply checking a "mitigation box")  

This common-sense solution would cost the least of all the alternatives heretofore proffered and would be the quickest to implement and the most beneficial for the SHEP initiative.