A federal agency's recommendation to remove New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam will be opposed by Augusta area businesses, chambers of commerce and several members of Congress.

Related Stories

• New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam demolition reproposed

Advertisement

"Removing the dam would be an economic disaster for the entire Central Savannah River Area," said Sue Parr, the president of the Augusta Metro Chamber of Commerce, whose members include industries that rely on the Savannah River and the pool backed up by the dam.

The Army Corps of Engineers first proposed tearing down the dam in 1999, when a study found it no longer served commercial navigation -- the purpose for which it was built.

The following year, local governments agreed to assume ownership of the structure, but only if Congress financed a $22 million renovation that was to include a $7 million fish passage device to allow sturgeon and other species upstream to spawning habitat.

Although funding for the renovation never materialized, a recent proposal was made to fund the fish passage as part of the mitigation plan (to reduce environmental damage) for Georgia's $600 million plan to deepen Savannah Harbor, which would erode coastal habitat for the endangered shortnose sturgeon.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, as part of its evaluation of the mitigation plan, concluded the fish passage is insufficient to help the sturgeon, and instead recommended removal of the dam, which would also benefit striped bass and other migratory fish.

Removing the dam, however, could affect aesthetics of the river visible from downtown Augusta and North Augusta and could affect the ability of industries and municipalities to use the water.

Brian Tucker, president of the North Augusta Chamber of Commerce, also hopes the dam can be repaired and turned over to local governments.

The issue has already caught the attention of members of Congress, including Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga.

"Demolishing the Lock and Dam would be a travesty, destroying our thriving local economy, harming our riverbanks, and leaving thousands of residents from Georgia and South Carolina without proper access to drinking water," Broun said.

Similar comments were echoed by Rep. John Barrow. D-Ga., and Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C.

Although there will likely be opposition to removing the dam, the Savannah Harbor harbor deepening cannot move forward without adequate mitigation associated with the sturgeon.

Under public law, a consensus must be forged by four agencies: the Department of the Army, of which the Corps of Engineers is part; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the Interior Department, which includes the federal Fish & Wildlife Service; and the U.S. Commerce Department, which oversees the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The prospect of removing the dam also has supporters, including Gerrit Jöbsis, the Southeast regional director for American Rivers.

"The corps has proposed building a fishway at New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam but that isn't sufficient," he wrote in a recent column submitted to The Augusta Chronicle . "Only total removal of the dam should be considered as mitigation because the corps' fishway design simply won't work for sturgeon."

If the dam were removed, water intakes could easily be modified to accommodate a natural river flow, he said: "And Augusta's waterfront along the impoundment would be enhanced by the creation of additional green space and potential new parks and trails in the floodplain."