The full text of the letter to Representative Gresham Barrett, by LHA past president Mike Massey, regarding the proposed outflows from Thurmond and Hartwell reservoirs is given below. Mr. Massey provides excellent and interesting comments on the Corps of Engineers decision, and how these decisions relate to the protection of endangered fish, such as the short-nosed sturgeon. There are two additional links that you will be interested in, and are the basis for most of Mr. Massey's comments. One is the Smithsonian Report located at http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Acipes_brevir.htm. The other is a scientific paper concerning the Savannah River Basin located at http://cms.ce.gatech.edu/gwri/uploads/proceedings/2007/7.5.pdf .

Following is the full text of Mr. Massey's letter:

The Honorable Gresham Barrett
115 Enterprise Court, Suite B
Greenwood, SC 29649

Dear Representative Barrett,

I read the article in the 2/1/09 Anderson Independent Mail that says 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.

The rest of the article provides a very thin base upon which to completely disrupt the economy of a major part of the States of South Carolina and Georgia. This is especially troubling since the Corps states in the article that they decided to increase the outflows "because the data from the NOAA study on the impact 3,100cfs had on the shortnosed sturgeon was inconclusive". Causing a financial downturn in an area based on “inconclusive” data does not seem like proper business decision making.

The Corps decision to "err on the side of the sturgeon", as is stated in the article, appears based on incomplete data from an inconclusive study using incorrect processes. This finding is based on a review of the information described on pages 7 and 8 of a sturgeon scientific paper concerning the Savannah River Basin. If you want more information, the link to the paper is http://cms.ce.gatech.edu/gwri/uploads/proceedings/2007/7.5.pdf. Please read more of my findings, comments and thoughts in the file “Sturgeon issues – M. Massey” which provides the pertinent excerpts from the sturgeon scientific paper. A few of the many points:

1. Documents from the Smithsonian Sturgeon Report clearly state the shortnosed sturgeon are available and increasing in other Atlantic coast rivers and may even be downgraded from "endangered" to "threatened". (Report attached.)

2. Spawning and egg/fry transport to the ocean occurs from February through April. Why can't the flow be decreased to 3,100cfs from May through January. It is not even clear it needs to be increased at all.

3. The data in the previously mentioned scientific paper provides ample evidence that there is genetic variability of the sturgeon between the river systems. That is a good thing. The fish go back and forth among a number of rivers. Makes sense – they have existed for millions of years through adaptability. If one area is problematic, they move. Perhaps the problem is not flow but other environmental factors.

Based on the data in this note and the attached files, I would like to request that you investigate the need for increasing the river flow based on the data – conclusive and inconclusive – documented in the attached reports, as well as the reasons given for the increase in flow, the data captured during the recent flow decrease as well as any process currently underway to continue the sturgeon study and the urgency level, or lack of it, that it has been given. If the results are truly inconclusive then let’s keep the flow at 3,100 and see what happens there. Perhaps some urgency will be assigned the effort.

The economy of our areas is simply much too important to allow it to continue to decline based on “inconclusive” study results and a decision to “err on the side of the sturgeon because it is an endangered species” when other scientific data indicates that may not be the case in all areas of its range.

If I have misinterpreted any of the items mentioned I would be glad to stand corrected. I would welcome any clarification of the issues.

I want to thank you for all the efforts you have demonstrated in this situation. I realize this is a difficult process and there are many variables to deal with but you have always been responsive.