About the SA Blog Network

Extinction Countdown

Extinction Countdown

News and research about endangered species from around the world
Extinction Countdown Home

Dammed if they don’t: Cost to protect endangered sturgeon in South Carolina could be $100 million, utility says

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

How much will it cost to protect an endangered fish in South Carolina? The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) wants local utility Santee Cooper to make several changes to its dams on Marion and Moultrie lakes, which would help endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) to pass through the dams and breed. But Santee Cooper says the changes NMFS wants will cost more than $100 million.

This all comes up as Santee Cooper’s license to operate the hydropower dams, which were built in the 1940s, are up for renewal.

NMFS is asking for a few specific changes to the dams to help sturgeon move from the lakes to the fast-moving river areas where they would spawn. The agency wants the flow of water to be increased from 17 to 65 cubic meters per second during spawning season so the sturgeon can more easily pass through the structures. The agency also wants fish ladders or other passage devices installed within the next five years.

How important are these changes? In a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates the dams, the NMFS wrote, “We have determined the proposed action [to continue operating the Santee Cooper dams] is likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the shortnose sturgeon in the wild,” according to The State.

Shortnose sturgeon can be found throughout the eastern U.S., although their numbers are low wherever they occur. The species’s population was devastated in the first half of the 20th century by overharvesting for caviar, pollution and, in the Southeast, dams which limited the fish’s access to breeding sites. They were listed as endangered in 1967 under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, the precursor to the modern Endangered Species Act enacted in 1973.

Photo: Shortnose sturgeon, via Wikipedia

Rights & Permissions

Comments 3 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Wayne Williamson 7:13 pm 09/1/2010

    if the damns were built in the 40′s how can the NMFS determine that they are the cause of the reduction 20+ years later in the population….its one thing to impose restrictions on new construction but something total different to try to retrofit it…there maybe cases where a damn should be removed/and or rebuilt…please prove your case first….

    Link to this
  2. 2. marcus B 7:20 pm 09/20/2010

    Migration is not the only impacts that hydro dams have on sturgeon (or other species). Sometimes it takes decades for the benthic habitats to be degraded to the point that they no longer are effective spawning and rearing areas for sturgeon. This is likely the case with the Nechako River in BC, Canada. In the Columbia River, some sturgeon populations started declining within a few years of dam building.

    Retrofitting would probably be cheaper than building a new dam. More effective? Who knows?

    Link to this
  3. 3. marcus B 7:29 pm 09/20/2010

    Many times when sturgeon are caught and tagged for the first time a fin ray is taken from their pectoral fin. These fin rays can then be cross-sectioned, mounted on a slide, and the annual rings be counted to give a fairly accurate age. Do this enough times and you can get a very good estimate of the age structure of the population. If there are few fish younger than those born in the 1960s, then you can look for events that occurred around that time (changes to the ecosystem).

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article