Corps Wants To Raise Lake

[Phil Lilley]

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wants to raise Bull Shoals Lake by 5 feet to improve trout fishing in Arkansas.

The lake’s normal pool level of 654 feet feet above sea level would hit 659 if the effort is ultimately approved.

“We are working toward making this happen at the direction of Congress,” said P.J. Spaul, public affairs officer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Little Rock District. “We did not initiate this legislation.”

The Corps is nearing completion of a study on the impact raising Bull Shoals Lake would have.

The new minimum flows are intended to sustain the trout fishery.

“It is solely to support the trout fishing industry,” said Mike Biggs, a water resource manager with the Corps. “(Trout fishing) supports a lot of jobs and it creates a lot of spending. People literally travel from all over to trout fish.”

Spaul said raising the lake could, at times, limit the amount of storage for flood water. But that wouldn’t always be the case, he said, because the water would constantly be flowing.

“If, in fact, we went into this spring, if minimum flows would have been in effect, the lake would have been lower because they would have been releasing,” Spaul said.

Biggs said that even though it’s a 5-foot increase, because of the constant water flow, on average, Bull Shoals will be 2 feet higher.

Before the plan could be implemented however, some changes would have to be made.

“About a mile stretch of Slough Hollow Road (in Taney County) will have to be raised,” Biggs said.

Biggs said Shadow Rock Park would not be affected by the additional water.

“You won’t notice any difference at Shadow Rock Park,” he said.

Biggs said it will probably take several years before minimum flow goes into effect.

Currently the Corps is holding its final public comment period on the project through Nov. 3. Printed copies of the draft environmental document are available for review at several locations. Copies can be viewed at the Corps’ Table Rock Project Office on Missouri 165.

Copies are also on hand at the Forsyth Public Library and Taneyhills Community Library in Branson.

In addition, the document can be viewed on the Internet at swl.usace.army.mil/planning/wrminflow.html.

The project began when Water Resources Development Act of 1999 and the WRDA 2000 directed the Corps to provide minimum flows.

The White River Minimum Flow Study has been examining both the good and bad impacts that could result from reallocating storage in Beaver, Table Rock, Bull Shoals, Norfork and Greers Ferry lakes to maintain minimum flows to improve trout fishing on the White, North Fork, and Little Red rivers. Issues that were considered in the study were flood control, hydropower, water supply, fish and wildlife, and recreation in each lake and in each river downstream. As part of the study, the Corps is also preparing an Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, that will be part of the final report.

An energy and water resources development act in 2006 authorizes the implementation at Bull Shoals and Norfork lakes with no implementation at Beaver, Table Rock or Greers Ferry.

The impact statement must be completed and congress must appropriate funds for the needed construction and funds for Empire District Electric Company, for loss of energy production.

The storage at Bull Shoals and Norfork must be captured before minimum flow can be implemented.

[Don Allenbaugh]

I wonder if congress will now appropriate the monies needed since they just spent a little trying to fix the mortgage mess?

[Spinnaker]

I suppose you do not have the estimated new flow amounts. I understand that at times before the high water we have encountered this year that there was a good bit of wade fishing below the dam on the White. How much would you think the new flow would affect wade fishing? BTW, at the rate they are drawing down Bull, it won't be too long before they reach that level. Thanks.

[Phil Lilley]

If you search the forum for minimum flow, there's alot of info already posted on the flows. Also, see John Wilson's forum for information.

http://flyfishingarkansasandmissouri.yuku.com/

[Wayne SW/MO]

I would think this would wipe out the access at Powersite.

[Forsythian]

Yeah, I'm pretty excited about it. sheesh

[Wayne SW/MO]

Yup, even if they raise the road bed to the powerhouse, 3/4th of the bank space will disappear.

[Wayne SW/MO]

With some more thought I see another possible problem in Beaver Creek. I assume it will shorten the distance between the lake and the old mill dam, and this could effect spawning. The White bass spawn comes to mind. I'm not sure waht effect it might have on Swan, or the many other creeks that help define the ecosystem of the lake.

[taxidermist]

The Corp has a Standard Operating Proceedure for flood control on Bull and Norfork, they dont have a lot of leeway to play with.

This spring and summer was bad, down stream everywhere was flooded, not since 1932 I think is the year that the towns of Cotton Plant, Clarendon were flooded this bad. (remeber the Johnny Cash song, How highs the water Momma. yep its about that flood!) anyway.

There is still a long way to go to drop the water to power pool level and then for the flow you would have just five feet over that.

Being that I have been fishing on the upper end many times when the rock pile below Powersite was plainly out of the water and almost impossible to get around. Plus it was a long way below the ramp at Shadow Rock, way down the gravel bar. adding five feet to power pool will not get to the park or even to the ramp my sources in Mt Home tell me. Maybe they are wrong. I dont know but I tend to believe the people involved in the Min Flow.

The Min flow was originally agreed to by the Governement in the first study before closing the gates on Bull. SOmewhere buried in the libary of Congress is the booklet, it has a light green milky cover.

I do know last January 08 the gates were almost closed no generation, much of the area from Rim Shoals to Ranchette could not be nagivagted. Its was drag city, one generator on is all that would have been needed to have a good min flow.

Had that occured in warm weather or low DO, there would have been thousands of dead fish, to prevent the possible death of the fish is what what the Min flow is designed for.

Now since I have not been to Shadow rock in several months where is the water level now? Its way down out of the park, and there is still a long way to drop to reach the five addinitional feet over power pool.

Arkansas has two walleye rearing ponds on Bull, both in the Leadhill area, one on east Sugar loaf (older but serviceable) one on west sugar loaf in my old duck hunting area, (completed about 2 years ago) AGFC releases over 2 million Walleye every year from these ponds.

http://ozarkanglers.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=201

More water adds more habitat, look at the bass spawn on Bull this year!!!!

www.agfc.com/pdfs/fisheries/mgmtplans/walleye_saugeye_plan.pdf

Most that fish the Powersite area will agree big stripers are possible, big walleye are possible. So I just dont see the problem with five feet over power pool level. I have fished Bull Shoals most of my life, from 1965 until present. seen its ups and downs.

Sometimes as mentioned is all about the right place the right time, nothing else matters.

As for Shadow Rock Park, what I see is Taney County now has a ton of money they are needing to spend, why not someone in Taney County take the lead and see about a new and better fair grounds with more parking somewhere?????

[taxidermist]

Take a look at the lake today or tomorrow, at Shadow Rock park. the level of the lake is .4 over the five additiobal feet that needs to be added for the min flow standards.

Thats right 4/10th of a ft over the proposed new level.

Post some picks of shadrock to go with it.