Minimum Flow Notes

[Phil Lilley]

Note- I sent in an email to Mike Biggs last Friday in hopes to get some clarification on some of my notes... there are holes and I apologize. I hope to get an answer from Mike soon and will relay any more info.

In attendance (more or less) -

Mike Biggs, CORP Planning, Environmental and Regulatory Division

Chuck Pennell, Taney Co Presiding Commissioner (called for the meeting)

Ron Herschend, Taney Co Commissioner, West

Danny Strahan, Taney Co Commissioner, East

Maynard Wallace, former Mo Rep running for senate

Mark Oliver, Assistant Fisheries Chief, Ar. State Fish & Game

Total of 38 in attendance.

Biggs started the meeting going over the $800,000+ study that congress authorized in 2001 on the affects of a minimum flow below Bull Shoals and Norfork Dams.

Increasing the minimum flow below Bull Shoals, they would have to add 5 feet to the "flood pool" or level over present power pool of 654, increasing it to 659. Any impact on roads, ramps, beaches, docks within this 5 feet would be remedied and paid for by the Arkansas Fish & Game. Any impact above the 659 level would be given consideration for "aid".

Empire Electric would be paid a one-time buy out of $9m. They will suffer loss at the Powersite Plant because of the rise in power pool level. The $9m buy out means Empire can't pass this loss onto its customers.

Southwest Power Administration will be given a "credit" of whatever it’s estimated they will lose because of minimum flow. SPA maintains the dams- and credit will offset part of this maintenance, and the same as Empire, this credit is given so that SPA can't pass on this loss to the consumer.

A year ago, MF was a dead issue. Then two sponsors or partners stepped up to the plate and committed to pick up some of the "expense" of MF- that's what changed the outcome. Arkansas Fish & Game agreed to pay for the impact of both lakes and congress agreed to pay power providers for their loss.

Time table- No money has been allocated to continue the project in '07. But in 2008, it is possible that this will be picked back up by congress.

It was stated that MF would be implemented by 2010.

Economic Impact - $130,000 to the bad -- $3.5m to the good annually. This encompasses a 2 hour radius of the tailwaters, including all of Bull Shoals and Norfork Lake Regions.

I'm not going to get into the comments of the meeting. Most comments by residents were short sighted and self seeking, especially by some politicians. Some basically called the study bogus and the Corp liars... not much you can say to that. Some honestly didn't believe the figures. I was amazed that they focused on the $130k loss instead of the $3.5m increase.

The flood issue was a hot subject though. Their logic, and it is understandable, was that if you add 5 feet to the power pool that the lake would flood more often. The study findings show that there's a 1.8% high chance that the lake would flood at 675 with the new power pool level. That means the frequency of flooding isn't affected, only the duration. In this case, a road that's flooded at 675 will be under water 2-4 more days, for example.

The positive impact is going to be on the fishing- both above and below the dams. More water in the conservation pool will help spawning periods. It's too bad MDC wasn't there to address this. I made this point at the end of the meeting- said I was amazed no one had brought it up since most in the room fished.

Links -

http://www.swl.usace.army.mil/planning/wrminflow.html

http://www.swl.usace.army.mil/planning/dra...dy_may_2006.pdf

75 day comment period ends August 18, 2006

Send comments to Mike Biggs at mike.l.biggs@usace.army.mil

[WebFreeman]

So Powersite would no longer generate power? Do you know why Beaver and Table Rock aren't included since they will help control the leverl of Bull Shoals? Thanks for the report?

So Powersite would no longer generate power? Do you know why Beaver and Table Rock aren't included since they will help control the leverl of Bull Shoals? Thanks for the report.

[Phil Lilley]

Powersite will but with the higher level in BS, their effeintcy will decrease. The more water in BS decreases head pressure.

Table Rock? Don't know for sure. But only when Ark Fish & Game stepped up and became a partner- a paying partner- this became a reality. I guess no one in Missouri was willing.

Beaver? I guess that was Ark F&G decision.

[Forsythian]

I was not able to attend the meeting, but at the moment I am a member of the "short-sighted" and "self-seeking" camp with other upper Bull Shoals residents.

The $130K to the bad seems pretty rosy, considering the handful of non-profit and charity events that I am involved with in Forsyth's Shadow Rock park (county fair, 4th of July, chamber of commerce) earn $20K or so annually. Then again, I imagine their formula of only compensating facilities at or below 659 does not take into account the effect of flooding our park more often and for longer periods of time... so we could probably expect a big fat zero for our troubles.

Yeah, it may be amazing to some that I worry for Forsyth's $20K when Mountain Home stands to benefit by the millions... but the last time I checked, the resorts and marinas in Mountain Home are not members of Forsyth's COC, and they do not donate school supplies to our kids.

I for one am glad for the "short-sighted" support of the 3 Taney County Commissioners.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I tend to agree with Forsythian.

Can't forget that Arkansas got a long tailwater and flood free cropland further south. Missouri lost some premium Smallmouth water and got part of the lakes, but most of the benefits end at Branson.

I would think that flooding would be a yearly event under those circumstances.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I'm not against Minimum Flow, but the impact on just the upper end of of Bull Shoals would be pretty drastic.

I wonder why it has have a 5 foot increase in the power pool? I was always under the impression that power pool was a figure a certain level below flood pool and both were dependent on the elevation of the dam. These dams weren't built, or at least they weren't billed as power producing dams such as those on the Columbia. They were built to control flooding, and it would seem that a little power pool could be sacrificed occasionally to avoid any more negative impact.

[Forsythian]

I'm not opposed at all to the concept of minimum flows either... on the contrary, until I learned of the 5 foot scheme I was all for it.

Upon a re-read of my original post, I should take a moment here to express some level of apology for the "snarkiness" of it... a bit of victimhood sometimes persists here on the upper end of BS, especially when it comes to Shadowrock park and our dependence on it.

[Wayne SW/MO]

5 feet would wipe out the east side of the pothole, bank access at Barker hole, the accessible water on Swan for Whites, push the bank fishing too far back at Beaver to be worthwhile, and thats at normal pool. I would imagine that Slough Hollow might go even before Shadow Rock. I also suspect that many on here don't understand the significance of Shadow Rock and how much usage it gets.