Minimum Flows

[Col Ron]

CF:

I really don't know what your past credentials are, I do know mine, which I will not share with this forum.

I simply do not buy into the conspiracy theory with the people selling boats, guides, and beating up on the little guy.

You mentioned "they" many, many times in your first post. Exactly who are "they"? Big Brother? ACE? Dept. of Conservation? Democrats? Republicans? Anyone not agreeing with you?

Like Phil said, you have the right to express yourself, so do it, but don't get too disappointed if everyone does not fall is step with you. Hey, that's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

[CFowler]

Sure thing Lily. I became suspicious of the project when it became prosperous for SWPA and maybe others. What I mean is, the conservation pool was changed and they were compensated for it. I may not have gone back and researched it very well but I never found any mention of the actual min flow release being used for power. Please jump in anyone that has the details. As far as I'm concerned making power/money is not a concern, getting the right water level is. I've heard through this process, with the lower levels of water, its been very difficult to get the generator dialed in. They werent made to run with those low levels. So I submit the access has been sacraficed to be able to run that generator and make some money, which theoretically they should have already been compensated. I mean even 100 CFS can make a difference. I do not question the need for min flow, I am questioning the execution. I dont know what CFS level they tested in those fly over observations w regard to access but I am suspicious. That is a rediculous qualitative methodology by the way, which again points to the lack of consideration given to access. If we could get it around 300, I would probably be singing its praises. I saw it was suposed to be 590, its been closer to 700. As it is being done now, it has been a problem for safety with no warning and no time to get out particularly at the dam. Sure you can catch fish, but the only real observation that can be made at this time relate to access. It's certainly a bit tounge and cheak but I can't wait to see that study that says brown trout populations and size has been improved by MF.

[Wayne SW/MO]

If they had just thought about this 60 years ago the river probably could have produced a record. Oops, my mistake it already did without a MF.

I don't where exactly the money interest is in this, but I guarantee any environmental interest is pretty weak after all these years.

[bfishn]

It's my understanding that the BS-3 plan was selected at BS largely because there wouldn't need to be any reparations to SWPA, unlike at Beaver, TR, and Greers (which were studied but not included in the mitigation effort for that reason). I'll dig up the data again when I get home from work.

[Wayne SW/MO]

TR? You raise TR 7' and you would have a riot and not by SWPA.

[bfishn]

No doubt about that, but there were many options considered to improve habitat in all 5 (actually 6) tailwaters, raised levels/minimum flow was just one of them.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Well they wiped out the Powersite tailwater. I suppose if they want to improve the habitat the COE should buy the dam from Empire and tear it down, hows that for a plan. 20+ miles of new trout stream.

[bfishn]

It's my understanding that the BS-3 plan was selected at BS largely because there wouldn't need to be any reparations to SWPA, unlike at Beaver, TR, and Greers (which were studied but not included in the mitigation effort for that reason). I'll dig up the data again when I get home from work.

Correction; The BS-3 plan does have a cost from SWPA, but it was the least-cost option of all the plans considered. The cost will be entirely to the Feds (only appropriate since they initiated the Act) with the exception of costs incurred by the "non-federal sponsor" (AGFC) to relocate picnic tables and such. The short (and extremely boring) version of the SWPA report can be read at;

http://www.swpa.gov/pdfs/WRMF_SWPA_FinalDeterminationReport.pdf

There's a long version, but at 497 pages and 63MB, I'm not inclined to link it. :-)

The far more readable story is in the USACE Environmental Impact Study found at;

http://www.swl.usace.army.mil/Portals/50/docs/planningandenvironmental/a_REVISED_WRMF_FEIS_010609.pdf

The only interest I have here is in what I can learn from the efforts invested in the various studies and research (and there's volumes more of it than I posted). That said, I believe it wise to invest a bit of due diligence investigating the tremendous effort involved in this project intended to provide a better fishery.

[CFowler]

Good info bfishn, thanks for taking the time to share. I was referring to the 34 mil buy out to Empire District Electric. We'll see how it turns out with time but I dont trust some of the characters involved. Also not to be a nerd but now there will never be a day those guys dont make money. Has to be nice for the cash flow! They went from 0 to 168 mgw per day on dead low. Nice. Its my opinion a bit less or half as much could be better. Would have liked some consideration there and at the least held to the 590. Good discussion guys, we'll see how it works out.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Nice big report, but any hillbilly in this region could have told them BS was the only logical choice for water storage. Beaver doesn't even have enough room for effective flood control, TR has too much civilization boosting the economy and BS has a huge flood pool that can spare some. It sucks for us who fish it because everything will either change or disappear. The question still remains, why the need after 60 years? Why this big change to support an old fishery of non native fish?