Lake Biologist is Aware of the Dead Gizzard Shad

[Fishin Hodge]

IMO a lot of this issue could be alleviated if the Corp would drop the lake in the winter months to free up some water storage so they don't have to run all this water through our lakes.

Ryan, I wish I agreed with you, but I am afraid that more water is only going to compound this problem with continuous flow of water and jacking up with temp/thermocline situation. I was on Bull the day of the big walleye kill a couple years back. It was quite a sad sight. I could have netted several 100. Our walleye population sure doesn't need this, but fortunately the bass seem to cope fairly well with it.

Back at the very start of my memory it seemed like the Corp use to drop Bull Shoals fairly substantially in the winter, it just seems logical. I mean they don't have to drop the bottom out of it, but 10 foot below pool would seem like a no brainer.

[MOPanfisher]

I don't remember the exact numbers but from 922 to 898 ( I am sure the correct numbers are slightly different) or something the water "belongs" to SWPA unless some other pressing need arises. SWPA decided to generate or not. Lower a lake too low and everyone screams, it gets too high and everyone screams just the nature of the beast.

[merc1997 Bo]

IMO a lot of this issue could be alleviated if the Corp would drop the lake in the winter months to free up some water storage so they don't have to run all this water through our lakes.

Ryan, I wish I agreed with you, but I am afraid that more water is only going to compound this problem with continuous flow of water and jacking up with temp/thermocline situation. I was on Bull the day of the big walleye kill a couple years back. It was quite a sad sight. I could have netted several 100. Our walleye population sure doesn't need this, but fortunately the bass seem to cope fairly well with it.

Back at the very start of my memory it seemed like the Corp use to drop Bull Shoals fairly substantially in the winter, it just seems logical. I mean they don't have to drop the bottom out of it, but 10 foot below pool would seem like a no brainer.

you are right that the corp needs to go back to old practices of dropping lakes levels adequately during the winter. table rock used to always be down to 900 or slightly lower by the time spring got here and bull shoals was at least 15 ft. below pool.

the problem with the corp is they are no longer about flood control first, they are about having lakes as full as they can get them for generation.

this would all be cool, if they want to rebuild ramps and parking lots since anything usable in this day and age seems to be underwater and not usable most of the time anymore. but, table rock dam is really not constructed to deal with much higher water than we have right now. there in lies a real big issue. there will come a time, that with the continual higher water levels being kept, we will get that right set of rains that will put water over the dam and anything in the taneycomo drain will be under water. it has happened at least once already, and that is not the worst it could be.

bo

[dougdean]

Thanks for the updates.

[mojorig]

I realize this is the Table Rock board but here are the daily water level readings for Table Rock and Bull Shoals Lake from impoundment to Dec 2014. I hope this helps to give an idea of the yearly pool level over time especially during the winter.

Also, I attached this link (http://www.swl-wc.usace.army.mil/pages/docs/White_River_Master_Manual.pdf) from the USCOE website. It discusses the water control plan for the white river reservoirs. We just discovered this document no long ago and found it useful when trying to understand why the USCOE holds or releases water.

Again, I hope this helps the discussion.

[Phil Lilley]

Thanks

mojorig

Excellent information.

[Fishin Hodge]

Bo/Jeremy, thanks for the info. I will say they appear to be fairly consistent, on Bull I believe I am remembering the years in the 80's and 90s were they dropped the water to 645 or so looking at the chart., I do remember some of those low years when I was coming of age and I enjoyed seeing that water level drop, and I always felt like we had a better chance of not having the lake flood to is limits and an in turn extremely frustrating summer like we are having now on Bull. I among most of the folks I know that fish avoid the lake like the plague at 680+.

Jeremy

Why not drop the lake a little lower in the winters in effort to try to avoid 680+/930 conditions? Bull Shoals ecspecilly since it is the catch all. Since 2000 Bull has spent very little time at below 650. And I realize you may not be for or against doing so, but do you know of any good reasons why they don't?

[Quillback]

Bull Shoals also keeps 5 FOW to allow for minimum flow in the White below the dam. I think this was implemented 2 or 3 years ago.

Section 132(a) of the FY06 EWDAA authorizes and directs the implementation of plan BS-3 at Bull Shoals for minimum flows. Plan BS-3 reallocates 5 feet of flood control storage at Bull Shoals Lake for the minimum flows release of 800 cfs. This target flow of 800 cfs will consist of 590 cfs of minimum flow releases through one of the main hydropower turbines, as well as 50 cfs of existing releases through the house hydropower Station Service Unit and existing flows of 160 cfs from normal leakage through the closed wicket gates. The top of the conservation pool elevation will be raised by 5 feet from 654.0 to 659.0; and the top of the seasonal pool held from May to July for water temperature releases will be raised by 5 feet from 657.0 to 662.0. The top of the flood control pool will remain at the existing elevation of 695.0.

[Fishin Hodge]

Understand politics are likely at play but at 640 Bull Shoals could produce minimum flow for a long, long, long, time.

As we have all been aware of for sometime the fish population of Bull Shoals Lake is about the last thing on their mind.

Alright I'll try to stop complaining. As for minimum flow, any trout guys out there have any comments on the effect minimum flow has had on the overall trout fishing on the white river. When I've been trout fishing it has always been very good in my opinion, prior to minimum flow and after minimum flow, but I realize my opinion is not nearly as nuanced as a trout fisherman's would be.

[mojorig]

Quillback is correct about minimum flow. As of 2014, the new conservation pool level for Bull Shoals Lake is 659. The pool was raised because most if not all the acre-feet of water in the lake has been allocated for some purpose. Thus 5 foot was taken from the flood pool to allocate for minimum flow. I am guessing this was done so no water would be removed from already allocated acre-feet of water (see picture below based off this super long document http://www.swl.usace.army.mil/Portals/50/docs/planningandenvironmental/Final%20-%20Bull%20Shoals%20Reallocation%20Report.pdf).

Fishing Hodges,

Yes, politics does have a part in water level control on USACE waterbodies. Congress actually had to approve minimum flow for Bull Shoals Lake and Lake Norfork.

I will say high water events are a double edge sword. High water events like this year are very difficult on anglers and marina owners. However, high water benefits the sport fish thus benefiting anglers in the long run. Bull Shoals Lake sport fisheries benefit greatly from the high water. Past data has show that high water years (years where high water stay through the summer like 73,78,79,85,90,02,08,11) there is increase in LMB production and forage fish production. Previous studies have shown 520 times as many LMB in a high water event compared to a low water event.

Sorry all for deviating from the original topic of this post!!