has anyone heard this?

[porter57]

i talked to a gentleman who owns a home above the cabins i stayed at on my recent visit and he told me they plan to raise the powerpool level by 5 feet in the next year or so. has anyone else heard this?

[Terry Beeson]

It has to do with the Minimum Flow proposal. This would add "up to" 5 feet of water in Bull Shoals... It is not a simple "5 feet higher" but will be an allocations... Hard to explain but read here:

Click here for Minimum Flow information...

I'm really on the fence on MinFlo but my understanding is that it has been accepted and will be tried on the tailwaters of BSD to see what impact it will have. I don't think you'll see a big difference on the lake side of the dam. Just the same water levels only at different times...

[Wayne SW/MO]

I'm ignorant on the facts, but I understood that the power pool would be raised 5'. On BS the power pool is fleeting and normally only seen briefly in the spring, so I assume the effect, if its true, would be that the lake stays at a higher level overall.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the water level for BS is more a paper thing than a reality.

[crappiefisherman]

It would be nice if they could keep the lake at the normal current powerpool.Im assuming it may generate higher then we are used to lake levels.This would help the upper part of the lake with the fish populations.It would be nice to fish a level that would be more like a lake then a sandbar filled river.This i believe is also in theory becuse the water has to come from somewhere and Table rock will not be drained for the sake of bull shoals im sure.

[taxidermist]

Here is what I have heard.

The COE charges the SW Power Admin. for all water storage over the power pool level.

The Ark. Game and Fish does not have the money to pay for any water storage to provide min flow. To provide a healtier trout population below Bull Shoals Dam.

The AG&F somehow has reached the agreement with COE and SWPA, that the power pool level will be raised the five feet. so during hot weather, low O2 levels in the water, the min. flow can be provided to help the fish. Also it is inn theory going to add more food to the river, fresh water shrimp, shad etc.

The Game and Fish has studied the release of water from Table Rock and the effects on the fish in Taneycomo. Even with all this fishing pressure Taney still is producing good sized fish.

These fish were placed by the COE for replacement of the warm water fish that the COE knew would die when cold water is released from the dam.

There is a 1951 publication that also states this the COE published.

So someone who wishes to research this should contact the COE and get the publication under the FOI act.

There is no turth to the rumor about lowering Table Rock to raise Bull. It was staed at the meeting that Bull would be raised with natural increased inflow during rainy periods.

Google and do some word smithing adn you will find most of what I posted on line. sans the 1951 publication.

John

[crappiefisherman]

If this is in theory only true, why can table rock be at powerpool levels or within a very few feet and stay that way for weeks on end as bull shoals lake drops 20 or more feet to sand bar levels on dry months.The lakes need each other.One as an overflow, and the other as a spigot.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I think you're talking politics crappiefisherman. TR has the pull due to its popularity, BS doesn't. It s the same reason that the dam height wasn't increase in lieu of flooding Branson in an emergency. I would think before they commit some changes to the lake improvements would be made. They're raising Taneyville hiway, maybe thats why.

The COE charges the SW Power Admin. for all water storage over the power pool level.

This doesn't make sense, water stored above power pool is for flood control. I believe that BS, because it has less real improvements is first in line for generation, at least thats what I've heard. Don't forget that water from TR gets used twice, and it has the advantage of 2 rivers feeding it.

[SilverMallard]

Official EIS estimates are that Bull Shoals Lake will...on average...raise about 1-2 ft. That's an annual AVG water level. It does NOT mean that there will always be an additional 1-2 ft of water in the lake. If you know BS, you will quickly realize how little a lakewide annual average of an additional foot or two of water will make.

The White River Chain of Lakes is a RIVER SYSTEM. There is ALWAYS new water flowing into them. They are not static. Changing the frequency and volume of certain discharges at various dams IN LIGHT OF this constant flow from the river is how the various lake levels are manipulated. You don't have to take average water level from one lake to increase it in another. Water seeks it's own level. And when there is always new water being added, there is always water that needs to be moved downstream. You can't think of TR and BS as isolated entities. They are a part of the Gulf of Mexico. And there are tons of other users downstream of the trout fishing areas: rice ag, duck hunting, commercial navigation, petro industry, coastal marsh conservation, commercial fishing, etc.

[gonefishin]

5 ft over-all raise is a lot of water. I think if they tried to sustain that much of a raise it would be disastrous. An additional 5 foot at flood stage????

[Terry Beeson]

GF,

You are not alone in thinking that, but the MinFlo issue is hard to explain. However, the one issue that most people (including you) MIS-understand is that the water level will be a constant five feet above "normal"... This is not the case. The MinFlo level will add five feet at Bull Shoals, but does not mean the lake will constantly be five feet higher. As Ken stated, the AVERAGE will be 1-2 feet above "normal" levels. The five feet is the RESERVE amount for MinFlo... just like the reserve levels for power generation.

The way I understand it, this will actually mean higher levels during the summer when the lake is normally very very low (in "drought" conditions) and allow a minimum flow into the tailwaters. It is SUPPOSE to help maintain a healthier stream in the tailwaters for trout - lower water temps and higher dissolved oxygen.

As a trout fisherman, I am all for maintaining a healthy stream for trout. I just am not convinced MinFlo is the way to attain that. A better system, in my opinion, would be aerators at the base of the dam on the tailwater side to increase the DO. As for water temps, maybe a smaller amount of MinFlo would help.

One thing is for sure... MinFlo will not get rid of the pollution and "junk" in the water in the lakes or the tailwaters. And that effects BOTH sides of the dams...

And before many of you throw stones, there are about as many trout fishermen AGAINST MinFlo as there are for it...