Fly Fishers
What an exciting time for Arkansas and Missouri trout fisheries! The report we are all waiting for is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the White River Minimum Flow Study. This report should answer some very important questions regarding "alternatives and impacts pertaining to reallocation of water storage at five reservoirs in the White River System (Beaver, Table Rock, Bull Shoals, Norfork, and Greers Ferry)." We are all hoping that the report will show much more benefit than detriment. However, the scope of this study is extensive and complicated (for example, over 1000 allocation scenarios were examined during the study) and there are numerous direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to be considered. It would be prudent to reserve final opinions until the DEIS report is available (perhaps by November, 2003). Once you have the information necessary to form an opinion, be sure you voice your opinion and comments in writing - and as quickly as possible. As of mid-August 2003, the report is being reviewed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) in Washington DC and Dallas to be sure COE guidelines have been met - for example, their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines. Then, an "Alternative Formulation Briefing" will be held in the Little Rock COE office with Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AGFC), Southwestern Power Administration (SPA), US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), and others. At this briefing the complete study results and the suggestions from Washington DC and Dallas COE will be reviewed. Comments from these entities will be incorporated into the report and then it will be offered for public comment as a DEIS.Once the DEIS is issued (a best-case scenario would be the 1st week of November 2003), the comment period (expected to be at least 60 days) will allow the public's comments to be addressed before the final report, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), is submitted to Washington DC and Dallas COE for final processing (best-case scenario would be in March 2004) and then, submission to Congress for legislative approval (and who knows when Congress will actually vote on it and whether funds will be appropriated to implement it, if it is approved). I hope it is true that "good things come to those that wait."
History For those unfamiliar with what this is all about, a brief history is in order. For years the AGFC has struggled to maintain healthy trout fisheries despite widely fluctuating water levels in the tailwaters. The scouring effects of full-tilt flows from the dam cause aquatic vegetation and aquatic organisms, upon which trout depend for shelter and food, to have great difficulty thriving when so much of the streambed is exposed at "dead-low" flows. Extreme low levels of water in the rivers, especially during hot summer months of years with drought conditions, subject the trout to such stress from increased water temperatures and the attending lowered dissolved oxygen that fish kills are inevitable. Fish kills occur during certain times when no generation of power at the dam means that no cooling water is being released from the reservoir and the tailwater is at "dead-low" (an apt term). Historically, AGFC does not have enough authority to get fish-saving water releases each time it is needed. See the August 2000 article in MSFF's newsletter, Tight Lines and Tall Tales: "Fish Kills and Minimum Flow."
In other words, there are allocations of reservoir water for hydropower and flood control but no allocation of water for the fisheries - except at Table Rock Lake, one of the last dams built in the system, where water is allocated for fish due to the state hatchery there. In 1999, as a result of the efforts of many (and loads of gratitude for then-Senator Tim Hutchinson), the US Congress passed the Water Resources Development Act to allow the US Army Corps of Engineers to study minimum flows at Beaver, Table Rock, Bull Shoals, Norfork and Greers Ferry lakes. However, Congress neglected to appropriate the funding necessary to do the study.
Mid-South Fly Fishers (MSFF) felt that a thorough study should be performed to determine whether water allocated specifically to sustain the trout fisheries in the tailwaters below the dams is "technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically justified." The COE published their Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the May 30, 2000 Federal Register. MSFF became an "interested party" by attending scoping meetings and submitting a written statement of our concerns that are to be addressed by the EIS. See the August 2000 Scoping Letter from MSFF regarding the White River Minimum Flow Study.
MSFF was part of the enormous effort in the year 2000 to secure full federal funding ($850,000) for the study. However, full federal funding did not become a reality until February 2001. Test flows using requested cfs (cubic feet per second) from each of the five reservoirs for a specific amount of time occurred in June 2001.
There have been many delays in the expected timetable for the DEIS release. Originally, we expected the DEIS to be available for comment in July 2002, then we were told it would not be ready until September 2002. Then, in December 2002, we were told to expect the report in the early part of 2003. In February 2003, we were told the report would be released for public comment during the first part of August 2003. And now it is mid-August 2003 and we've been told that the report will not be released before November 2003.
Commentary Now that you know the information in the paragraph above about all the delays in the release if the DEIS, would you be surprised if it is not released until after November? Could it possibly be that some entity, whose agenda would be well served by being sure the comment period falls to the busy days of the holiday season, is holding up the release? All the more reason to be ready and willing to jump on the report whenever it is released, assess the information, form opinions and then express those opinions, referring to the report itself, as quickly as possible. To get a head start, it would be helpful to you to visit some web sites containing information you can use to gain a better understanding of the purpose of the study, the allocation amounts, and from where in the reservoir these allocations might be made for each of the five reservoirs under study. Warning: Not all of the links "work" on these web sites and they are a bit outdated, as updates to them have been slow to get posted all through their existence. The Corps of Engineers' web site concerning the White River Minimum Flow Study is confusing because when referring to dates, the year is not listed. But because you are reading my article, you will know that when the Corps refers to "Last summer," they are talking about the year 2000. You will find much useful information on the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission web site concerning "Adequate Minimum Flow For North Arkansas and Missouri Trout Waters" where you will also notice that their Minimum Flow Study Summary Update is not up-to-date regarding dates.
You may observe that there has not been much official clarification about what, exactly, is meant when they use the term, "minimum flow." The Corps answered my question at the scoping meeting in July 2000, by stating, "Minimum flow is the release of some water downstream when no hydropower is being generated and no flood water is being evacuated." Does that really mean the type of constant bypass flow that is common in western reservoirs? How does this square with the AGFC using the term, "adequate minimum flow?" What is under study concerns re-allocation of water in the reservoirs so that AGFC can control an allocated portion of the lakes for the trout fisheries. Will that mean that these "adequate" minimum flows could, in actuality, have a wide range of cubic feet per second (cfs)? In order to avoid depletion of their allocation, could they withhold flows during seasons when cooling off the tailwaters is not necessary? In that scenario, we may possibly again see the currently familiar "dead-low" conditions. Conversely, could AGFC release "extra" water, beyond the "ideal" flows, during the hot months? Does it matter? Will the study answer these questions? Oh, the suspense of it all!
The study will not address how they came up with the different allocations for each of the reservoirs nor the appropriateness of each allocation. Some preliminary scientific studies were performed on two of the five reservoirs before the actual EIS was initiated to determine the allocated amounts desired for those two reservoirs. The allocations under study for the other three reservoirs were best (educated) estimates. Allocation amounts had to be named before Congress could consider the issue in 1999. Therefore, the allocation amounts are immutable, as they became part of the Water Resources Development Act, the law that called for the Corps to conduct the study. Well, that's at least one item out of the way.
Not all of the dams involved in the study have to answer to periodic FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) licensing requirements. Bull Shoals Dam and Norfork Dam were built by federal mandate and are exempt, thereby evading the scrutiny of FERC. Does this matter?
What about the hatcheries associated with the dams? How will minimum flow affect them? For an idea of how important this question is, you might want to read "Economic Effects of Trout Production by National Fish Hatcheries in the Southeast" released in October 2001 by the US Fish & Wildlife Service - or at least read the Executive Summary.
What will be the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on dissolved oxygen, on temperature, on streambank stabilization, on the levels of manganese, iron, and hydrogen sulfide, on each successive reservoir and tailwater? What about the thermocline of each lake? What variances are expected between drought years and wet years? If one lake runs "short" of water, can any "unneeded" allocation from another lake be used to make up the shortfall? What amendments to the lakes, dams, and tailwaters will be necessary? Who will pay for them? The questions are seemingly endless, but so are the potential advantages of minimum flows for Arkansas and Missouri tailwaters.
To gain insight into how much our trout waters might profit from minimum flows, I know of no better web site to visit than the one run by our friends at His Place Resort, Julie and Steve Raines. Go online to the His Place Resort's August 2003 newsletter and learn lots from their extensive and enjoyable web pages. There's also a picture from the MSFF July outing to remind us why this issue is so very important. We want to continue to have fun fishing!
The crux of the matter is simple, although the details are complicated. I am disinclined to support or oppose something as significant to our fisheries as minimum flow until the study results are released. However, I am willing to wait, albeit on pins and needles, and sincerely hope that the DEIS report finds minimum flows to be practical, feasible, technically and economically sound, with minimal negative impacts, and a definite enhancement to trout waters. If that is so, I will do everything in my power to make sure that minimum flows are implemented as quickly as possible.
LINKS concerning Minimum Flow:
August 2000 article in MSFF's newsletter, Tight Lines and Tall Tales: "Fish Kills and Minimum Flow."
August 2000 Scoping Letter from MSFF regarding the White River Minimum Flow Study
Corps of Engineers' web site concerning the White River Minimum Flow Study
Economic Effects of Trout Production by National Fish Hatcheries in the Southeast" released in October 2001 by the US Fish & Wildlife Service His Place Resort's August 2003 newsletter
