in August of 2000 Many of you are aware of the recent fish kills on the White River. It is sad to see good fish go floating by belly-up. What caused these events? High water temperatures.
In fact, stocking of fish was suspended for a time in the lower trout sections (below Cotter) due to water temperatures reaching into the 80's. Trout mortality is almost certain when water temperatures reach 77 degrees. The biologists with the AGFC attempt to get cooling water releases from the dams under such conditions, but their clout with the Corps of Engineers and the SWPA is limited.
The AGFC wants to know about any fish kills. If you notice dead fish, please alert the nearest AGFC office as soon as possible. The sooner they know of a problem, the sooner they can try to counteract with requests for water releases to cool down the river's temperature. Stan Todd talked of boating down the main channel of the White, not seeing a living trout in the main channel for miles. The only trout alive were struggling for existence at points where small springs flowed into the river.
Enter the issue of "minimum flow." I will admit some doubt as to whether this would be good for wade fishers. Especially someone short, like me. However, the AGFC biologists are strongly in favor of "minimum flow," which they describe as trying to cover the bottom of the river. Minimum flow would also likely reduce the occurrences of summertime water temperatures too high for trout. Questioning Stan Todd at our July club meeting brought some revelations that I would like to pass along to you for your consideration.
Those who regularly fish the White or the Norfork are well aware that the fishing experience may vary from time to time when the mechanical voice giving dam release information says there are however many "units on." That is to say, when "one unit is on" at Norfork, sometimes it may mean that the water is too swift and high to get in any fishing and at other times the fishing is great. The reason for this is that there is a computer behind that computerized voice. If any voltage is detected at all from a unit, it is considered "ON." by the computer, even if it is only a part of the capacity of that unit. The dams having more than one "unit" compound the problem. Norfork has two units; Bull Shoals has eight units. A trickle of voltage from a unit will prompt the computer voice to tell you that it is on. The bottom line is that the number of "units on" is practically meaningless. A much more valuable piece of information would be the amount of water released in terms of the number of cubic feet per second (cfs). After all, we don't really care how much voltage is being produced. We want to know the quantity of water being released at a given time.
To bring this into perspective, each generator unit releases approximately 3000 cfs, if fully open. Therefore, Norfork has a maximum of about 6000 cfs if both units are fully open, while Bull Shoals is capable of about 24,000 cfs when all eight units are fully open. When "shut down," there is still some leakage. At Norfork, there is in the neighborhood of 90 cfs of continuous leakage and at Bull Shoals, that number is around 200 cfs.
According to Stan Todd, what the AGFC would like to see is a minimum flow of continuous water through the dams. For Norfork, that would be about 500 cfs (1/6th a unit) and for Bull Shoals, about 800 cfs (1/5th to 1/4th a unit) of continuous water (except for hot days when they would like 1600 cfs, or a little over half a unit). Stan says this would cover shoal areas, such as below Bull Shoals Dam that are too barren at low water to support habitat now. And it is true that some holes you can access by wading now at low water may be inaccessible, particularly for us shorties. However, new fishing holes would be created.
I will admit to a concern for an increase in boating traffic, especially on the Norfork, should minimum flow become reality. By the time you read this newsletter, I will have attended two public meetings on this subject. There are many interested parties to this issue. There are those who are concerned about the effect on lake levels, those whose livelihood rests upon river boats, those who wade fish, and those who want whatever is best for trout.
Where it all stands now is that in the summer of 1999, Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to release minimum flows as long as other uses for the water were not impacted. The requisite Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was, however, not funded. This year, $80,000 (a fraction of the total EIS cost) was appropriated to begin the study. If Congress does not fully fund the EIS by the fall of 2000, the issue of minimum flow will be put on the back burner. Even if the study gets funded this fall, it would be 2003 before minimum flows are established.
I won't be sure about where I stand on the minimum flow issue until after I have attended those public meetings. However, the AGFC is strongly in favor and I usually tend to agree with the AGFC. What I do definitely support is the ability of the AGFC to call for water releases in what amounts to emergency situations, such as the drought conditions we are experiencing this summer.
I also definitely support changing the information given to the public about water releases from a "units on" message to a "cfs" message. It would be much more helpful to know how much water is flowing through the dam and how much water was flowing when the "last generation ended." The change could be even more helpful if and when minimum flows are established.
Please join me in expressing your opinion to the Corps of Engineers. I'm going to tell them that the AGFC should be able to call for releases of trout-saving cool water and that I want dam generation information expressed in cfs. What are you going to tell them?
Contact:
Public Affairs Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
Little Rock District
P.O. Box 867
Little Rock, AR 72203-0867Telephone: 501-324-5551
