donating your time for a very important topic and one that could be near and dear to all of us in the BWA. I would like to thank you two for representing the BWA by travelling to the Breaks Park today and giving a voice from the paddling community in general concerning the Russell Fork watershed. Please keep us updated!

Clay

Thank you guys and look forward to paddling there with you soon.

Mark Dossett

Well, don't thank us too much yet. We ran into "we need a 250K study" during the meeting. Not real clear on their positions as to why they can't manage releases during various times in the year already. Jovial meeting tho. Just no commitment and the usual "we need a study" response. I will post something more later.

One issue, Smurf wants to postpone releases during October for a half hour to assist his commercial operations. I mentioned that private boaters might not want that. I don't mind helping the commercial guys, but it is not something Jason Foley needs for eg. I told Smurf I would post the issue and get some feed back. So, instead of putting on at noon, it would be noon thirty. Any thoughts on that? The Army Corp will leave that issue to all of us, they indicated.

Brent

I have a good set of notes I will post on this later that might claify the reasoning behind the need for the study and what it really is. It might actually help in getting additional releases through that study and securing them as well because they want to study the entire watershed not just the fork where the dam is.

The likely means that we are not going to get anything in the near term (1-2 years) along the lines of a scheduled release unless we can get a copy of the last Congressional Authorization (late 80s) and study that went with it and perhaps magically or some way otherwise qualify downstream of the dam as recreation involved within the project not just the pool of the resevior.

I have a good feeling that we will make progress but without a literal act of congress I feel we will be spinning our tires for some time before we gain traction. The good news to me is that everyone in the room wants to see the right thing happen and believes it can be done in concert with every user group.

On the move back time for fall releases it seemed that Smurf wants to push the time back in order to get two consecutive commercial trips put in at Flanagan and get them off the river before the water is gone at the last two drops on the upper section. His request is legitimate and perhaps doesnt even need to push it back 30 minutes. I asked specifically if the ACE had a set time interval they needed and they said no. It doesnt affect our commercial trips at all because we dont put in at flanagan for upper trips and we generally only schedule 1 upper trip anyways. The USACE basically asked for all the invitees in the room that felt like they had an interest in this to get together and decide what was best for the time window of release. Kind of a whitewater subcommittee if you will. I am not against it and not for it. However I am only concerned about the people who want to boat the lower section not getting to put on till 2:00 or later.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2009 11:46AM by jasonfoley.

Have talked to the COE guys about their concerns on summer releases, it seems to revolve around the effects of stratification in the lake. The short version of this is that especially during the summer, the Lake stratifies into three destinct layers, the bottom one called the Hypolimnion layer.
This layer tends to get all the organics and the decompostion of the organic material lowers the dissolved oxygen content in the water creating an anoxic condition. The additional problem is that certain minerals like Iron, manganese, sulpher and nitrogen are soluble in anoxic conditions, some of these form toxic compounds that kill aquatic life at fairly low levels. So longer the Hydraulic Residence, the length of time it takes to replace the complete water volume of the lake, the more likely chance that the Hypolimnion or bottom layer is low in oxygen and high in dissolved minerals.
I believe that is what they want the study money for is an EIS on what the summer releases would actually do to the river.

My understanding is that this dam actually has some capacity to chose which depth it pulls the release water. I think their concern is what depth do they pull if from and how much for how long before it starts to effect the aquatic life, especially the trout.

If they did a big release and they killed a bunch of fish, I think we could kiss Summer releases goodby.

Larry

Larry Cable

Thanks for the update and your efforts, both are much appreciated.

Allen

LarryC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the Lake stratifies into three distinct
> layers, the bottom one called the Hypolimnion
> layer.

Gotta love the scientists and their (our) cool-sounding words. Hypolimnion means, of course, "bottom of the lake"

Anyway, thanks for the description, Larry. It is fascinating, and illustrates why things that might seem simple on the face of it can be a whole lot more complex and interesting.

Chris S

Chris Schardl

The summer releases are a separate entity unto itself. For the reasons Larry indicated above, the discussion about summer releases will have to be low flow. It is cold water from the bottom of the dam. The good thing is that such a flow could help sustain trout populations which have to be stocked each year. The Bigger issue from my stand point is having dependable managed flow releases (either cut back or give some) during the rest of the season, particularly winter and spring when there is plenty of water. They did not provide a good reasoned basis for saying that this could not be managed as easily as the fall releases (to draw down the lake). The Corp also did not seem to know that prior to the current 800 cfs fall releases that began about 1990, we were getting 1350 cfs since at least 1982 or before. We need to see the EA for that. I don't think boaters were too involved back then, although I remember the rafting companies complaining about it making the run more dangerous for commercial rafting at the 800 flows. They may have been involved. Can someone check with USA raft and/or Cherokee Adventures that may know them? Hanley? This was born out with two fatalities in 1993 and 94. I was there for both of those events. The commercial rafting literally dried up after that. Before, there were a hundred rafts down a weekend, I believe literally. Us hard boaters had to dodge rafts (kinda like the UG on Gauley Fest day) back then.

I definitely want to see the "recreation purpose" language as the Army Corp has defined that as applying only above the dam. That is supposed to be sent to me.

I will also request the EA from the early 90s that cut back releases to the current 800. I just don't see why there needs to be a river basin assessment to manage the water that they have during the winter and spring.

They did say that we could likely get other 200-250 releases in the summer for swift water rescue training as that meets a public interest obligation of the Corp and is a minor request. Permanent releases are a major request and thus they require (why? - not sure other than they said so) a river wide basin study.

I am barely cautiously optimistic about the requirement for a "study" but we will see. On the other hand, if it takes an act of congress, then they will have to do whatever they are told. I hate to bank on those issues so I am going to dig more to see why we can't manage what they have now.

The "recreation purpose" is just one key to that I believe. But, again, everyone is friendly and the meeting had good support from the whitewater community. There were no other interest groups such as lake users or trout fishermen present. But, the Army Corp was quick to promote their interests despite the apparent lack of interest those user groups had in the meeting. Wonder why they were not more concerned? Maybe they don't care or maybe they know that the Army Corp will watch their interests vis a vis the whitewater crowd.

Brent

Brent the flows from the Flannagan Dam were almost always 1350cfs during the fall drawdowns up until the early 90s when they reduced them to the current levels. When I filmed Sam Moore make his run down the RF gorge in 1981,1350 cfs was the standard release level and there were only a handful of people who ever ran the RF in the fall season. Around 1983, Dale Adams a local "hair" boater became THE local RF guru and was the main guy responsible for obtaining the "informal" regular weekend fall releases on the RF and for helping to get word of mouth out to the boating community about the run. My and John Davis' film "Autumn Run" made in 1984 featured Dale and was later copied and distributed by James Stapleton which even further promoted the run. With all this attention, the RF soon exploded in popularity during the mid-late 80s aided by the new and more commonly available plastic boats which helped embolden paddlers to look for ever harder runs.

By the time I first ran the RF around 1985 there were dozens and dozens of boaters getting on the weekend fall releases and the RF Gorge soon became the run for wealthy rafters seeking the biggest thrill. I can remember many commercial rafting companies running during those times and charging outrageous amounts to customers. Soon however all the congestion and lack of skills took their toll and the deaths, pinnings and near drownings of mostly raft customers and guides began to rise alarmingly. Eventually all of the major raft companies backed off running the RF. I do not know if there is one commercial rafting company left that runs the RF gorge.

AFAIK, the standard RF releases and the flow amounts existing today are simple, non-binding agreements with the CoE and are not the result of any specific language mandating downstream recreation requirements in the operating license of the Flannagan Dam. I'm not sure how they arrived at these levels although it seems that it had more to do with fishing interests than rafting? Didn't BWA member Steve (Austin?) an aquatic biologist student do his PhD dissertation on RF fish populations and the impact of flows sometime in the mid 90s?
barryg

Thanks for that reminder of history B6. Yeah, I am not sure what was the impetus for the cut back to 800, I seem to remember it was fishing related as well. Yesterday was the first time I heard that it was pursuant to an actual Environmental Assessment (EA) that purportedly ties their hands for the fall release schedule and does not allow them similar leeway to manage releases the rest of the fall, winter and spring.

Incidentally, I am also concerned that a River Basin study as proposed could cause the Corp to reevaluate fall releases since that is a flush, essentially and the weather is warm and it might affect spawning and other issues for certain fauna in the river. We have to be wary of the study for that potential. Again, I would rather work within the existing framework if possible. They simply say that they cannot, operationally, do this without a study. I am not sure and I have not seen the basis that requires this as they have stated.

Barry, do you have contact information for Dale Adams? I would like to chat with him about what was done back in the 80s.

Brent